Patch 1.7 Is the Best so Far, By Far

[eon47]

No, using a phrase in a different context to create a different meaning does not make criticizing its usage in an inappropriate context less valid, regardless of usage volume in either case.

It does when it makes your other comments look more suspicious. If you're going to constantly complain about this and that being slow but easy but then immediately bite someone's head off for saying something is slow but easy, you absolutely open yourself up to questioning. If you can assume that the player just isn't good enough to do a WC (which there actually isn't proof of either way), then why shouldn't someone assume that you're just not good enough to manage the new mechanics? Because you say they can't? You can't have your pie and eat it too.

1. An individual mechanic versus a player-chosen style are, in fact, different things and the framework used to attack them is not comparable. A mechanic that necessarily makes the game easier is not the same thing as making choices as a player that make your future situation easier. A mechanic that makes the game more tedious is not comparable to a player choosing to play in a more tedious fashion.

The "framework" in this case is identical. You're right about the last last part, but you also confuse two things being comparable with two things being the same thing, which is pretty important. In this case, both of you comment on how doing something in game (managing peace treaties/coalitions/etc. within the rules of the game or managing to conquer every province within the rules of the game), and both of you struggle against the rules present in the game. However, your complaint that the game is easy but difficult is supposed to be obvious and implicitly right (you frequently tell people that they "can't" argue against it) while his or hers is completely wrong and clearly a sign that he or she is just struggling and jealous of other players.

2. WC isn't a play style, it's a goal.

Now that's a semantic point if ever I saw one.

3. Fundamentally attacking the achievement of a goal versus the underlying mechanics of the game are differing concepts and using the phrase has different implications in each case.

Again, not that different. He or she finds the game rules make world conquests easy but tedious, you find the game rules make coalitions, treaties, and whatever else tedious. Normally I wouldn't make a point of it, but considering how you argue with such vehemence and vitriol against "easy but tedious" situations, you seem like the last person who should be getting bent out of shape over what someone else said. If "it's classic to claim that something out of reach is 'boring, not hard,'" then that possibility is raised for you, too. And if "it's a good way to minimize the accomplishments of others," and if "it does not... reflect well on the people saying it," perhaps you could consider how (rightly or wrongly) it doesn't reflect well on you either, and how it raises questions about you as much as him or her. Again, if you hadn't used these exact words, I wouldn't have thought anything of you going after the other person, but you chose specific phrasing that insults your own favorite talking point.

On a side note, why is it that the choices that give the player the strongest position in the game are tedious? I've seen more than once the same person say "WC is just tedious", but when attempting to defend borked mechanics, instead go on to say "WC should be hard". Tedium is not difficulty. I haven't seen many people claiming "WC *should* be tedious", and yet that's what some of the patch changes do, in addition to making more garden variety expansion somewhat more tedious.

Difficulty constraints should rationally be on how well a player manages his resources vs opposition doing the same; a hard-set timer that overpowers that management is pretty strong evidence of bad resource balance.

Besides, with the stated design intention to be protecting large player blobs, we were given hard evidence that this mechanic is intended to make playing as large blob nations easier in MP...something literally nobody has justified.

I agree that this is a side note. It is worth pointing out, however, that this hypothetical person might feel that the new treaties aren't tedious (I certainly don't) but that gobbling up provinces is (I have no interest in finding out). Since both are subjective questions, they have just as much right to their opinion (and as much validity behind it) as you do yours. And that is precisely my point.

And on a sidenote of my own, you tend to throw in the word rationally in situations that really don't make sense. In the bold above, for example, you use it to criticize only one specific hard-set timer in a game comprised of a series of hard-set timers that abstractly and inevitably imperfectly represents real life. I get that it sounds authoritative, but to quote the Interwebz, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[RebBrown]

I bought the DLC. I picked Utrecht, formed the Dutch Republic. France said hi. Game over. Best patch and DLC ever. Playing a game with a minor power anywhere next to France is impossible. Maybe in a patch or two we can play nations on the outskirts of France and not have our tender behinds exposed to a whole new spectrum of pain and abuse.

At least the ROTW monarch point change is good. I guess I got that going for me.

 

[Tufto]

Well, to be fair, there's also less idiocy involved by all parties.

