Patch 1.7 Is the Best so Far, By Far

[TheChronoMaster]

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.

There's plenty of threads criticizing the truce timers, the main ones that got locked or deleted, from what I saw, involved heavy amounts of personal insults and "Obviously things were better before", rather than actual reasonable arguments [for reasonable arguments, look at: TheMeInTeam's posts]

 

[MarkS00N]

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

I am sorry if it ever been said, but somehow it struck me last night (well, here is 'night' at least), the Devs really want you to play as merchant republic...
I mean it is obvious right? They have two expansion pack that gives a lot of flavor to merchant republic, but the fact is every recent controversial things that the developer has done pretty much show that they wish you to play merchant republic or at least merchant republic style...

How?
Well 'merchant republic' style, based on my understanding of Dev's DD, is less on conquer territory and more on trade domination...
Merchant republic has a lot of tools in its hand to ensure they don't need a lot of land, from they'll improve good's production in areas they are in, building trade post, more merchant, etc.
By having less need to conquer a lot of land, it means you don't need to worry about aggressive expansion, over-extension, and truce timer, in fact longer truce timer is better because it means you can core recently conquered territory then build trade post there to improve your trade power in peace and these action is pretty much your true goal when you go to war...

This also support by the fact that three out four 'new' idea group, influence, maritime, and naval, support 'less territory, more trade' style quite clearly...
Because you don't need a lot of land, the most expansive thing you are going to (or at least need to) do is vassalize your enemy, benefits from influence idea group...
Because you want more trade, you need stronger navy, benefits from maritime and naval idea group...

Sure the Devs also gives other beside merchant republic some stuffs (humanist is pretty much the get go for conqueror), but a lot of its core mechanic right now is designed to benefit merchant republic's style over other style, at least based on my 'observation'...
Which, I think, also the reason why I don't feel bothered with all the changes the Devs had made because that's my play-style, even as a kingdom...

This also means that what Johan said about gives things to do in peace time in game, overtime, is true, with trade as that 'things to do' for now, whether it is successful to be fun or not is debatable but trade (and because of it, naval) sure is a lot busier now than it was before...

Though as trade has been fleshed out quite a lot in these two expansion, I do think the next expansion going to focus on different 'things to do in peace time' and perhaps another core mechanic change to accommodate said 'things to do' play-style...

At least that's my opinion on 'where the direction is going right now'...

 

[RMcD94]

I would definitely not go so far to say most wasn't, I imagine most of the people in this forum would much rather Johan be honest with us than have to deal with some PR corporate shill.

 

[ADamiani]

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.

Harsh treatment lowers revolt risk caused by new decision?

 

[RMcD94]

snip

To be honest it was a bit of a rhetorical question as it is my opinion that the Devs have no clue at all what they want the game to be considering the insane flipflopping that has happened in patches since spawn, first vassal feeding was the one way to expand, there were no coalitions just coring was hell, etc, etc. AE is all over the place, costs of things are all over the place.

 

[Jephery]

Just remember their logic for administrative efficiency:

Another addition to technology is Administrative Efficiency, a new country-wide bonus that is unlocked at administrative technology level 23 and increases at 26 and 29, up to a total of 75%. Administrative Efficiency directly reduces the impact of province base tax on overextension and warscore cost, allowing for much larger territories to be conquered at once. Additionally the scaling of core time from country size has been removed - all nations now core provinces at the same speed regardless of size (but it is still affected by factors such as culture, religion, having a claim and so on). This creates a more interesting late game, as the large nations that have formed by then are now able to score decisive victories over their rivals instead of fighting 10-year wars over a few border provinces.

It would have been better if the 15 year truces were introduced at the same time as admin efficiency because the truce changes are clearly meant with admin efficiency in mind. Bigger, more decisive wars rather a bunch of small ones.

 

[Had a dad]

Anyone that would like to know why a thread gets locked, feel free to PM me, as I'd much rather explain what and why than infract people for breaking rule #2. I will say now just to clear up any confusion, they don't get locked because people dislike something or to censor opinions about the game etc.

There is zero tolerance for breaking rule #2 which states

{Talk to staff by PM} You will not argue with, comment on or question the actions/authority/ or comments of the Paradox staff (Administrators, Moderators, etc.) in a public forum. Should you wish to do so you are directed to contact the Paradox staff via PM (the private messaging system - see “How to Contact Staff” below).

To see "How to Contact Staff below" click on the forum rules in my sig

 

[ssuperflash1]

Honestly I think more people are starting to agree that this patch was good overall. Merchant republicans are going to be really fun to play as if Paradox improves again in Patch 1.8.

Econimic---Humanist----Maritime idea groups are going to be big.

 

[Freudia]

Honestly I think more people are starting to agree that this patch was good overall. Merchant republicans are going to be really fun to play as if Paradox improves again in Patch 1.8.

Econimic---Humanist----Maritime idea groups are going to be big.

Most people never said the patch as a whole was bad. Most people agreed most changes were decent at worst. It's just that, like most patches, there's two or three changes that stick out and potentially undo all the good of the patch.

 

[ssuperflash1]

Most people never said the patch as a whole was bad. Most people agreed most changes were decent at worst. It's just that, like most patches, there's two or three changes that stick out and potentially undo all the good of the patch.

