Patch 1.16 - FULL patchnotes

[Edmon]

Guy 1: Sir, good players are deleting all their forts because they are useless
Guy 2: Hmmm, well. I know, we'll add a penalty so if you don't have enough forts you'll be easier to damage in wars!
Guy 1: But sir, could we not just make forts better so good players might actually want to build them for gameplay reasons?
Guy 2: Excuse me? I'll have you know that Forts are excellence and players will make them or else.

 

[alertiu5]

Remember: The revision is a mild nerf to early-game Russian states who haven't finished conquering the other Russians, no nerf at all to Russia, and a noticeable nerf to outsiders that conquer Russian clay.

The main issue is not about impact on gameplay, but the sheer artificiality of those new 3 cultures.

 

[Frogbait]

Wrong, unless they've changed the fact that rebel events can happen in "accepted but not primary" culture provinces. Last time I checked Russia could still get hit with Ruthenian nationalists and crap like jackals/vultures in those provinces.

Also, any particular reason you flat buffed admin ideas by replacing one of its weaker ideas with +3 states? Is 99.9% of games choosing it first not enough for you?

Goods produced modifier is one of the strongest modifiers in the game...

They replaced one of the amazing things about taking Administrative.

 

[Grand Historian]

Does "Colonists in Trade Company provinces do no longer change the religion or culture of the province." mean provinces in trade company regions, or colonies specifically owned by trade companies?

So, I guess there's our case for a South African CN region.

 

[Frogbait]

It's only affected by being behind the tech of your neighbors.

I fail to see why you think that changes my point. To westernize you have to border a western nation. If you border a western nation you'll gain corruption that makes it more expensive to westernize. Once you make it through westernization you then suffer more corruption because you're behind in tech. To catch up in tech you have to buy tech at a higher cost than the people you're trying to catch up to.

See the problem?

 

[GothicEmperor]

Wow, the option to extend the game indefinitely's pretty major. Probably won't be fun if done too long, but definitely makes the late game feel less rushed. I also love the change to trade company colonisation.

 

[vfmikey]

- Finnish is now in the Nordic Group.

No. . . Their language is completely different. They are not same culture. I don't see how you can even suggest this.

Language =! culture

Mauretania and Lebanon, technically the same language, should they be in the same culture group?

On the other hand, some very good arguments could be made for Hungarian being in Western Slavic culture group, as well as the Carpathian one.

 

[Path]

• The Trade Conflict CB no longer allows you to take land, revoke cores, or release vassals/nations in peace.
• Implemented a new system called "States & Territories", where states gives most benefits of being non-overseas, while territories have autonomy and is considered to be overseas for many rules.
  
• Added Corruption, which is impacted by being unbalanced in tech, having overextension and lack of religious unity. It can be combated by investment in the budget. Corruption impact minimum autonomy in a country, its ability to do espionage and all power costs.
• Countries with very few forts relative to their size (and less than 10 forts total) now have their unfortified provinces worth more warscore when occupied by enemies.

Punish players for not wasting money on forts? Check. Punish players for not wasting mana on dip tech? Check. Punish players for expanding by acqusition of strategic provinces? Check. Punish players for attempting long-range expansion without YOLOing? Check. Maybe this patch will turn out to be good, but I'm not too hopeful at this point.

 

[hashinshin]

Guy 1: Sir, good players are deleting all their forts because they are useless
Guy 2: Hmmm, well. I know, we'll add a penalty so if you don't have enough forts you'll be easier to damage in wars!
Guy 1: But sir, could we not just make forts better so good players might actually want to build them for gameplay reasons?
Guy 2: Excuse me? I'll have you know that Forts are excellence and players will make them or else.

