Patch 1.7 Is the Best so Far, By Far

[Outrider]

Heads up, when people talk about nerfs they usually mean AI. Just saying.

1) Ipse dixit opinions seriously reduce your credibility.

2) They actually don't. Any mechanic of the game can be nerfed in ways that affect both the player and the AI. I'll assume you're referring to your old thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...sis-of-the-Problem-With-the-Hordes&highlight=

The AI failing to contain Russia wasn't a nerf to the hordes, it was a side-effect of the changes to rival mechanics and the WYP modifier in v1.6. The change resulted in a-historical results in other regions as well.

 

[Nutcracker]

I'd like to register my opinion that i am very happy with the patch and the direction of changes since release.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Yeah, except for the fact that for the first time since release I get CTD's at the launcher, without any mods or anything like that...

 

[riadach]

I was playing a Poland to Commonwealth game today, and got terrible legitimacy, terrible manpower, and my budget was destroyed by reinforcing. Also, when I formed the Commonwealth, revolt risk went through the roof. I'm a noob, so wondering is this to be expected with Poland?

 

[zemuzil]

I was playing a Poland to Commonwealth game today, and got terrible legitimacy, terrible manpower, and my budget was destroyed by reinforcing. Also, when I formed the Commonwealth, revolt risk went through the roof. I'm a noob, so wondering is this to be expected with Poland?

yeah i had the same still i managed to get Teutons, Livonia ,pskov and wallachia and even some one province from musco

i had one big coalition as well


thank god Iberian wedding fired up and took off Argaon and Naples out of my war leaving Teutons and Hungary alone


those events kinda sucks having one diplomat is pain I should have take diplo as first idea instead of admin

 

[Zander]

Now, if by "mostly effects" you meant "makes it harder for small nations in exchange for buffing large nations", then yes you would be correct. Why that was necessary has yet to be elucidated.

I think it's really not that hard to make a case for buffing large nations that are in the process of being pounded. The truce change is not a buff for large nations that are on conquering sprees: for them it is at best trivial and at worst hinders some of what they would prefer to do. It only really helps nations that are losing (including AI large nations), and there's something to be said for making it slightly harder to lose 100% worth of territory 3 times in 20 years.

Now, yes, it does inconvenience a few very specific small starts. But even there it is hardly crippling: even Malabar/Kochin/Venad can handily get access to another victim in one 100% war, and regardless by the end of a second such war should be less bothered by truce timers: which means at most a 10-year additional delay. Not something you would wish for if you're playing such a nation, but hardly a giant nerf and again there are only a few nations affected to even that extent.

 

[cocojambo]

So to get around the huge truce times i decided to play as the Ottomans duo their many directions to expand. Usual start, i declare war on ancona to get myself near austria quickly. BOOOOOOOOM venice, hungary and aragon in a coalition against me. 12 AE in Ireland.

1.7 really makes every game more of a challenge kappa
Definitely best patch so far

 

[Jephery]

I think it's really not that hard to make a case for buffing large nations that are in the process of being pounded. The truce change is not a buff for large nations that are on conquering sprees: for them it is at best trivial and at worst hinders some of what they would prefer to do. It only really helps nations that are losing (including AI large nations), and there's something to be said for making it slightly harder to lose 100% worth of territory 3 times in 20 years.

Now, yes, it does inconvenience a few very specific small starts. But even there it is hardly crippling: even Malabar/Kochin/Venad can handily get access to another victim in one 100% war, and regardless by the end of a second such war should be less bothered by truce timers: which means at most a 10-year additional delay. Not something you would wish for if you're playing such a nation, but hardly a giant nerf and again there are only a few nations affected to even that extent.

It is a buff for blobs on conquering sprees because it means that a major alliance that they just beat up can't jump on them for 15 years after a 100% WS victory. So they can safely shift their forces to other fronts without worry.

Example: Ottomans win a war 100% WS against an alliance of Poland/Hungary/Lithuania, and then gets bogged down trying to fight a Muscovy/Austria alliance that heavily drains their manpower. Poland/Hungary/Lithuania have to wait 15 years instead of 5 in 1.7 to try to dogpile on the Ottomans to capitalize on the situation.

 

[Charles555nc]

Honestly most of the patch is good, what I dislike (and I'm assuming many others) is the fact that core mechanics get changed out of the blue, with the justification of balancing for a ridiculously small minority. It's like enforcing maximum volume on everyone's TV because 15% of people are hearing impaired and can't be bothered to use their remote to turn it up.

Epic statement. The 15% cry out for rebels larger than nation's standing armies and infinite coalitions to stop any expansion, anywhere. Just keep it on speed 5 and only stop to accept the "random" bad events. FUN HUH.