Um no, there were 30 PAGE THREADS basically saying Paradox ruined the game. Um no, it's still fun to play as any European nation. Now, EU4 needs to make playing Chinese, Indian, and African nations fun as well as American nations. They are close. This is the best political strategy game ever, except from what I've heard, Civilizations, of which I've only played Civ 5.

 

[Freudia]

Um no, there were 30 PAGE THREADS basically saying Paradox ruined the game. Um no, it's still fun to play as any European nation. Now, EU4 needs to make playing Chinese, Indian, and African nations fun as well as American nations. They are close. This is the best political strategy game ever, except most like Civilizations, of which I've only played 5.

No, there were 30 page threads talking about the implications of the truce timer changes. Those were the threads that got deleted, because despite several people making good arguments for why they're bad, it was also bogged down with personal attacks and other unsavory conduct.

Also playing Scotland is awful in 1.7. Your only valid rival on game start is Denmark, and you have to spend 60+ years (unless you repeatedly truce break) invading England before you can unify the British Isles and start looking into plans past Britain. Is Scotland not a European nation now?

 

[ssuperflash1]

Well that's realistic. And once you break down England and unify Britain, it's pretty much game over. You can't lose. Terrible example. I agree that Scotland has been effected by this truce timer change, but it's still enjoyable. Paradix needs to focus on nations like Ming China who needs huge upheavals. Don't even get me started on the hordes.

 

[Beagá]

Saying Scotland should have an easy time is pretty darn silly.

 

[Freudia]

Well that's realistic. And once you break down England and unify Britain, it's pretty much game over. You can't lose. Terrible example. I agree that Scotland has been effected by this truce timer change, but it's still enjoyable. Paradix needs to focus on nations like Ming China who needs huge upheavals. Don't even get me started on the hordes.

How is it realistic that Scotland can win a war vs England and then go "Alright chaps, see you guys in 15 years! Don't get invaded now!", and how is Scotland still enjoyable in the first 60 years? The game doesn't even start for Scotland until England's been conquered.

Saying Scotland should have an easy time is pretty darn silly.

If you think the truce timers did anything to the difficulty of the game, you're sorely mistaken. It adds tedium, not difficulty, as it increases the period you have to sit around doing nothing or it forces you to truce break, if you're in a situation where you don't have multiple nations to attack. Scotland, Chimu, Kochin, etc. all suffer from this.

Also I never implied Scotland should have an easy time; I implied that Scotland should have an interesting time, which 15 year truce timers do not create, at all.

 

[ssuperflash1]

I was agree with you if truce timers was the only or even most important aspect of a Scotland game, but just remember that once you take over England, you never have to be in another war again. Just colonize.

 

[Freudia]

I was agree with you if truce timers was the only or even most important aspect of a Scotland game, but just remember that once you take over England, you never have to be in another war again. Just colonize.

You never have to be in a war, ever.

But why would you do that to yourself? War is the only part of the game that requires any sort of actual attention to detail. You can colonize AND invade Europe, and that makes for a very entertaining game. Like I said, the game doesn't even start for Scotland until you annex England.

 

[ssuperflash1]

Actually I would argue you kind of have to attack England before they attack you, but whatever. All I'm saying is you're overestimating this truce timer thing. Scotland still is a great nation to play, with colonization and expansion opportunities unparralled. Hell, you could probably open up in France or Italy again, or Africa. Colonization is so big in this game, who needs war? Now don't get me wrong, I've had fun with war, but the real thing is expansion. The best nations are those that expand the most while expending the least.

 

[Freudia]

Actually I would argue you kind of have to attack England before they attack you, but whatever. All I'm saying is you're overestimating this truce timer thing. Scotland still is a great nation to play, with colonization and expansion opportunities unparralled. Hell, you could probably open up in France or Italy again, or Africa. Colonization is so big in this game, who needs war? Now don't get me wrong, I've had fun with war, but the real thing is expansion. The best nations are those that expand the most while expending the least.

You'd probably be correct, but I don't think England is willing to declare on you if you have a good alliance web. France will love the hell out of you, and if you can snag Castile too, England probably won't ever declare on you. If your goal is to invade England though, then yeah, you want to attack them before they attack you. Hit them while they're covered in rebels from HYW/War of the Roses/Heresies.

Opening up in France is probably more doable in 1.7 than it is in 1.6, but I wouldn't make that my first move after unifying the island. Italy maybe, but how are you going to get a CB? No-CB declare?

I don't think colonization should be a reason to not go to war in this game. Colonization is such a snooze (select province, click button, wait for timer) that I can't see anyone justifying it as a substitute for actual conquest and actually be serious. I'm sorry if you're serious, but that's how it is to me. No offense.

 

[YoDaddy]

People like TheMeInTeam always, always come here to complain and moan about every change. They want the unrealistic world conquest with Mali and if you don't let him do it then the game sucks. It's boring to have to read post after post from people like that. They want to play small nations but expand into big nations and can't figure out why other countries would have a problem with it. If they want to make a small nation a world power then mod the game and stop crying.

 

[Freudia]

People like TheMeInTeam always, always come here to complain and moan about every change. They want the unrealistic world conquest with Mali and if you don't let him do it then the game sucks. It's boring to have to read post after post from people like that. They want to play small nations but expand into big nations and can't figure out why other countries would have a problem with it. If they want to make a small nation a world power then mod the game and stop crying.

No, we have no problem with being unable to unless we play really well. We have problems where the restrictions are just artificial timer extensions instead of meaningful restrictions like empire management or logistics.