No, it's more like:

Guy 1: Hey I found this exploit that when you delete all your forts except your most closely guarded one nobody can ever get any warscore on you.
Guy 2: LOL that's hilarious, what if you put it on England and then just literally never peaced out because nobody could ever get warscore on you?
Guy 1: LOL and then you could just blockade them so even if your opponent has the war goal you both suffer equally and you can never lose main land provinces!
Guy 2: Boy I sure hope they never fix this obvious exploit of the game mechanics!

 

[DemBones]

"- Trade Wind icons no longer get stuck on the screen."

Thank you!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can we get working fort mechanics before we shoehorn penalize them ?

 

[FleetingRain]

I fail to see why you think that changes my point. To westernize you have to border a western nation. If you border a western nation you'll gain corruption that makes it more expensive to westernize. Once you make it through westernization you then suffer more corruption because you're behind in tech. To catch up in tech you have to buy tech at a higher cost than the people you're trying to catch up to.

See the problem?

It's a yearly increase, you don't get something like +20 corruption from the get-go.


And guys, colonists change culture and religion the moment they arrive in an empty province. It's obvious this change is about provinces in trade company regions.

 

[Edmon]

No, it's more like:

Guy 1: Hey I found this exploit that when you delete all your forts except your most closely guarded one nobody can ever get any warscore on you.
Guy 2: LOL that's hilarious, what if you put it on England and then just literally never peaced out because nobody could ever get warscore on you?
Guy 1: LOL and then you could just blockade them so even if your opponent has the war goal you both suffer equally and you can never lose main land provinces!
Guy 2: Boy I sure hope they never fix this obvious exploit of the game mechanics!

1) It is not that people cannot get warscore on you, they obviously can because the wargoal is 25% and when held until 25%, it will allow you to demand whatever you like.
2) You could blanket England proper in Forts and get the same effect you describe. You must defeat their navy and get on the mainland to hurt them anyway.

Sorry, but this change is just there to force good players to pay Fort Maintenance, because currently they don't and that makes them many times more powerful than players that do. This is part of the reason why the AI no longer pays Fort Maintenance.

That people agree with you, shows only that they don't understand that the true power of the no-fort strategy is not the denial of warscore (although that is nice and with this change you could still do it anyway with a large island like England), but the economic might it grants you.

 

[vfmikey]

It looks like a great patch, and a very minor DLC for $15. The only thing that's interesting in the DLC is spy network...

Patch, on the other hand, is brilliant.

Barbary nations can raid for slaves with their ships - meh. Cool, for the one time I might play as Morocco. Same for trade leagues.
Maps? Why do I even care? They were so silly in EU2...
Naval missions - very minor quality of life thingy.
Unconditional Surrender - only for multiplayer.
Condotierri - semi-useful when trying to play the world policeman, or semi-fun when stuck in regency, I guess? Probably mostly there for multiplayer.
Timeline seems cool, but... yeah, no.

I'll probably still buy it, since more DLCs bought - more chances for changes like those in the patch.

 

[hashinshin]

1) It is not that people cannot get warscore on you, they obviously can because the wargoal is 25% and when held until 25%, it will allow you to demand whatever you like

You can't force peace people out till 50%. The AI might eventually give in, but players can legitimately just sit there forever, and blockades will equal out or put more penalties on you for holding fort-less territories.

Player vs. Player: Nobody ever tries to attack if they're using this exploit until they can get to the mainland.
Player vs. AI: Player just waits till the AI gets bored and white peaces them out of the war until they try again.

 

[Edmon]

You can't force peace people out till 50%. The AI might eventually give in, but players can legitimately just sit there forever, and blockades will equal out or put more penalties on you for holding fort-less territories.

Player vs. Player: Nobody ever tries to attack if they're using this exploit until they can get to the mainland.
Player vs. AI: Player just waits till the AI gets bored and white peaces them out of the war until they try again.

I'm sorry, but having a huge navy so you can't land on England and so they can blockade you isn't an exploit. If that is an exploit, then we might as well let the AI play our games for us because last time I checked coming up with a winning strategy is what the player is meant to actually do in a strategy game. That it is a strategy that England has used throughout history makes this statement even sillier.