 

[unmerged(761791)]

i like the new patch but France is still stupidly strong. they single handedly wrecked an alliance of Prussia(me), Spain, Austria(inherited burgundy and i have pu), England and a few minors without even breaking a sweat

EXACT same thing just happened to me! Wow.

 

[AndrewT]

Numerous off-topic and inflammatory posts deleted. Do not accuse anyone of trolling in public; PM a moderator instead if you are genuine.

Stay on topic, and be respectful of each other, or do not post. Last warning for this thread, and several people in it.

 

[ADamiani]

It is a buff for blobs on conquering sprees because it means that a major alliance that they just beat up can't jump on them for 15 years after a 100% WS victory. So they can safely shift their forces to other fronts without worry.

Example: Ottomans win a war 100% WS against an alliance of Poland/Hungary/Lithuania, and then gets bogged down trying to fight a Muscovy/Austria alliance that heavily drains their manpower. Poland/Hungary/Lithuania have to wait 15 years instead of 5 in 1.7 to try to dogpile on the Ottomans to capitalize on the situation.

Sort of. But when I'm playing Russia, and I get 100%WS in Ming, I can't just wait five years and chow down on another 5 provinces in almost exactly the time it takes me to core them and recover the AMP.

 

[Freudia]

Sort of. But when I'm playing Russia, and I get 100%WS in Ming, I can't just wait five years and chow down on another 5 provinces in almost exactly the time it takes me to core them and recover the AMP.

Well, you can, but it requires you to do some gaming of the system. Attack Ming's allies, or, if they joined a coalition against you, attack into your coalition.

 

[in heaven]

Sort of. But when I'm playing Russia, and I get 100%WS in Ming, I can't just wait five years and chow down on another 5 provinces in almost exactly the time it takes me to core them and recover the AMP.

Russia has possible ways of going west, east, south, why dont you attack somebody in west while u have truce with ming..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think it's really not that hard to make a case for buffing large nations that are in the process of being pounded. The truce change is not a buff for large nations that are on conquering sprees: for them it is at best trivial and at worst hinders some of what they would prefer to do. It only really helps nations that are losing (including AI large nations), and there's something to be said for making it slightly harder to lose 100% worth of territory 3 times in 20 years.

Actually, making that case is pretty difficult, or at least I presume so since nobody's made a good case for it yet. Large nations are already stronger than small ones while being pounded, in that at the end of the current war they'll 1) still be in the game whatsoever and 2) not be an OPM or otherwise crippled beyond repair...at least not through standard methods.

So, what *is* the case for buffing nations in a position of significant advantage such that even if they lose, they have ample time to recover unlike all smaller nations? Why should Timurids get a chance to recover while a Bahmanis that gets 100% by Vijay is effectively screwed forever?

The "risk" of losing 100% worth of territory 3 times in 20 years is significantly worse than losing your entire nation in 5 years...how?

 

[RMcD94]

I'd like to register my opinion that i am very happy with the patch and the direction of changes since release.

Could you clarify for me what direction the changes since release have been in? I'm awful curious.

 

[Merum]

Haha, its pretty strange when forum is not flooded with hatred after patch release, looks like paradox did a good job with this one.. Gonna be trying new patch after i get back home from work.

The forum was flooded with hatred. PI deleted it all so the general impression is that everybody loves the patch.

 

[Apocaliptica]

this and the last patch haven been the most horrible "patches" and "content updates" so far. just uninstalled this crappy, obvious "multiplayer" game.
rip eu4.

 

[Yominokuni]

I havent played it yet, but the lack of a massive outcry by the community (which seems mandatory with every patch) is encouraging

You realise they deleted the 30 page thread with the massive outcry and you aren't using your eyes to look at the threads which are on the first 2 pages?

edit: my apologies: they seem to have deleted a lot of the other threads criticizing the truce timers. It seems this forum is heavily censored now.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You realise they deleted the 30 page thread with the massive outcry and you aren't using your eyes to look at the threads which are on the first 2 pages?

Somewhat interestingly, most of that outcry in that particular thread wasn't over the mechanic change (the actual topic of the thread), but rather the developer response to that mechanic change, which was a combination of a poor defense of said mechanic change, some unfortunate word choice, and a pretty controversial assertion about the MP vs SP game design concept which was represented very poorly due to a combination of being abrasive and to some extent I suspect mild language barrier. Naturally, that got a lot of posters riled up, but I was always more annoyed that the points I put forth never got completely addressed, which is almost always the reason I'm annoyed on this forum .