I don't know, before long people will be arguing that Auvergne's diplo-annexation is in direct contrast to their pro-life values.

 

[Carr1]

No, using a phrase in a different context to create a different meaning does not make criticizing its usage in an inappropriate context less valid, regardless of usage volume in either case.



1. An individual mechanic versus a player-chosen style are, in fact, different things and the framework used to attack them is not comparable. A mechanic that necessarily makes the game easier is not the same thing as making choices as a player that make your future situation easier. A mechanic that makes the game more tedious is not comparable to a player choosing to play in a more tedious fashion.

2. WC isn't a play style, it's a goal.

3. Fundamentally attacking the achievement of a goal versus the underlying mechanics of the game are differing concepts and using the phrase has different implications in each case.

On a side note, why is it that the choices that give the player the strongest position in the game are tedious? I've seen more than once the same person say "WC is just tedious", but when attempting to defend borked mechanics, instead go on to say "WC should be hard". Tedium is not difficulty. I haven't seen many people claiming "WC *should* be tedious", and yet that's what some of the patch changes do, in addition to making more garden variety expansion somewhat more tedious.

Difficulty constraints should rationally be on how well a player manages his resources vs opposition doing the same; a hard-set timer that overpowers that management is pretty strong evidence of bad resource balance.

Besides, with the stated design intention to be protecting large player blobs, we were given hard evidence that this mechanic is intended to make playing as large blob nations easier in MP...something literally nobody has justified.

I'd argue that WC is both a goal and a playstyle.

When you play for WC there are certain things you need to specifically do that might alter someone's normal playstyle in order to achieve it. Nearly ever guide created by those responsible for achieving WC say similar things: Stop Russia. Stop Colonizers. Vassalize HRE and storm the world.

I don't normally like messing with the HRE or even doing anything more than joining it, but to make WC a possibility you're penalizing yourself greatly by not vassalizing the HRE.

 

[eon47]

I don't know, before long people will be arguing that Auvergne's diplo-annexation is in direct contrast to their pro-life values.

Sounds legit.

 

[Had a dad]

sigh

btw calling someone a troll is a trollish comment, PM a moderator if you think that there is a sock puppet account posting.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It does when it makes your other comments look more suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If you're going to constantly complain about this and that being slow but easy but then immediately bite someone's head off for saying something is slow but easy, you absolutely open yourself up to questioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you can assume that the player just isn't good enough to do a WC (which there actually isn't proof of either way), then why shouldn't someone assume that you're just not good enough to manage the new mechanics? Because you say they can't?

Because my actual arguments about the mechanics carry more than just that they make the game easier (including in this thread), should you care to ever address them. I've never assumed that someone "just isn't good enough for WC" either, just that hand-waving the accomplishment as "not hard, but tedious" minimizes the accomplishments of others without basis and that it reflects poorly on someone to try to minimize what others have achieved.

My points have shown anything but an inability to handle the mechanics. If anything, the mechanic in question has been added expressly because people controlling the strongest nations in the game in MP couldn't handle the previous mechanics.

Now, if a mechanic is going to introduce tedium, should it not have some merit? What is the merit of the truce time change again? Oh yeah, we're talking about my conduct on the forum because that's much easier than actually defending the change itself .

Again, not that different.

Minimizing the accomplishments of others is very different from attacking the function of a mechanic. When I have shown "vitrol" here it has been consistently in response to global insults to people with dissenting views or posters who quote me/others and then refuse to address the points put forth, sometimes even claiming they've done so. That will wear on a person.

If "it's classic to claim that something out of reach is 'boring, not hard,'" then that possibility is raised for you, too.

Were the sole basis of my argument tedium and the players arguing in favor of the mechanics were to show evidence of understanding + performing well in them, that possibility would have merit. However, I challenge you to find even one mechanic beyond basic UI that I've strongly argued against on this forum, ever, on the *sole* basis that it is tedious. In each case, I've also attacked the base function of the mechanic, generally pointing out that it either doesn't do what was intended or that its intention (such as protecting human blobs in a MP environment, which is an asinine goal at baseline) is questionable.

Something that adds tedium without adding anything useful to the game is a bad mechanic. Claiming the accomplishment of someone else is "not hard, but tedious" is a different stance entirely.