You will be able to demand England's French holdings by war goaling them and then sitting on them for 5 years or so. Players will start to take stab hits if they don't accept the deal due to "better than they expect". Demand only the province that is the wargoal and nothing else.

 

[Mingmung]

• The Trade Conflict CB no longer allows you to take land, revoke cores, or release vassals/nations in peace.
• Implemented a new system called "States & Territories", where states gives most benefits of being non-overseas, while territories have autonomy and is considered to be overseas for many rules.
  
• Added Corruption, which is impacted by being unbalanced in tech, having overextension and lack of religious unity. It can be combated by investment in the budget. Corruption impact minimum autonomy in a country, its ability to do espionage and all power costs.
• Countries with very few forts relative to their size (and less than 10 forts total) now have their unfortified provinces worth more warscore when occupied by enemies.

Punish players for not wasting money on forts? Check. Punish players for not wasting mana on dip tech? Check. Punish players for expanding by acqusition of strategic provinces? Check. Punish players for attempting long-range expansion without YOLOing? Check. Maybe this patch will turn out to be good, but I'm not too hopeful at this point.

I kind of agree with you, even though you get a few dislikes. This game is about blobbing, whether the players see this or not. Placing negative modifier upon negative modifier won't improve that obviously.

So just like you, I'm still a little bit sceptical.

 

[brifbates]

Goods produced modifier is one of the strongest modifiers in the game...

They replaced one of the amazing things about taking Administrative.

In the current mercs ridiculously OP state of the game, only the -1% interest and +1 advisor ideas are worse of the admin ideas. +10% Goods produced is purely a money idea and money is easy. They could easily have made it somewhat less of a no-brainer by moving the goods produced to the 2nd slot and replacing the -core cost with the bonus states. As it stands they just made the group more of a no-brainer option than it already was.. It's a fairly safe bet that 3 extra states will net you a goodly chunk of money but also less available things like manpower, force limit, etc...

 

[bbqftw]

Guy 1: Sir, good players are deleting all their forts because they are useless
Guy 2: Hmmm, well. I know, we'll add a penalty so if you don't have enough forts you'll be easier to damage in wars!
Guy 1: But sir, could we not just make forts better so good players might actually want to build them for gameplay reasons?
Guy 2: Excuse me? I'll have you know that Forts are excellence and players will make them or else.

the funny part is it doesn't even matter (at least in player vs AI where this is the most blatant due to free AI forts), unless its significant enough that players will likely get -50% warscored while carrying out multiple wars.

I mean, at least they didn't do something like added corruption for not having enough forts. Which seems to be their default response to current optimized gameplay styles.

• The Trade Conflict CB no longer allows you to take land, revoke cores, or release vassals/nations in peace.
• Implemented a new system called "States & Territories", where states gives most benefits of being non-overseas, while territories have autonomy and is considered to be overseas for many rules.
  
• Added Corruption, which is impacted by being unbalanced in tech, having overextension and lack of religious unity. It can be combated by investment in the budget. Corruption impact minimum autonomy in a country, its ability to do espionage and all power costs.
• Countries with very few forts relative to their size (and less than 10 forts total) now have their unfortified provinces worth more warscore when occupied by enemies.

Punish players for not wasting money on forts? Check. Punish players for not wasting mana on dip tech? Check. Punish players for expanding by acqusition of strategic provinces? Check. Punish players for attempting long-range expansion without YOLOing? Check. Maybe this patch will turn out to be good, but I'm not too hopeful at this point.

To be fair I think they gutted the trade conflict CB because of trade leagues.

There's still one non-imperialism long-range CB left that doesn't involve taking bad idea groups....but its definitely tedious to use.

 

[Gigawot]

Can we get working fort mechanics before we shoehorn penalize them ?

they are WAD according to paradox. not sure if they even play their own game if they cannot see the problems