Patch 1.3

[unmerged(809634)]

First of all im pretty bad with english. I'll do my best. Sorry.

CK2 was a great game, EU4 is a great game. That being said im pissed off with a lot of things because i dont like at all what you are doing since 1.0 (people who doesnt like it dont care about it)

1) If i want to make a blob its my problem

The coalition system... Oh lord. China, India, Ottoman, Poland, Sweden (etc) against my Russia because i've colonised Siberia and crushed the Altaïc ?! This doesnt make sense at all ! Historically these country wouldnt gave a damn about me crushing their worst ennemy EVER and expand where nobody wants to live (Siberia oh yeah, what a lovely place). So this :

DIPLOMATIC_ACTION_COALITION_SIZE_FACTOR = 1, -- AI scoring for joining/forming coalition based on number of cities

This is wrong ! It should be based on basetax (yeah im talking about something like a PU French-Spanish-Dutch blob) because big and rich country dont care and are afraid about a bigger but poor country (like Sweden / Russia ).

# Outraged - wants to prevent expansion
attitude_outraged = {
	icon = 5

	antagonize = yes
	annex = no
	weaken = yes
	coalition = yes

Coalition = yes ? It should be NO. Historically (you will see that word a lot) Switzerland wasnt the worst ennemy of French First Empire, it was too weak and too afraid of France to say "Hey im going too make a coalition against you and crush you". No. No. No. A coalition shouldnt be initiated by an outraged country but by a RIVAL (Great Britain / France) dont you think ?

China, India, Ottoman, Poland, Sweden (etc) against my Russia

Yes i quote myself. Anyway how this can ever be possible ? No way.

Coalition should be by continent, religion or "racial group" (Western, Muslim, Asian). Pick what you want. And if you want be part of a coalition who dont care about you or think your are not better you will take legitimaty and stability penalty because the people of your country (and especially the nobility) are not going to accept such disgrace that lightly. Actually coalition is just the ultimate workaround against the player, with no restriction at all this is not acceptable.

I bet you are thinking "oh hes just a whinny nooby who dont know how to play" but no, im not. Im not asking to do a blob with a random country, im asking to remove silly limitations who didnt make sense. Like i said (If i want to make a blob its my problem) you should be able to do it but the bigger you are the bigger you (can) fall.

Why a country like Denmark never succed to dominate Scandinavia instead of Sweden ? Why you cannot seriously think about a world domination when you start with Britanny ? Take aside military stuff, this is all about culture ! You cannot expect to run a country of 200 provinces when only 10% of them are Danish or Breton. So what im asking is the creation of a new category of events (like overextension) who happen when your primary culture is very low (i didnt say culture group but it should have less impact on your stability than forbidden culture group). And because of colonial empire, oversea province dont count of course. With that little thing conquest of your same culture group is not only about tax and money but about the stability of your empire so change provincial culture or start a party with a big culture group (like China) is going to REALLY matter. So what about the events when your culture group running low in your empire ? The usual Taxe / Stability / Legitimacy penalty thing. You can add Trade Power penalty, random province with a Nationalism bonus, etc. This is the good way to stop random country to dominate Europe like Bohemia and its better than historical bonus to lucky nation because they "should" dominate the game.

But how make this viable with the "Change Culture" like it is actually ? It has to bee reworked. I dont want to pay 200 diplo power because the province's basetax is 5 or more. It's silly.

- When you have Brittany since 300 years you can assume the local people speak French. The longer you are here the lower it cost diplo power.
- You should be able to change the culture even when its not the True Faith. A French player dont care about the religion but care about the culture. Make it cost 25% more with heretics and 50% more with heathens.
- Things like "Berber Tradition = 200% core cost" are CRAP. Nobody want to pay 1000 adm power for 5 provinces, it should be more costy to change the culture there.
- Then we add few things to lower the cost like national decision / doctrine / whatever like "French Language in all courts" (+10% income for vassals) become a -20% cost for culture change (its just an example France-haters)
- About the duration if the province have a revolt risk the culture change slow down. Something like that.

Well this is just some hints but that's the spirit.

2) AE, Coring duration, overextension. The more you have the more you sleep.