And on a sidenote of my own, you tend to throw in the word rationally in situations that really don't make sense. In the bold above, for example, you use it to criticize only one specific hard-set timer in a game comprised of a series of hard-set timers that abstractly and inevitably imperfectly represents real life. I get that it sounds authoritative, but to quote the Interwebz, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

How is it out of place in this context? Difficulty in a strategy game should come in challenging the choices a person makes and his execution of those choices. I did not phrase that argument well I admit; my point is that *if* you have a setup that trivializes the importance of these choices in favor of everyone waiting on the same timer regardless of said choices, then you have an irrational/poorly designed mechanic that undermines the choices the game is intended to create for the player.

In most cases, the truce changes don't actually constrain choice to that extent (in the rare situations they do, it's a bad change to the game), however they also fail at Johan's stated intent for them in most cases, and on top of that his stated intent for it is strange. In other words, this change has a small net negative in single player and an arguable large one in multiplayer (protecting only those with strong starts is odd; Johan has also said that most starts should be viable, so why buff the strongest nations in the game?).

No matter how much I say these things, however, I do not trivialize the accomplishments of others.

 

[eon47]

Nice links, but I hardly see how they apply here. Unless you get off your high horse to explain, I'm not even sure what false assumption you think I'm making for the first one. As for straw man, I'd have to make a false representation of your argument, and you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you find various mechanics tedious but not hard. Did I cast your opinion in a more negative light by using the word "complaining?" Yup, although it's not inaccurate. Did I say "constantly?" Yup, that's a slight exaggeration; I don't think you literally constantly complain about it. Did I use a strawman? Nope. More on this kind of tomfoolery at the bottom.

Because my actual arguments about the mechanics carry more than just that they make the game easier (including in this thread), should you care to ever address them. I've never assumed that someone "just isn't good enough for WC" either, just that hand-waving the accomplishment as "not hard, but tedious" minimizes the accomplishments of others without basis and that it reflects poorly on someone to try to minimize what others have achieved...
Now, if a mechanic is going to introduce tedium, should it not have some merit? What is the merit of the truce time change again? Oh yeah, we're talking about my conduct on the forum because that's much easier than actually defending the change itself .

I did address those points in that other topic. This is yet another topic and I'm making a different point, hence why I won't repeat all of that here. See? Now to get back on topic (relatively speaking), your comment certainly seems to imply that you assume they haven't WC'ed ("it's a good way to minimize the accomplishments of others" implying that the poster isn't among that number). Maybe you just phrased that poorly, but I only have your words to go on.

Now if you'd like to pretend that we're having a discussion from a different topic instead of addressing my original post, that's fine, but then realize that you're the one dodging my point, not the other way around. I suspect you've confused me with someone else on here again.

Minimizing the accomplishments of others is very different from attacking the function of a mechanic. When I have shown "vitrol" here it has been consistently in response to global insults to people with dissenting views or posters who quote me/others and then refuse to address the points put forth, sometimes even claiming they've done so. That will wear on a person.

You don't minimize the accomplishments of others, but you try to minimize the validity of their opinions all the time with bogus logical fallacy claims and by implying they're being irrational even when that's not the case (again, see the bottom). You also frequently employ broad language like a mechanic being "broken" rather than admitting that while you dislike it, other people are just fine with it--in other words, it hardly fits the definition of broken. Consequently, seeing you call out someone as rude for using the one sentence version of your own argument applied elsewhere is dubious. And all of that is assuming that the poster meant to insult other WCers rather than stating a legitimate opinion on gameplay.

Were the sole basis of my argument tedium and the players arguing in favor of the mechanics were to show evidence of understanding + performing well in them, that possibility would have merit. However, I challenge you to find even one mechanic beyond basic UI...
Something that adds tedium without adding anything useful to the game is a bad mechanic. Claiming the accomplishment of someone else is "not hard, but tedious" is a different stance entirely.

Not sure what UI is or for that matter what it has to do with anything. You do imply that the poster never WC'd again, though ("someone else"), so there is that.

How is it out of place in this context?
...
No matter how much I say these things, however, I do not trivialize the accomplishments of others.

