Please dont nerf corruption, Add the option to turn it off

[vipic]

Whoever is suggesting not teching Mil, doesn't really understand how the combat works and specifically how important Tactics level is.

No after 2500 hours I know quite a bit about the mil tree. There are certain benchmark levels that are important and others not so much. So there are times you will want to pay the tech imbalance and times you wont.

You can fall behind in tech especially if you have mil ideas and still survive although it is tough. Its back to the, you cant have everything, if you want that massive expansion you're going to have to pay something. Whether its lower mil tech, only keeping territories, not annexing vassals as soon and letting them grow larger, or sacrificing a percentage of your economy to corruption.

 

[Korashy]

You still have inflation because the price increases have already happened. The inflation listed is a stock, not a flow. It's a cumulative total of the price increases in your empire.

The listing of "inflation" is somewhat of a misnomer because we think of inflation as a flow and not a stock. It'd be more accurate to call it "price level" but it's easier to call it inflation.

I really depends on how you look at it. Spain getting Gold from the New World rightly increases inflation, as money is entered into the system, decreasing it's value compared to goods that still have the same scarcity. Spain now paying 3k ducats to Russia in a lost war, rightly increases Russia's inflation for the same reason. However, it should decrease the inflation in Spain because raw currency has now increased in scarcity compared to goods, increasing the value of the money compared to the goods (leading to a drop in prices of goods).

 

[Korashy]

No after 2500 hours I know quite a bit about there mil tree. There are certain benchmark levels that are important and others not so much. So there are times you will want to pay the tech imbalance and times you wont.

You can fall behind in tech especially if you have mil ideas and still survive although it is tough. Its back to the, you cant have everything, if you want that massive expansion you're going to have to pay something. Whether its lower mil tech, only keeping territories, not annexing vassals as soon and letting them grow larger, or sacrificing a percentage of your economy to corruption.

Those break points almost always center around either tactics level, or a massive increase in fire stat for Artillery or Infantry. You don't always have to be on the bleeding edge, but you do have make the breakpoints, or you'll be wrecked.

 

[vipic]

Those break points almost always center around either tactics level, or a massive increase in fire stat for Artillery or Infantry. You don't always have to be on the bleeding edge, but you do have make the breakpoints, or you'll be wrecked.

Ya like 17 which give you a small bonus to Calvary and absolutely nothing else. That one always confused me as its called flintlock muskets, you'd think flintlock muskets would make awesome things happen.

Nope, apparently not.

 

[Korashy]

Ya like 17 which give you a small bonus to Calvary and absolutely nothing else. That one always confused me as its called flintlock muskets, you'd think flintlock muskets would make awesome things happen.

Nope, apparently not.

Pretty sure, it used to give something else. I think you got a building for leader without upkeep on 17. It's been a while.

Also in the past, different groups got new Units and Moral/Tactics at different Techs.

 

[brifbates]

Those break points almost always center around either tactics level, or a massive increase in fire stat for Artillery or Infantry. You don't always have to be on the bleeding edge, but you do have make the breakpoints, or you'll be wrecked.

If you try to fight against the break points it's bad news, yes. However, in most cases it's not difficult to avoid wars against the break points that are actually close enough, numerically, for the extra losses to actually matter.

 

[oblio-]

there is something delightfully Keynesian about that

you people are actually doing something I thought impossible, actually making me somewhat excited to play this patch

Ummm... there is always a way. Paradox isn't known for running a tight ship, mechanics and coding wise, and we outnumber them 100:1 at least.

You give up waaaaay too easily

 

[Korashy]

If you try to fight against the break points it's bad news, yes. However, in most cases it's not difficult to avoid wars against the break points that are actually close enough, numerically, for the extra losses to actually matter.

Sure. As an experience player who understands how combat works, it's not too bad. But a few months ago, we were still calculating and arguing the army composition. Someone with 200 hours, mostly in Europe, may not necessarily understand all that.

 

[grommile]

It cost me $5 (or $6) for Common Sense. Surely you could have bought it on sale at some point in the past six months by now. I think you can be so lazy on Steam that you can mark a game as "of interest" and you'll get a message when it's on sale.

I do not want to encourage "take away a use for MIL monarch points, and put its replacement behind a paywall" by paying for the most egregious instance of its occurrence.