I get it Paradox see these things like counters against "world conquest" and noobs. But its not, its counters to fun. A cap to coring duration is a great thing because Russia wasnt enjoyable at all after 1700-1750. But twenty years is way too long for something like overextension. Kiev's conquest shouldnt be a 50% overextension for Russia so (like the coalition system) your national basetax should lower the duration because i cannot understand to rule a big blob and being stuck 20 years because of Kiev's conquest, it doesn't make sense (yes, again).

I dont understand very well how the AE thing works but if its not already the case the provincial culture and religion should matter. For example an Ottoman IA shouldnt care about whats going on in a Russian Orthodox territory (if i take Razian and Novgorod but dont have a claim) : they care about what happens to their muslim siblings and dont want to see a giant Russia next to here (for example Russia with a national basetax of 2783). Maybe the way AE is calculated need some adjustements but the more important thing is to stop using AE like it should be a count down for a world coalition against you.

Another thing to consider is the "relation penalty" / "better relation over time" ratio. If you increase "relation penalty" and their effects on IA patch after patch but dont increase the "better relation over time" you will have a sleepy game : take a random province without a claim ? The IA will hate you and it will take one century to forgive that. This is way too harsh. But if you have BIG "relation penalty" but also BIG "better relation over time" the game will be more dynamic : take a random province without a claim ? The IA will treat you like shit and it will take 20 years to repair that. In EU4 terms, Germany should have take +1000 AE and -10 Diplomatic Reputation with France after the World War 2 but it only took a few decades to settle things down. The 1400-1800 period was the same : enemy of yesterday can became friend for a while (a royal mariage for example) and start again a war of 20 years. This was a very dynamical period but the more you lower the "relation penalty" / "better relation over time" ratio the more your party is sleepy with the same ennemy over and over because of insane amounts of "relation penalty" you cannot get rid of.

So Like "Economic Ideas" shouldnt be the only way to lower inflation (1.2 is not that bad after all hey), "Religious Idea" shouldnt be one of the very few thing who grants a "better relation over time" value. Having a big prestige is good, having a good diplomatic reputation should too. Also being in total peace for a while should increase the "better relation over time" but not too much. Spend diplo power to increase the "better relation over time" can be something interesting, i dont know but there is clearly a lot of way to balance the thing. So please, think about this. Seriously.

3) Attrition, manpower and war aka if i am not a blob i cannot win

I dont like the idea of attrition when you are the one to siege the castle but, well, its not really an issue. The way manpower work is an issue.

Like always basetax should be more important for manpower, after all basetax = population. A little HRE duchy should have more manpower than a "larger" Altaic kingdom if it has more basetax, this is just common sense to me and it dont seem the case actually. The other thing is if you have no manpower left you are SCREWED so a country with 50K manpower has almost no chance to win against a country with 500K manpower (if you are a pro gamer, good for you). But how can this be real ? I cannot understand a country with MILLIONS of people just run out of manpower after the lost of few army. Its not possible. Just look at what Napoleon did when he lost the Grand Army in Russia : he came back, take youth people and send them to fight. We should be able to do the same. How ? Things like events or national decision of course :

* Have less than 20% of national manpower
* War exhaustion less than 10 points

> Cost 20% of monthly income
> Cost 75 military power
> Add 2 points of war exhaustion

= Add 20% of maximum manpower
= 10% lower fighting ability of all units 
= 20% lower moral

Something like that.
Also the speed at wich you are increasing your manpower is too damn low until endgame (at that time its too damn high) maybe add a time factor would be a good thing.

There is for sure a lot of things to talk about war (and other things) but that's not my kind of stuff so i will stop here. Plus it took me a lot of time and effort to wrote all of this in my poor english (maybe too harsh, sorry for that). I really like that game and what Paradox did but well, im not a sheep so i cannot agreed with everything :happy:

Take care.

Removed foul language - Seelmeister

 

[unmerged(34615)]

Hey, bump for great justice, I'm not 100% on board, but I like the direction the OP is looking in, and I too do not like the direction the patches have been going in.

 

[Sky_walker]

That's a very long post
Would be good if you could make a summary for those who don't have enough time to read through.

