Patch 1.16 - FULL patchnotes

[Kollatius]

Then they should have forts working properly and being useful enough that you have an incentive for keeping them. You should WANT forts. The fact that you don't shows that they aren't worth it. If they aren't worth it, why are they forcing us to have them instead of making them worth it?

So, how would you make them worth it?

 

[FleetingRain]

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

...What is it?

 

[Edmon]

Define "playing well"

Growing your nations economic, military, trade and technological power as quickly and effectively as is possible within the confines of the rules of the game.

 

[Kollatius]

Growing your nations economic, military, trade and technological power as quickly and effectively as is possible within the confines of the rules of the game.

So minmax?

 

[Edmon]

So minmax?

I would more define that as playing optimally, expertly or professionally. Simply playing well is as I described.

Few have the necessary talent to minmax. Many have the unnecessary comment to demean talented minmaxers.

 

[Kollatius]

as quickly and effectively as is possible

optimally

How are these two different?

 

[Edmon]

How are these two different?

Optimally is the absolute truth of the game. As if Commander Data from Star Trek were playing it. You can simply do no better because the game does not allow it.

As quickly and effectively as is possible refers to the abilities of the player. As quickly and effectively as is possible [according to the abilities of the decent player, based on their level of decentness].

 

[Gigawot]

Thank you I saw that.

Tariffs are irrelevant. Adm efficiency is the real problem. I hope you know that.

not for the AI, they always push them all the way up. They did say that they were changing the adm efficiency one though, and they have already made several mistakes with the patch notes

 

[KaiserCREB]

people act like forcing the player to use forts will fix mercs when the AI will still spam merc using loans until it goes into oblivion. all the while having a country full of highest level forts and not having to pay for them for "difficulty" when all it does it just make wars take longer for no reason. the big AI countries benefit the most from this BS especially ones with lots of coast and borders like the ottomans.

 

[Frogbait]

• 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.

Can't agree with you more here. Ever since the corruption and states DD I've been fairly down on EU4. The whole hordes w/ unrest from razing patch note made me even more skeptical of these new mechanics being fun mechanics. I don't mind change to mechanics to make the game more difficult, but just putting in what seem to be purely anti-fun mechanics is not the way to go about it.

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!

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's not even an exploit. The whole concept is to have just a capital fort on any one province island in an inland sea and leave a huge fleet to block access to it. Reason being that forts cost a ton of money to build and maintain. You really need that money to develop your country so you can afford to keep up your force limits for expansion purposes. The whole island + fleet bit is just so the AI doesn't randomly throw 3 units it recruited from an island in the pacific to transport to a single province on the mainland and then walk them all the way to your capital fort and siege it while you're paying attention to 100 other things.

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.

I am aware it's a yearly increase. However it's a really dumb mechanic as it's currently implemented. You're not spending monarch points on what we want you to, so we're going to force you to make the correct decision. If you ignore this, then we'll punish you by costing you a % based amount of your income. If you don't pay the money cost and instead try to stop it by playing by our rules, it going to cost you more to catch up to people already ahead of you in tech.

It's taking away a lot of choice in exchange for rather arbrituary punishments that to stop you either have to pay a % of your income to match the amount of corruption you gain per month or you have to dig yourself out of a hole by digging the hole deeper.

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...

Goods produced modifier = more money from BOTH trade and production by increasing the BASE multiplier of both across ALL of your provinces. This results in a considerable boost to your economy. When you add in the whole states and territory mechanic, it becomes even more powerful since your trade income is not impacted by LA whereas tax, production, and manpower are. The only idea that is stronger in the admin idea group is the reduced coring cost. Merc cost reduction and increased amount are nice, but realistically if you're competent at the game you won't be fighting many wars throughout a campaign that you'll deplete your manpower enough that mercs become a necessity to continue slogging on. Mercs being OP is one of the funniest things I've been reading here lately. If mercs are nerfed it won't do jack to competent players. It'll just hurt the people who don't have a lot of skill at this game by punishing them severely for not knowing how to manage manpower properly. And ironically enough it's you lot who want them nerfed.