Look at this sentence: "Difficulty constraints should rationally be on how well a player manages his resources vs opposition doing the same; a hard-set timer that overpowers that management is pretty strong evidence of bad resource balance." You're implying that anyone who favors this particular hard-set timer in the game comprised of hard-set timers (events, etc.) is consequently irrational. You throw that word around all the time to suggest that your opponents don't use logic. It's also why you misuse logical fallacies. The truth is that difficulty constraints shouldn't rationally do anything since there is no "rational" or "irrational" use of game mechanics to abstractly represent real life. There's just subjective opinions about the effectiveness of those abstractions, and all this rational talk is just intellectual intimidation.

Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so we should wind this down. I'll read your next post, and then we'll be done.

 

[ius]

Supposedly I am one of the new school players that was introduced to this game via CK2. I remember well the moment that for the first time I bought a DLC expansion. Out of many options, I picked The Republic. A couple of months later, almost a year ago now, EU4 was released. I vaguely remember playing a demo version of EU4 prior to release, one of the nations available was Venice, and ever since Venice has been my default nation of choice. On release day however, when the full game was revealed and I realized EU4 was not just limited to Europe nations, I got really excited and scrolled the map towards Northern America, here I picked the native american tribe of Creek, who were the very first nation I wanted to represent.

Never have I completed one game from start to finish, nor did I ever play as Austria or France for that matter. I have never achieved or intended to attempt World Conquest. Instead I like playing minorities, the republics, and more recent a theocracy.

Well, I want to thank Paradox for this amazing line up of released expansions, first Conquest of Paradise, then Wealth of Nations, and now Res Publica. All three have been right up in my alley. I am indeed less in favor of outright militaristic conquest and prefer diplomatic, political and economical influence.

Yeah, the mechanics added to natives in Conquest of Paradise are still a bit shallow, and Wealth of Nations has been quite disappointing in focusing mostly on trade compared to finance and banking, With no mechanics added to enrich the lending system, in fact i feel loans have been deprecated since patch 1.6.

Now there is Res Publica, to be honest, so far after a couple of hours testing, I must say I really enjoy playing my Venice. Finally I can have my legit god-tier dictator, even if he lasts just a while. With a lot of ducats in the wallet, and those precious white and blue friends, I still enjoy tearing up those rising Ottomans, vassalizing Byzantium, hell even the Templars want to join now, come to think of it, there has been coming to me one thing.

Is there a way / should there not be a way, in which one can 'steal' vassals? Hear me out, I was hovering over Athens, and collected they felt eager to join, however, they also felt loyal to Byzantium, I mean, I understand, the bloody world is scary when you are little, I would never want to support your independence right, but I wouldn't mind to "support your vassalization", sure, it might drag me into a damn war, but it could be a covert operation right, like supporting rebels, but then "support vassalization" flip or the sort, the small nation sorts it out by themselves, of course funded by my ducats.

And shouldn't a vassal's diplomatic relation not also be scaled by base tax, I mean why can I not hold 3 small OPM vassals for the cost of 1 diplomatic upkeep? Just as easy as I can feed a certain vassal to the size of 3 provinces, but need conquests in order to do so.

 

[Morricane]

Ignoring all this long discussion...

Only gripe about 1.7 so far is that they broke power projection.
Having a feature that you CAN'T USE is nonsense. It's impossible to even reach 50 no matter how aggressive you are against your rivals...which is certainly not intended.

I really like that in all my (abandoned ) games I tried in the last couple of days, the world turned out differently each time. Ottos annexing Hungary and Poland and half of Lithuania until 1560s was a sight to behold in one of them. Burgundy PU-ing Castille and thus surviving until I finally tag-teamed them with France (thus breaking up the union) was another nice thing I hadn't evr seen happening before...so yeah, I like it so far

 

[CzechKronner]

Ignoring all this long discussion...

Only gripe about 1.7 so far is that they broke power projection.
Having a feature that you CAN'T USE is nonsense. It's impossible to even reach 50 no matter how aggressive you are against your rivals...which is certainly not intended.

I really like that in all my (abandoned ) games I tried in the last couple of days, the world turned out differently each time. Ottos annexing Hungary and Poland and half of Lithuania until 1560s was a sight to behold in one of them. Burgundy PU-ing Castille and thus surviving until I finally tag-teamed them with France (thus breaking up the union) was another nice thing I hadn't evr seen happening before...so yeah, I like it so far

Send Privateers against your rivals. I get 60 PP for doing that to all three of them.