Anyway:

1) If i want to make a blob its my problem

Not at all. All of the countries in power want to prevent you from surpassing them in strength. That's natural, and that's what EU4 tries to simulate (not always with good results though).

China, India, Ottoman, Poland, Sweden (etc) against my Russia because i've colonised Siberia and crushed the Altaïc ?!

My bet? It's not because you crashed Mongols, but because you were so busy with war that you forgot keeping a good diplomatic relations with countries around you.
In 1.1 it was horribly difficult because of Border Tensions, but seeing India on the list it seems like your issue is not limited to BT

This is wrong ! It should be based on basetax (yeah im talking about something like a PU French-Spanish-Dutch blob) because big and rich country dont care and are afraid about a bigger but poor country (like Sweden / Russia ).

Totally agreed.
That's IMHO the most important change in the game from your post.

Coalition = yes ? It should be NO. Historically (you will see that word a lot) Switzerland wasnt the worst ennemy of French First Empire, it was too weak and too afraid of France to say "Hey im going too make a coalition against you and crush you". No. No. No. A coalition shouldnt be initiated by an outraged country but by a RIVAL (Great Britain / France) dont you think ?

This parameters controls not only creation of coalitions, but also joining them. IMHO: Leave as it is.

Coalition should be by continent, religion or "racial group" (Western, Muslim, Asian).

I would say that shared interest is as common business as any other, though forming an alliance with country that doesn't match any of these 3 criteria should result in penalty to diplomatic relations with all other countries in your own culture or religion.

So: Yes, so allow alliances with anyone, but please - model the results of such weird diplomacy.

So what im asking is the creation of a new category of events (like overextension) who happen when your primary culture is very low (i didnt say culture group but it should have less impact on your stability than forbidden culture group).

Love the idea.
Please, make it happen!

- When you have Brittany since 300 years you can assume the local people speak French. The longer you are here the lower it cost diplo power.
- You should be able to change the culture even when its not the True Faith. A French player dont care about the religion but care about the culture. Make it cost 25% more with heretics and 50% more with heathens.
- Things like "Berber Tradition = 200% core cost" are CRAP. Nobody want to pay 1000 adm power for 5 provinces, it should be more costy to change the culture there.
- Then we add few things to lower the cost like national decision / doctrine / whatever like "French Language in all courts" (+10% income for vassals) become a -20% cost for culture change (its just an example France-haters)
- About the duration if the province have a revolt risk the culture change slow down. Something like that.

- Totally agreed
- Totally agreed, though there should be a serve penalty for doing that
- I disagree. It makes sense and is there for a reason
- Makes sense.

The IA will hate you and it will take one century to forgive that. This is way too harsh. But if you have BIG "relation penalty" but also BIG "better relation over time" the game will be more dynamic

I'm not really sure if that fits well this time period.

after all basetax = population

As far as I know - it's not.
So I'll skip commenting on this whole section.

Also the speed at wich you are increasing your manpower is too damn low until endgame (at that time its too damn high)

I tend to agree with that, but I'm worried that it will lead to nothing else but unstoppable player armies in early-mid game.

 

[Hootieleece]

I like most of the changes in the patch but some of the things stated in this thread make sense. I just want a game that makes for "Historically possible" sand box game play.

 

[johnwa1]

I agree re the overarching need being for an EU4 that permits "historically possible sandbox play." Although I might substitute "plausible" for "possible." When I want to conquer the world, I play Civilization. When I want to immerse myself in something more closely resembling "history," I play EU or CK. I don't really mind if there are other options that satisfy those folks who prefer different play styles (e.g., Kongo/Aztec alliance conquers Eurasia), but I think there is probably a majority of EU4 players who really are interested in exploring (here it comes again) "plausible" historical "what ifs." What makes that so hard for Paradox to achieve is that the game also needs to be fun and financially successful. Balancing these competing demands isn't easy and is never going to satisfy everyone. That said, I believe my wants should have the very highest priority (just like most of us).

 

[delra]

You should use Expansion CB for conquests in Asia. And Europe won't care much for all the many evils you've done there.

 

[unmerged(809634)]

Thanks for the hint Delra but i have no problem at all into expanding my various kingdom (until the 1.2 at least), it was just some example about some things who didnt make much sense for me.