 

[Drusain]

It cost me $5 (or $6) for Common Sense. Surely you could have bought it on sale at some point in the past six months by now. I think you can be so lazy on Steam that you can mark a game as "of interest" and you'll get a message when it's on sale.

The answer for being able to play the game's basic mechanics shouldn't be "buy DLC"

This is the crux of the problem with the DLC model that gets pushed so hard. Especially when purchasing DLC actually will create extra trouble, like this new MN "Regicide" event that randomly kills your ruler and your reward is a CB that will likely expire before you're out of regency.

 

[Laureolus]

The answer for being able to play the game's basic mechanics shouldn't be "buy DLC"

Things were better when it was just an expansion every 12-18 months.

 

[Korashy]

Things were better when it was just an expansion every 12-18 months.

No they weren't. EUIV has amazing content support, sometimes the content just sucks.

 

[Lot]

4 clicks per province is bad, I'd love to have a button in the province interface to just assign to closest vassal.

There already is a decent interface for adding provinces to a subject nation, it's the client state interface.

 

[Beagá]

If you try to fight against the break points it's bad news, yes. However, in most cases it's not difficult to avoid wars against the break points that are actually close enough, numerically, for the extra losses to actually matter.

Ok but thing is, both smart players AND the AI do rush military tech sometimes.

It´s one thing to fight a war while needing one month to get plus +1 military tech. Another is fighting a war for 3 years with that difference because someone put military focus, had a 5 or 6 MIL king... while the first player was forced to use harsh treatment a lot and had a 1 or 2 MIL.

It´s a situation where RNG for kings can be nasty. But it´s ok with me.

 

[Musthavename]

Corruption is the main reason I have no interest in playing a 1.16 game or buying Mare Nostrum. I just can't stand the idea of a mechanic which does nothing other than punish players for problems that they are already punished for in other ways (overextension, religious unity, behind in tech, etc...).

 

[Ritmas]

Weren't things like 15 year truces, revanchism, and unconditional surrender (things I didn't agree with because they protect blobs exclusively) implemented exactly to combat spirals?

Implemented, done and forgotten. Just like development, ZoC and other "features" that could be actual features if pdox bothered to make it more than a concept. But hey, gotta work on another half-assed $15 dlc and worry not it will have some kewl new unique ideas for all south americans and like this time totally fixed blobbing and shitty naval AI and the trade system will be super involving with this new slider being added and you won't totally ignore it after 50years, pinky swear.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Out of curiosity, how large of a tech spread is required to start adding corruption? I personally haven't encountered it yet, at least not in a significant enough to notice way.

At 2 techs, it starts. Around 6 techs, it's half your income.

As grommile says, the "tradeoff" this creates in ROTW is a false choice. You necessarily fall behind in tech if you play the game at all, which leads to post-westernization scenarios of funneling all of your money into avoiding paying even more monarch points (themselves a resource with limited agency) than the thousands you just paid, to still be at a disadvantage were you to actually fight anybody who didn't go through the process.

Remember back then when you played in India, or China, or Subsaharan Africa and you had -1 monarch points because "you're not western, screw you"?

Yes, we remember, because that's what corruption is doing in practice.

Ummm... there is always a way. Paradox isn't known for running a tight ship, mechanics and coding wise, and we outnumber them 100:1 at least.
You give up waaaaay too easily

The end question is "does micromanaging against this nonsense fun"? There is something in meeting spite with spite, with regards to bypassing the intention of the mechanic. However, the novelty of that rapidly dies out and then you're left with tedious micromanagement to bypass a mechanic that should never have existed in its present form, its issues called out long before it made release.

 

[Korashy]

New DLC policy should just allow the community to throw stuff behind the paywall. That way we can not buy the DLC and 's all good.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

The end question is "does micromanaging against this nonsense fun"? There is something in meeting spite with spite, with regards to bypassing the intention of the mechanic. However, the novelty of that rapidly dies out and then you're left with tedious micromanagement to bypass a mechanic that should never have existed in its present form, its issues called out long before it made release.

Spot on, micromanaging around nonsense of this magnitude does not seem fun at least not for me (but it is possible).

 

[Vourtigaunt]

Am I the only one who does not have a problem with Corruption? I've played for ~100 years now and I barely have to spend an effort to keep it down. I don't think it EVER rose above 5. Is it my way of playing (I don't really consider myself conservative when it comes to conquering) or what am I missing here?