 

[yahiko]

What was primarily a kind of Historical Wargame with diplomacy, where the economical part was quite simple, it seems that Paradox is trying to turn Europa Universalis 4 into a Historical Empire Simulator which I think is a good choice since this is the only one game like that available on the market, if I'm correct.

If we compare the economical flavor in the very first release and now after Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations and Res Publica, Paradox is enhancing step by step EU4 internal management, even if some people, myself included, would like to observe a higher pace in those improvements.

The tax system is still too basic. We should for instance be able to define a tax rate against for instance a higher revolt risk, a higher liberty desire for colonial nations or a lower manpower, even if some people may consider building temples, courthouses and so on as a way to modelize this increased tax rate (but a player has no way to lower tax rate).

The production system is a little bit more interesting with the link between production and trade, with the concept of market share and bonus gained when we get the leadership. But this should be improved although I cannot see precisely where. But it is quite clear that excepted gold mines, the nature of goods produced in a province is not enough interesting to drive a whole diplomacy.

The trade system was the aspect which was improved the most with WoN and Res Publica. With privateers, trade companies, inland merchants, Trade CB and other little stuff, players have now a little bit more control on static trade routes. What could be interesting in the future would be to let the merchant to choose the direction of his trade steering. In case of antagonistic trade steering in an important node, this could really lead to big conflits between nations.

Whatsoever, I find quite courageous the Paradox policy which tries to bring major changes in each patches where they could simply add stupid stuffs like formable nations and new government forms.

 

[RMcD94]

Well, I want to thank Paradox for this amazing line up of released expansions, first Conquest of Paradise, then Wealth of Nations, and now Res Publica. All three have been right up in my alley. I am indeed less in favor of outright militaristic conquest and prefer diplomatic, political and economical influence.

Sometimes I wonder if we're playing the same game, "click person, send improve relations". Diplomatic interaction in this game is so shallow. You can't preplan wars with allies, or even set up what your alliance is about, you can't have multiway peace treaties like in reality, the great powers can't get together for a discussion on a PU of France with Austria and agree that it cannot be accepted and all band up to tell France to release Austria or the same with Burgundyww

Now there is Res Publica, to be honest, so far after a couple of hours testing, I must say I really enjoy playing my Venice. Finally I can have my legit god-tier dictator, even if he lasts just a while. With a lot of ducats in the wallet, and those precious white and blue friends, I still enjoy tearing up those rising Ottomans, vassalizing Byzantium, hell even the Templars want to join now, come to think of it, there has been coming to me one thing.

Wow ducats, you can do so much with those amirite! Click things in buildings for no noticable difference!

 

[jema]

Pretty sure this is a troll account.

Hi RMcD94!i don't understand troll..troll the "monster"?i'm a human like u...you are not a dragon,are you?

in fact there's nothing that relies on diplomacy more than becoming the HRE emperor.

???i had never talking about the HRE emperor!!are you ok????

Not to mention diplomacy in this game is pretty terrible anyway, amounting to clicking a few buttons and being best friends with a nation, a friendship which can be made meaningless at the slightest thing and doesn't actually get you anything like trade benefits or you know stuff that actually happens in reality from being friends with other countries.

Blablabla....................................boring...........and???

WC, especially now, requires the most use out of guarantees, casus belli of all kinds.

ok!here is the problem.First i'm not english speaker,please don't play with words.Try to understand the main idea,put the good words in good place.ok,let's try...You said that garantees and cb are here to justify your WC,but this is the opposite!EU4 is a realistic game,with(as possible..) a realistic world design to play with.But WC is not realistic.We have to share the world.and we have diplomatics actions to manipulate our circle of acquaintances.So,for me,EU4 is a game of sharing,a game of influence.WC Is in complete disagreement with this philosophy of playing.So WC kill the spirit of the game.Of course we can extend,but we can't have all the power for us.You see?I saw that you had ck2..it's the same design!!You can't have all the tittles for you,you have to share with others guys.It's the same philosophy.You see?I hope i was clear..