Anyway im glad some people understand a bit of what i wanted to say, the last time i wrote something "elaborate" in english is pretty far away ^^

 

[Moltke]

It seems the direction with EU4 is geared toward balancing multiplayer, which kind of sucks for those of us who only want to play a sandbox singleplayer strategy game. Everything is designed to impede the player, instead of making sure the player has fun and compelling choices. I now wish they had different rulesets for singleplayer and multiplayer.

 

[Hootieleece]

I never thought of it as a SP vs. MP balancing, but that might be so. I do remember how heated the debate was between the 2 groups in the final EU3 patch.

I actually think that MP would be well served if the Devs brought back the "Fantasia" scenario from EUII. It was balanced in the fact all players started exactly the same except for location.

 

[unmerged(809634)]

"Everything is designed to impede the player, instead of making sure the player has fun and compelling choices."

Paradox seem to think the best way to stop player from making big blob (or WC) is to slow down player's expansion. But at some point (reached with 1.2) the game become so slow you cannot move a finger or have to fight against a world coalition because you have 300 provinces (Russia style). Expand your vassal and doing PU ? Even that is nerfed now. This is not logical, just silly limitations to counter the player.

I believe a big blob should be really hard to control and optimize when only a few part of our population has a cultural attachment to your Empire. This is the only reason why nobody (weastern powers like Napoleon's France) succed to dominate Europe or muslim region for long. And thats why i want to see culture play a much larger role than just being a very small bonus/malus to tax or rebel risk. That being said each province you have should add something like 0.05 minimal inflation : so an empire of 200 province will have at least 10% inflation, the bigger you are the bigger corruption is. Anf off course something like that need no cap : if you want to be really big there is serious downside, not only a insane world coalition waiting for you.

Also PU with the "same dynasty" thing is crap but doing a claim on the throne because of a royal mariage made two days ago was crap to before 1.2... anyway i think PU between two great powers (like Spain and France) should give to large country on the same continent (with modifier "competitor for world domination) a negative relation like "going to be too powerful = -100" and a special Casus Belli for breaking the PU (i think of the historical "War of the Spanish Succession"). In that case a special coalition is made and you get a big and brutal war with way higher rebel risk for the lesser partner of the PU (they do not want to be ruled by a stranger). Should be more fun and logical like that than before.

 

[Incompetent]

The coalition system... Oh lord. China, India, Ottoman, Poland, Sweden (etc) against my Russia because i've colonised Siberia and crushed the Altaïc ?!

That's not how it works. Have a more careful look what happens with AE the next time you make a peace treaty in which you conquer land. The Ottomans care about you conquering the Tatars, but the others in that list don't because they are a different religion and far away. Nobody cares about you colonising Siberia except for border friction (which is fairly trivial in the current version).

If there are members of the anti-Russian coalition in all directions, it means you have been naughty in all or at least several directions. It's only natural for the AI to try to put a stop to this sort of unconstrained blobbing. You can still get away with an awful lot though if you are sensible about your situation and use 'improve relations' to smooth things over with potential enemies.

 

[johnlukeg]

Personally I feel the current coalition system works fine for what it's intended to do, but I would accommodate world-spanning empires by allowing multiple coalitions against a single country which are separated by region. For example the Asian and European coalitions against Russia would not involve each other in their wars.

 

[Barkingdragon13]

accommodate world-spanning empires by allowing multiple coalitions against a single country which are separated by region.

This.

 

[justin6477]

Generally agreed on most points.

I have a few things I'd want. For starters, Shattered Retreat is a great concept that just isn't working out so great. If I lose a battle in Brittany as France, I'd want to retreat to Burgundy or somewhere else in the middle of my country. Not Provence. Shattered retreat also needs to not be a thing when you initiate the retreat. I know I was losing that battle, that's why I told you to go to Paris and regain your strength.... not run away to the French riviera. Also, for countries like Burgundy, shattered retreat is a bit abusrd. If their men are in Burgundy proper, and they have no land route to their Low Countries holdings, I should be able to trap them in Champagne.

There are some other things, but the retreat mechanic has been earning my ire all day.

 

[shakeled1]

Generally agreed on most points.

