Recent Changes have made the game less fun, lets discuss

[csward53]

The past few years for EU4 have been extremely rocky balance wise. It feels like many balance changes have been big swings back and forth, breaking the game. Lets discuss the current issues:

1. Performance is awful (again). This is in part due to the AI development problem I'll go into, but the code needs to be optimized. There's now lag mid game for pop-ups, along with the usual lag. I have way over what is required to run this with a 2080ti, Core i7 @ 3.7 ghz, and 48 gb of DDR4 3000 mhz ram. Not the best ever, but I can imagine others struggling to run this.

2. To make the AI "manage their money" better, it was decided to give them God mode. They cheat. Hard. The have money to build multiple forts always fully upgraded (next to each other ), tier 3 trade centers, full army and navys (With more heavys than a player richer than the AI could afford), and with go above the force limit with mercs. They also can develop their provinces to a crazy degree (many cities bigger than the "envy of the world" Constantinople), while having no issues keeping up on tech. Please tone down the cheats for the AI.

3. The game's pacing is a slog. TONs of forts. AI always up to date in tech, even in remote areas. AI buys lots of merc armies with loans (i think, they never have money troubles for long). Do institutions even matter anymore for the AI? No. Also, all of the highly developed provinces makes coring take a ton of admin points and take for ever to complete; don't even mention the aggressive expansion. Please tone down the cheats or go back to how it was. Oh, and the AI ALWAYS bombards your forts and it just serves to lengthen the war because the problem with too many forts (forts come back to full force with walls repaired way too fast imho).

4. Certain game aspects are broken. For example, even though every member of a war is not defeated, you still start to get huge war exhaustion penalties because sometimes the game thinks the war is over, despite a strong member remaining with high enthusiasm. The war AI is still bad. Why is the AI leaving trails of men to get ambushed? Why is the AI moving and then canceling over and over? Why is the AI afraid to take on rebels they can easily beat? Why does the AI sometime sit there and allow you to kill them for no good reason? The list goes on, but taken as a whole, it hurts the fun factor.

5. Colonization is broken. Native tribes are too big, too powerful, and too developed. There are too many of them in Australia and North America. Please go back to the old way. Please make the wasteland in Africa colonizable. Please make European powers go for the Far East/India. Oh wait they can't because the Far East is more powerful than them now .

Looks the game doesn't even play the time period as advertised anymore. It's some kind of fantasy game where everyone lives in Constantinople. It's not any harder, it's just more annoying and even less realistic to play. Thanks for trying Paradox Tinto, but it's time to go back to the drawing board. Anyone else have feedback to add?

 

[durbal]

'Recent' to you must mean the past 4 years then?

 

[Retrac910]

I disagree almost categorically. The performance is kind of bad, but not worse than previous patches. The wartime AI does stutter a bit too.
The AI was not given any more cheats to handle money to my knowledge. The AI should be able to do everything the player can do, and with the right setup, the player can absolutely afford all of those things. Have you tabbed into a country while they have these 'insane' amount of forts and boats? Are they actually financially suffering?
AI should merc up in wars. They also only build a standing army for wars so the regular figure will be lower. This is partly how they save money.
The AI should be able to develop their land like a player can. Why should the player be the only one allowed to make use of one of the strongest features in the game?
Forts are rough, but valuable. I like how the AI builds them (but placement could be a tad more strategic)
Don't let native tribes get big next to your colonies. Fight them first and you'll find their troops are kinda paper. They only crush your colonies if you aren't paying attention and don't give your colonies support. (by enforcing peace and the like).

They changed the AI and battle mechanics, so the game is going to feel a little different. Once they get the AI to stop standing still in war it'll be fine.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

You lost me at "AI cheats."

