The reason Wiz gave in the stream was that it didn't make sense...
Just looking through the patch notes I can see changes made for similar reasons, though obviously none of them at the expense of fun or balance.
PU's being Christian only now - Why?
- Thread starter Red John
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The reason Wiz gave in the stream was that it didn't make sense...
Just looking through the patch notes I can see changes made for similar reasons, though obviously none of them at the expense of fun or balance.
There are like three hundred mechanics aimed at slowing the player and stopping them going right back to war, oe ae manpower and truces. Money too since wars are expensive, adjust everything else and you won't need truces.
Or truces should be part of a peace deal which reduces ae, also they should still be two way
The way PUs are currently implemented is bad. It affects gameplay if one of the big 8 gets in a PU with a smaller partner, esp. when this happens early in the game. They do f**k all, removing a major threat from the game, while everyone around them blobs, thus making the game less challenging. Lesser partners, esp. if big, should have more diplo-action choices.
You can't claim truce time changes add realism, because that would look terrible.
However, the gameplay argument got shot down worse than clay pigeons near a 12 gauge. The current implementation of truces does not hold up from a gameplay standpoint, as it does not alter the war incentive structure in a material fashion, and it protects large nations and coalition targets alike (while making continued expansion slower). Thus, it tends to be a giant status-quo mechanic...extremely difficult to defend in the gameplay sense expressly because it limits threat and grinds down pacing while protecting only the larger nations (smaller ones can still be full annexed or crippled in a single war).
In contrast, this change holds some realism elements and, if they allow diplovassals between non-Christian faiths, a real variation in gameplay by region as well. This change shouldn't be compared to the truce garbage, unless you're attempting to compare a defensible and possibly useful change to a terrible one that even the devs couldn't defend effectively. I couldn't put the same argumentative pressure on the devs for this change precisely because it has a lot more merit.
That said, more changes than not in the past 3 patches have actively made the game less realistic, including but not limited to:
- Virtually eliminating scaling of war score against large countries
- Hiking AE without altering coalition functionality
- Exile on DoW with military access
- Fleet basing rights and colonial range
- Truce timer
- Making scorched earth more damaging in India than Siberia
- Preventing nations like Kazan and Muscovy from being rivals, ever.
- Juicing merchant republics in a time period where they were in decline (though this decline had much to do with rise to Ottomans + East India route, it's still awkward to juice a historical failure)
- Blocking new wars in HRE during war with the emperor, such that there are situations where an outside nation can't possibly dismantle the HRE simply because the emperor doesn't ally electors.
- Buffing rebels and their size, to the point where a single revolt can outnumber the maximum force limit of a nation for smaller nations.
- Implementing strong nationalism as a concept in 1444.
You could make a case for some of these in the gameplay sense, and for others everyone who has tried to defend them in either the gameplay sense or the realism sense has failed. However, realism as a significant driver for patch changes has not been evident for several patches. If this change improves realism and adds a new gameplay consideration, it's a welcome one.
There are some things about this patch that scare me like hell, but I've seen a lot of good things in 1.8 announcements also.
Horde can be lesser or major partner in a PU. In theory Oirat can get union over Ming. Or Korea getting Ming. Timurids going under Ottomans. Etc.
Because theyget interfaith relationships instead and as well it was rather game- and realism-breaking to see the Ottomans in PU under some random horde.
they explained the logic in the stream in simple English.
twice.
it didn't make sense for them to have PU outside of europe because 1. it never happened outside of europe, and the only examples that were 'close' to it happening were close-ER to regular vassalizations.
so they set it to primarily european christian, (eastern western techs).
because of this...we still do not know FOR CERTAIN if westernized governments of non-european nations can get into PU with eachother/europowers.
But up to this point, it wouldnt matter. Christians were the only ones who really refused to marry outside of their religious group, and the reason was they were the only ones who really had the danger of a throne being inheireted through a personal union.
That was explained like almost word for word.
:L
twice.
it didn't make sense for them to have PU outside of europe because 1. it never happened outside of europe, and the only examples that were 'close' to it happening were close-ER to regular vassalizations.
so they set it to primarily european christian, (eastern western techs).
because of this...we still do not know FOR CERTAIN if westernized governments of non-european nations can get into PU with eachother/europowers.
But up to this point, it wouldnt matter. Christians were the only ones who really refused to marry outside of their religious group, and the reason was they were the only ones who really had the danger of a throne being inheireted through a personal union.
That was explained like almost word for word.
:L
Oh oh. I can do that.
Truce time was put there because of the nonstop expansion mode was more unrealistic than anything else, unless you can point me to any point in history between 1444 and 1821 that a nation nonstop expanded.
people who play this game thinking it is 100% conquest by force of arms and then argue about how its unrealistic to not be able to railroad russian boarders straight to france's doorstep need to take a step back, breathe in, and realize that Europa Universalis is not Total War.
Most of the games features are peace based.
Constant expansion? How are you going to fund the adm points to raise your tech and core provinces?
Maybe you'll benefit from the (LATE GAME) addition of imperalism casus bellis. a casus belli on everyone, indefinitely. Still though, you need a truce.
For realistic assimilation of conquered lands AND for gameplay mechanics (unless you are a cheater who fills up their MP with console or a trainer.)