 

[RMcD94]

Hi RMcD94!i don't understand troll..troll the "monster"?i'm a human like u...you are not a dragon,are you? ???i had never talking about the HRE emperor!!are you ok????Blablabla....................................boring...........and???ok!here is the problem.First i'm not english speaker,please don't play with words.Try to understand the main idea,put the good words in good place.ok,let's try...You said that garantees and cb are here to justify your WC,but this is the opposite!EU4 is a realistic game,with(as possible..) a realistic world design to play with.But WC is not realistic.We have to share the world.and we have diplomatics actions to manipulate our circle of acquaintances.So,for me,EU4 is a game of sharing,a game of influence.WC Is in complete disagreement with this philosophy of playing.So WC kill the spirit of the game.Of course we can extend,but we can't have all the power for us.You see?I saw that you had ck2..it's the same design!!You can't have all the tittles for you,you have to share with others guys.It's the same philosophy.You see?I hope i was clear..

Becoming the Emperor is the most common way to world conquest.

Guarantees and CBs are used the most in a WC play, if you want to play France and not WC you never have to use the variances of CBs and guarantees ever.

I mean I know if I just play a usual colonising Castille game I don't ever have to use guarantees, ever. I'd wager most people never use them. The only reason I'll ever declare war will be the Colonial Casus Belli, etc.

In CK2 you can play by going super over your demense limit and holding every title.

You realise there are achievements for WCing, stating that they go against the spirit of the game makes for those being very poor design choices for whoever made them in that case. Also, I have a hard time believing there is a spirit of this game, it's most certainly not roleplaying a country in the time period, the AI doesn't do that, players don't do it.

If it's a game of influence then world conquest is the highest point of that, you are never more influential when the entire world population bows to your rule.

 

[Freudia]

EU4 is a realistic game

It's not. It has its basis in history but the moment you unpause the game veers to unhistorical.

,with(as possible..) a realistic world design to play with.

It's realistic enough until you get to the part where you have magic numbers that guide everything you do just because. A lot of things that would make for a realistic world design are abstracted to the point where it's hard to put an actual intrinsic meaning to them. Base tax for example is not a direct correlation to population (otherwise the city of Vijayanagar would have a much higher base tax than 2), and it's not a correlation to the efficiency to tax people (Otherwise Ming wouldn't have good base taxes). What does base tax actually mean?

But WC is not realistic.

So now that we've established that the game isn't realistic once you unpause, and that it is full of abstractions that muddy whatever realism is left, I see nothing wrong with WC being possible.

We have to share the world.and we have diplomatics actions to manipulate our circle of acquaintances.

But most of this is literally just 'click button, watch timer', especially in the case of diplomats. Your diplomats don't actually do any actual diplomacy; they just 'improve relations', which translates to sit around on a timer, when placed in a vacuum. However, most players will be doing this while they're doing other things (including conquering their neighbors) so it's not as obvious of a timer as one would think.

So,for me,EU4 is a game of sharing,a game of influence.

This is fine that you view it as such, but at its heart it's a game primarily about conquest and expanding your domain. I'm pretty sure that, if given the chance, Spain or England or Portugal would have gobbled up all of the New World. The reason it didn't happen was because of logistical problems, not because of good-will and sharing.

WC Is in complete disagreement with this philosophy of playing.

Well, the only thing that stopped Napoleon from doing so was failing in Russia.

So WC kill the spirit of the game.Of course we can extend,but we can't have all the power for us.

But why? There's no internal management, there's no logistics, there's nothing that actually explicitly causes problems by having an incredibly unrealistic amount of land. You don't run a higher risk of imploding just for having more territory.

I saw that you had ck2..it's the same design!!You can't have all the tittles for you,you have to share with others guys.It's the same philosophy.You see?I hope i was clear..

No, you definitely can have all the titles for yourself. That doesn't mean it's a good idea (because you piss off all your vassals by doing so), but it's possible.

 

[Mgoblue201]

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?