 

[MachopPower69]

I disagree almost categorically. The performance is kind of bad, but not worse than previous patches. The wartime AI does stutter a bit too.
The AI was not given any more cheats to handle money to my knowledge. The AI should be able to do everything the player can do, and with the right setup, the player can absolutely afford all of those things. Have you tabbed into a country while they have these 'insane' amount of forts and boats? Are they actually financially suffering?
AI should merc up in wars. They also only build a standing army for wars so the regular figure will be lower. This is partly how they save money.
The AI should be able to develop their land like a player can. Why should the player be the only one allowed to make use of one of the strongest features in the game?
Forts are rough, but valuable. I like how the AI builds them (but placement could be a tad more strategic)
Don't let native tribes get big next to your colonies. Fight them first and you'll find their troops are kinda paper. They only crush your colonies if you aren't paying attention and don't give your colonies support. (by enforcing peace and the like).

They changed the AI and battle mechanics, so the game is going to feel a little different. Once they get the AI to stop standing still in war it'll be fine.

The issue with Natives is that you have to be careful when conquering land from them because if you full annex them, you only get one province. And they can also abuse the federation and tribal land mechanics which is annoying. And I think tribal development also affects war score on provinces

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

1. No opinion. Haven't had any issues with the latest patches.

2. Where are those patch notes about new AI cheats?
The fact the AI builds forts now is good. Restricting this to players again is a step back. If sieges are unfun then maybe some changes to that system should be in order, but no one is complaining about players being able to build lots of forts so it's more I don't like if the AI is doing something I am doing.

3. See 2

4. I haven't seen AI being afraid of rebels. In fact in my games they are assuming I am following them and engaging much bigger rebel troops. Also in my latest games the attachment of allies works just fine (maybe it's in they walk through the same province as the army they are meant to attach to and they need to be smaller). It seems a bit random though and from two latest DD there seem to be improvements in the pipeline.
So can't really agree or disagree here.

5. Australian natives should be removed.
North American natives should be tuned down. There are bugs with native land which are hopefully being fixed.
No wasteland should not be made into more provinces. In fact more provinces should be made into wasteland since outside of small hinter gathered tribes these areas where uncolonizable . This also completely disregards your first point as devs have pointed out that number of provinces and tags impacts performance to notice sure where you are going with this one.

 

[MachopPower69]

1. No opinion. Haven't had any issues with the latest patches.

2. Where are those patch notes about new AI cheats?
The fact the AI builds forts now is good. Restricting this to players again is a step back. If sieges are unfun then maybe some changes to that system should be in order, but no one is complaining about players being able to build lots of forts so it's more I don't like if the AI is doing something I am doing.

3. See 2

4. I haven't seen AI being afraid of rebels. In fact in my games they are assuming I am following them and engaging much bigger rebel troops. Also in my latest games the attachment of allies works just fine (maybe it's in they walk through the same province as the army they are meant to attach to and they need to be smaller). It seems a bit random though and from two latest DD there seem to be improvements in the pipeline.
So can't really agree or disagree here.

5. Australian natives should be removed.
North American natives should be tuned down. There are bugs with native land which are hopefully being fixed.
No wasteland should not be made into more provinces. In fact more provinces should be made into wasteland since outside of small hinter gathered tribes these areas where uncolonizable . This also completely disregards your first point as devs have pointed out that number of provinces and tags impacts performance to notice sure where you are going with this one.

With 5, I can say that the way PDX made Aussie natives seems too unplausable. Aboriginals never had centralised leadership. Sure they had elders, but they were as major as a family member. And they were too decentralised that it would make the Jurchen tribes centralised.

 

[Nostalgium]

The fact the AI builds forts now is good. Restricting this to players again is a step back. If sieges are unfun then maybe some changes to that system should be in order,

I'm a firm backer of the idea that now that AI builds forts (like they should), incremental increases in siege ability should come at keystone MIL techs to keep pace with the fortifications. This would also further increase pressure on old fortifications, incentivizing players to upgrade, which is pretty much optional at this point unless you're fighting someone significantly stronger than you.

 

[csward53]

'Recent' to you must mean the past 4 years then?

More or less.

 

[csward53]

You lost me at "AI cheats."