Seem like perfectly valid and well implemented reasons to me... Funny how opinion differs so greatly between people trying to play Genghis Khan Sim and EU4.
no but seriously, those reasons make sense and if you don't see how, it's because you are trying to avoid admitting that the dev's are capable of reasonable patches because it means you have to relearn how to get away with hyperexpansion while simultaneously going on about how 'realism is being removed' from your genocide simulator. :S !~!
the attitude was a response to your own, and I have no ill feelings for you or anyone else here.
It's set by religious groups. Tech levels have nothing to do with it.
Using unrealistic mechanics to stop unrealistic results does not make the game more realistic. You can't point me to times in history where the things I cited happened, and you can't do that for a reason. Your argument would be different if you instead suggested the real difficulties of expansion be used to block unrealistic expansion, but the point I'm quoting here is a fat red herring, disguising that you can't actually demonstrate the truce timers are realistic after all.
Also, this is not the developer-stated reasoning for truce time.
Non-sequitor nonsense. If you have a point to make, then make it. So far, you've neither refuted my assertion of the mechanics listed being unrealistic nor actually provided what any one of them adds to gameplay, except for the nebulous "unrealistic mechanic to stop unrealistic result by creating another unrealistic result", which refutes nothing.
Posting a string of nonsense that ignores the point I made and then claiming it makes sense does not mean it does, in fact, make sense. Try again.
Feel free to demonstrate that's the case any time
.Likewise. I don't hold ill personal feelings for the most part, aside from the occasional annoyance of gross inaccuracy/lies. You've done no such thing though, so even if you post nonsense it's not like it's personal
.
I can think of 1 historical example of a PU outside Europe: the union of Ayutthaya and Sukhothai. It's represented in vanilla in 1444. It's actually really annoying because you can't integrate Sukhothai for quite a long time, making your borders look terrible and wasting a diplomatic relation slot on an incredibly weak vassal. No love lost there.
Well, Ottomans in PU under a Horde isn't unrealistic as you think it is. I don't remember the details but there was a time Janissaries didn't like the current Padishah but can't decide about the successor. Main candidates were a daughter of Padishah and the Khan of Crimea. Should they choose the Khan instead of postpone the coup, Ottomans would be PU under a Giray's rule.
This game isn't historic in many aspects. Unless PI gives non western countries something else to compensate the lack of PU, it's cutting down contents. Removing something from a specific group while leaving it for tohers because it's ahistoric is a lousy excuse.
East Asian should have tributary system since they already can't be defender of faith, for instance.
These are attempts to make the game more fun/balanced at the expense of realism and that's true whether they succeed or not. The argument here isn't about the quality of the changes, but the reasoning behind their implementation.
Nothing here suggests that Paradox doesn't care about realism, it just agrees with my earlier statement that gameplay trumps realism from a developer standpoint.
It's entirely possible for Paradox to strive for realism and gameplay at the same time. The vast majority of nations are historical, most events are historical, all the religions in the game also exist in the real world, and the map of the world even looks like our world. That said, some things are also balanced for gameplay, like conquests that only took one war requiring several, and there are other things that are a result of humans trying to balance gameplay and realism that don't really capture either very well, like the dreaded truce timers. Humans are in charge of the game, so bad calls are inevitable, and in any case, a lot of this is subjective.
That said, to point out one instance of historical inaccuracy and suggest that the game doesn't attempt at least in part to be realistic requires intentionally ignoring the many parts of the game that do try to be realistic. So yeah, making it impossible for Oman to have a personal with the Timurids because realism is a perfectly acceptable argument, Mehmet and his men be damned.
That said, to point out one instance of historical inaccuracy and suggest that the game doesn't attempt at least in part to be realistic requires intentionally ignoring the many parts of the game that do try to be realistic. So yeah, making it impossible for Oman to have a personal with the Timurids because realism is a perfectly acceptable argument, Mehmet and his men be damned.
I quite like this change, honestly. PU's are definitely a very much European concept, grounded in European succession laws. The ability to do interfaith RMs for diplovassaling and getting alliances is a nice buff to the ROTW, and muslim nations barely ever got any PUs thanks to their +100% heir chance anyway. Plus stuff like Oirat getting a PU over Japan was just kind of silly.
I imagine that at least part of it is to prevent the issue of Ming PUing Sibir or something equally silly due to RMing Oirat and getting their dynasty, then randomly getting a PU with a horde that happened to also have that dynasty.
And of course, with interfaith RMs, you'd get even more silly PUs and people complaining "Vijayanagar PU'd Mali, so unrealistic NERF NERF NERF" (of course while settling deep in North America in 1580 and failing to see the irony).
And of course, with interfaith RMs, you'd get even more silly PUs and people complaining "Vijayanagar PU'd Mali, so unrealistic NERF NERF NERF" (of course while settling deep in North America in 1580 and failing to see the irony).
Well, that quite brakes all the fun of the whole dynasty game for pretty much 80% of nations. Makes me quite sad.
Btw, you still likely won't be able to vassalize nations with different religion as there's a -1000 modifier fr different religious group.
Btw, you still likely won't be able to vassalize nations with different religion as there's a -1000 modifier fr different religious group.
Only fun thing to do in this game is war. That's why you can find so many threads asking for more stuff to do in peace.
Sometimes I wonder if people that posts here is actually playing EU4.