I'm not convinced that the new truce timer is a huge advantage to major powers. The cost of completely occupying big nations is often too prohibitively high, in terms of money, manpower, etc, to make it worth the effort, whereas there was really no reason not to fully occupy a lesser power if you can do it, simply because it's a trivial matter to accomplish. Once Bohemia's army is completely defeated, for example, then its capacity to fight is gone; the rational thing in most instances is to then occupy them 100% and try to milk the peace deal for everything you can get, even if it's of marginal benefit to you. At least now, there is an obvious cost-benefit to milking a peace deal. Of course, it may not work out that way, but I see no reason to doubt Paradox's word on this at the moment.

Another factor to consider is that major powers already have the disproportionate ability to recover from war. Under the old system, a major power like France toward the end of the game could easily rebuild a formidable army (say, at least 100k) by the time the five year truce expired, especially if they also supplement that with mercenaries. That is especially true if you have lucky nations enabled (which I always do); playing on ironman, it's very rare to see a major power get partitioned over a short span of time. True, a small nation isn't going to recover once it's been defeated no matter how long truces last, but a secondary power or aspiring power might get greater utility out of it, because they have less margin for error than great powers and need more time to rebuild a large army.

 

[RMcD94]

Obviously it has just been a few games Mgoblue but I would say in my experience that blobs have been blobbing more this patch. I understand the developers will have statistics of countries and province sizes over time, so if the average province size for France this patch at 1600 is higher than last time I guess we'll know. Shame they keep that data under wraps, if I ran a country I'd love to let all the statistical goodness public, then (if we were right) we wouldn't have any whining since we could just point to data and there would be far less arguments.

I really wonder why the implemented lucky nations at all, what were the tests like before hand that they didn't like? I've never seen France be broken up in any game ever, unless by a player in all my time playing EU4.

 

[Freudia]

The cost of completely occupying big nations is often too prohibitively high, in terms of money, manpower, etc, to make it worth the effort,

Not really; the hardest part is getting the initial stackwipe; after that you just put a unit on every single province they can build from, regardless of whether it's enough men to siege that province. After that you siege down provinces incrementally. Not that hard, and typically not that resource-intensive if you're fighting a major power as a nation of respectable size.

whereas there was really no reason not to fully occupy a lesser power if you can do it, simply because it's a trivial matter to accomplish. Once Bohemia's army is completely defeated, for example, then its capacity to fight is gone; the rational thing in most instances is to then occupy them 100% and try to milk the peace deal for everything you can get, even if it's of marginal benefit to you.

There still is no reason not to fully occupy a lesser power. The AI is too stubborn to peace out of wars they're losing until they're pretty much at least 60% sieged down, and if you get that far you might as well go all the way.

At least now, there is an obvious cost-benefit to milking a peace deal. Of course, it may not work out that way, but I see no reason to doubt Paradox's word on this at the moment.

Except you're punished for winning a war and taking anything at all. Remember, 5 year truce is if you take nothing.

The biggest problems with the change is that 1) It's balanced in a vacuum, when the game doesn't play in a vacuum, and 2) It makes some starts unfairly tedious.

The reason it's a poor change in regards to balance is that it plays out assuming that every war is a 1v1 affair with no other nations existing. The AI and especially other players will mob nations that are threats that are also losing a war badly, thus preventing the nation that lost their war from recovering to begin with unless they're a very large nation with a very robust economy, and even then players that are half-decent will prevent said nation from rebuilding any forces at all, or at least prevent said forces from grouping up.

In regards to some starts being unfairly tedious, nations like Scotland have exactly one target until they unify the Island, so 15 year truce timers where you take what makes you stronger while also making your target weaker is brutal on the fun factor.

 

[jema]

Becoming the Emperor is the most common way to world conquest.

.hre have a special place in eu4,and that's change nothing.

Guarantees and CBs are used the most in a WC play, if you want to play France and not WC you never have to use the variances of CBs and guarantees ever.

France is not the only country.try another part of the world,i agreed some options are better for some country,but that's change nothing for my first post.

I mean I know if I just play a usual colonising Castille game I don't ever have to use guarantees, ever. I'd wager most people never use them. The only reason I'll ever declare war will be the Colonial Casus Belli, etc.

I never try castille,like for france i'm ok to say that some options are more useful for certain countries

You realise there are achievements for WCing

You mean steam's achievements?steam's achievements aren't the paradox's achievements..I had includes that you say,the game is not completed,but that's change nothing for my first post.have a good day