Well the AI always cheats. They know where you are in the fog of war for example if you need proof. They have to cheat, it's the way it is, but this is about the degree. I don't know any other way to explain their ability to develop all of their province 20 or more higher than base and keep up on tech, afford large armies and many redundant forts. Maybe all they are doing is investing their mana, but it's too universal across different countries for me to believe the weren't given extra mana or ducats. I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[csward53]

I disagree almost categorically. The performance is kind of bad, but not worse than previous patches. The wartime AI does stutter a bit too.
The AI was not given any more cheats to handle money to my knowledge. The AI should be able to do everything the player can do, and with the right setup, the player can absolutely afford all of those things. Have you tabbed into a country while they have these 'insane' amount of forts and boats? Are they actually financially suffering?
AI should merc up in wars. They also only build a standing army for wars so the regular figure will be lower. This is partly how they save money.
The AI should be able to develop their land like a player can. Why should the player be the only one allowed to make use of one of the strongest features in the game?
Forts are rough, but valuable. I like how the AI builds them (but placement could be a tad more strategic)
Don't let native tribes get big next to your colonies. Fight them first and you'll find their troops are kinda paper. They only crush your colonies if you aren't paying attention and don't give your colonies support. (by enforcing peace and the like).

They changed the AI and battle mechanics, so the game is going to feel a little different. Once they get the AI to stop standing still in war it'll be fine.

I am not having trouble with colonization, but the AI is. shouldn't the New World East Coast be dominated by Europeans? Instead we have giant Iroquois and other Indian federations. We have one province 38 dev tribes in Australia. It's too much. Especially when most of the world is equivalent to Europe in tech and money.

I don't disagree that the AI should be able to do what the player does, but I'm fairly certain most countries can't afford nine heavies like Kilwa. Kilwa has multiple gold mines, but normally their fleet is mostly light ships. It's just one example, but maybe developing their provinces gave them more money than usual. Most of these countries in Africa had manufactories later on, lots of buildings, ect. So we're okay with with every country being as wealth as Europe? Sounds ahistorical and counter to a game about European dominance, but if that's the game y'all want...

 

[csward53]

1. No opinion. Haven't had any issues with the latest patches.

2. Where are those patch notes about new AI cheats?
The fact the AI builds forts now is good. Restricting this to players again is a step back. If sieges are unfun then maybe some changes to that system should be in order, but no one is complaining about players being able to build lots of forts so it's more I don't like if the AI is doing something I am doing.

3. See 2

4. I haven't seen AI being afraid of rebels. In fact in my games they are assuming I am following them and engaging much bigger rebel troops. Also in my latest games the attachment of allies works just fine (maybe it's in they walk through the same province as the army they are meant to attach to and they need to be smaller). It seems a bit random though and from two latest DD there seem to be improvements in the pipeline.
So can't really agree or disagree here.

5. Australian natives should be removed.
North American natives should be tuned down. There are bugs with native land which are hopefully being fixed.
No wasteland should not be made into more provinces. In fact more provinces should be made into wasteland since outside of small hinter gathered tribes these areas where uncolonizable . This also completely disregards your first point as devs have pointed out that number of provinces and tags impacts performance to notice sure where you are going with this one.

1. For me it doesn't start until the 1600s or so. I know a lot of people don't play that far in? Maybe it's the 4k. Who knows.

2. The AI has always cheated to some extent. It has to to be semi competent. My guess is they gave the AI more mana/ducats to help fix it's financial woes, but I don't have the expertise look into that. I don't think they magically were able to develop their provinces and keep up on tech (maybe they aren't taking ideas?) without a little help from the devs. It could be that developing provinces is powerful enough that it's misleading me. Either way it distorts the power balance between nations. It plays out the same except everything takes longer. More coring costs, bigger armies, more AE, ect.

4. I have and the would only attack when I sent a 1k unit in to initiate. Doesn't happen all the time, but it's confusing when it does. I think the AI may be programmed to avoid bigger stacks, which logically makes sense, but usually you can defeat rebels with smaller armies.