Administrative is only a no brainier if you're looking to go for a WC. Even that is arguable if you're not going for a 1 tag. Any nation with 20% or more coring cost reduction in its NI administrative isn't close to required unless you're looking to turn it into a speed run for a one tag WC.

 

[bbqftw]

...What is it?

another DLC-introduced CB

 

[Frogbait]

...What is it?

BBQ is a smarter person than me for EU4, so I could very well be wrong. I imagine he's talking about colonialism CB via adjacent overseas provinces in trade company and colonial regions.

Long range makes me thing it's not religious since that's a more short ranged CB imo. Arguably what I described above is also short range since it requires adjacent provinces.

Other possible contenders are support rebels CB and diplomatic insult CBs.

@bbqftw feel free to confirm or deny. PM would be appreciated if I'm wrong

 

[bbqftw]

BBQ is a smarter person than me for EU4, so I could very well be wrong. I imagine he's talking about colonialism CB via adjacent overseas provinces in trade company and colonial regions.

Long range makes me thing it's not religious since that's a more short ranged CB imo. Arguably what I described above is also short range since it requires adjacent provinces.

Other possible contenders are support rebels CB and diplomatic insult CBs.

colonialism CB only works on mutual colonies.

rip rebels cb next patch.

 

[Edmon]

BBQ is a smarter person than me for EU4, so I could very well be wrong. I imagine he's talking about colonialism CB via adjacent overseas provinces in trade company and colonial regions.

Long range makes me thing it's not religious since that's a more short ranged CB imo. Arguably what I described above is also short range since it requires adjacent provinces.

Other possible contenders are support rebels CB and diplomatic insult CBs.

@bbqftw feel free to confirm or deny. PM would be appreciated if I'm wrong

The only true long range CB attack left is the support rebels CB. It is a chore to use it, but it can be done and it will allow you to attack without adj.

 

[Frogbait]

colonialism CB only works on mutual colonies.

yep, its rebels CB so expect to see that one gone next patch or something.

Oh yeah. Still can tediously use it via shenanigans with any country across two different continents. States and territories may have some unintended consequences in regards to that CB, although it'll be even harder to use now due to areas.

 

[bbqftw]

I do find it funny that even after repeated attempts to nerf low diplo tech play, paradox still needs to find new ways to force players to get diplo tech.

I guess sailors do make it reasonably punishing to accidentally lose your entire transport fleet because you afk scrolled through battle notifications.

 

[KaiserCREB]

I do find it funny that even after repeated attempts to nerf low diplo tech play, paradox still needs to find new ways to force players to get diplo tech.

I guess sailors do make it reasonably punishing to accidentally lose your entire transport fleet because you afk scrolled through battle notifications.

yeah Paradox seems to be going nuts with forcing diplo tech and their "preferred playstyle"

 

[Yugoslavs]

Ok, maybe corruption is not that bad, i mean you are Manipur and you want to westernise and expand and you finally reach those western countries and instead to use neighbour bonus to catch up you are now severely punished because your tech now cost more because, you know, you are corrupted.

It seems like Paradox is making only western tech tags playable and believe that there is only one playstyle.

 

[Master of Times]

The more I read people's opinions about the patch here, the more I am inclined not to update it.
I mean, I will just to check it out, but I might not do a serious game in the new patch.

Maybe I should leave this game and move on?

 

[grandadmiralbob]

I do not understand why this company would make such a complex game, with so many features and so much detail. Spend so much time and money on it, just to force players to play a certain way, or punish you for not going down a path. This game is awesome and I have never sunk almost 5k hours into a game before, but the railroading and cheating AI are very..... luckluster. I will still buy the expansion pack, but after seeing rant after rant on these forums, I'm starting to see what some of you guys are talking about.
The one thing about this patch that I do NOT like at all, is the fact that I can not take land in a trade war. Seriously, ''can't take land in war.''