I have a few things I'd want. For starters, Shattered Retreat is a great concept that just isn't working out so great. If I lose a battle in Brittany as France, I'd want to retreat to Burgundy or somewhere else in the middle of my country. Not Provence. Shattered retreat also needs to not be a thing when you initiate the retreat. I know I was losing that battle, that's why I told you to go to Paris and regain your strength.... not run away to the French riviera. Also, for countries like Burgundy, shattered retreat is a bit abusrd. If their men are in Burgundy proper, and they have no land route to their Low Countries holdings, I should be able to trap them in Champagne.

There are some other things, but the retreat mechanic has been earning my ire all day.

Bloody awful on large countries. Poland owns from Finland to Constantinople. Beat the hell out of them around Helsinki, they decide "You know what's safe? Wallachia!"

 

[unmerged(809634)]

Bloody awful on large countries. Poland owns from Finland to Constantinople. Beat the hell out of them around Helsinki, they decide "You know what's safe? Wallachia!"

The worst is by far Russia with some good doctrines.
Giant manpower + Giant attrition + Giant retreat = war never end
And with the nerf on warscore reduction against big country, you cannot slow them down with 1 or 2 wars.

If there are members of the anti-Russian coalition in all directions, it means you have been naughty in all or at least several directions.

This is not the problem. Coalition is not about knowing to play or not. Its an anti-blob system. Nothing less.

1) Outrager country create a country
2) People who dont like you join the coalition (border friction = 200 pts = a lot)

But there is also a factor about the size of your Empire so its almost impossible when you reach something like 200 provinces to get rid of that.
Just remind me what coalition rise against Russia or Great Britain or Mongol Empire in history. None.
We are playing Europa Universalis 4 :1444-1821, not Napoleon Universalis.
Plus its silly to put every country who hate you in the same coalition, so :

Personally I feel the current coalition system works fine for what it's intended to do, but I would accommodate world-spanning empires by allowing multiple coalitions against a single country which are separated by region. For example the Asian and European coalitions against Russia would not involve each other in their wars.

I think nobody can seriously be against that. This is just common sense.
Coalition shouldnt be the only way to stop blob. Blob shouldnt be so easy to rule. We need less coalitions and more nasty limitations, but limitations it is POSSIBLE to get rid off if you play like GOD.

 

[justin6477]

Just remind me what coalition rise against Russia or Great Britain or Mongol Empire in history. None.

Well, there were several anti-French and anti-Turkish coalitions... but they didn't really exist in perpetuity. Personally, I think a coalition war should break the coalition whether they win or fail.

 

[unmerged(809634)]

I think the same but without some big change i dont think Paradox will do that. Obviously, in their mind, coalition must be the "ultimate boss" you will never get rid of because you are a nasty big blob.

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

Personally I feel the current coalition system works fine for what it's intended to do, but I would accommodate world-spanning empires by allowing multiple coalitions against a single country which are separated by region. For example the Asian and European coalitions against Russia would not involve each other in their wars.

I support this, and personally I'd even separate it further by making it so that coalitions are named in-game after the country that first formed them (at least initially; they could get renamed after the largest/strongest country among the members as determined by the usual formula for deciding warleaders), and other countries then get to pick whether they want to join that coalition, or form their own separate coalition, even if both coalitions' members are all in a single region.

Well, there were several anti-French and anti-Turkish coalitions... but they didn't really exist in perpetuity. Personally, I think a coalition war should break the coalition whether they win or fail.

Yeah, breaking up the coalition after the war ends and giving members a cooldown period (say about a decade) before any of them can form/join a coalition against the target again sounds good, though I'd allow them the option of ignoring the cooldown period at the cost of suffering a stab hit to reflect popular backlash at such a move being too soon from the eyes of the war-weary people.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Yeah, breaking up the coalition after the war ends and giving members a cooldown period (say about a decade) before any of them can form/join a coalition against the target again sounds good, though I'd allow them the option of ignoring the cooldown period at the cost of suffering a stab hit to reflect popular backlash at such a move being too soon from the eyes of the war-weary people.

That sounds like a good idea; at least if you won the war. If you lost the cooldown could be shorter or the coalition could even survive. The main point is that it should temporarily disband after losing to you.