5. Africa wasn't really colonizable until much later in the games timeline. I figure why not? If we're going to be ahistorical. It's more for my own laziness moving troops around Africa on my last Portugal run lol. You are right though, I would further affect performance. Maybe I'll wait for Vicky 3. Lets hope they figure out something for the natives.

 

[csward53]

I'm a firm backer of the idea that now that AI builds forts (like they should), incremental increases in siege ability should come at keystone MIL techs to keep pace with the fortifications. This would also further increase pressure on old fortifications, incentivizing players to upgrade, which is pretty much optional at this point unless you're fighting someone significantly stronger than you.

In my last run Siam (well Siam in all buy name) had 4 forts right next to each other. It's great they're building forts and upgrading them. It may even make sense to the AI because of the system the game uses for movement. However, there's simply too many and makes wars take even longer. Although, I kind of wish wars were done similar to other Paradox games, in that battles were more important in the outcome and not occupying land. I'm seeing this overabundance of forts in many countries. Eh, it's their ducats...

 

[Nostalgium]

In my last run Siam (well Siam in all buy name) had 4 forts right next to each other. It's great they're building forts and upgrading them. It may even make sense to the AI because of the system the game uses for movement. However, there's simply too many and makes wars take even longer. Although, I kind of wish wars were done similar to other Paradox games, in that battles were more important in the outcome and not occupying land. I'm seeing this overabundance of forts in many countries. Eh, it's their ducats...

Sieges kind of were the name of the game in this period - and most others - though. The French drove out the English not by crushing them in the field, but by taking all their fortifications away. The 30 Year War had several major field battles, some of which were crushing defeats for either side, and yet, the war raged on. Cities were besieged, fortifications were taken. Winning battles won you the ability to conduct your sieges unmolested for a time - possibly even the rest of the war - but it rarely won you, well, the war. History places a lot of emphasis on battles because it's a lot more interesting to read about heroic charges, devilishly cunning maneuvers, tactical brilliance and the thunderous gunfire pounding through it all than it is to read about Hans and Ferdinand playing cards outside a military installation for several months until it ran out of water and dropped its flags.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

I'm a firm backer of the idea that now that AI builds forts (like they should), incremental increases in siege ability should come at keystone MIL techs to keep pace with the fortifications. This would also further increase pressure on old fortifications, incentivizing players to upgrade, which is pretty much optional at this point unless you're fighting someone significantly stronger than you.

I like the idea. It would bring an immediate fix and as you said force you to modernize so modelling how sieges and fortress technology evolved over time.

while a overhaul of how sieges are conducted would be welcome I have no idea how that should work and honestly sieges are pretty historically accurate (they did cost tons of money and manpower).

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

2. The AI has always cheated to some extent. It has to to be semi competent. My guess is they gave the AI more mana/ducats to help fix it's financial woes, but I don't have the expertise look into that. I don't think they magically were able to develop their provinces and keep up on tech (maybe they aren't taking ideas?) without a little help from the devs. It could be that developing provinces is powerful enough that it's misleading me. Either way it distorts the power balance between nations. It plays out the same except everything takes longer. More coring costs, bigger armies, more AE, ect.

5. Africa wasn't really colonizable until much later in the games timeline. I figure why not? If we're going to be ahistorical. It's more for my own laziness moving troops around Africa on my last Portugal run lol. You are right though, I would further affect performance. Maybe I'll wait for Vicky 3. Lets hope they figure out something for the natives.

2. AIs have been realyl bad with money management. The devs have been looking into fixing some issues and I think they always had small cost decreases compared to players. But saying they magically spawn money now is just pure speculation. Given how they also rarely go for advisors I don't find it particuarly weird that they can afford forts. As a player I can easily without cheats so why shouldn't the AI, who also is significantly under their force limit in peacetime. I just don't buy the AI cheats argument suddenly.


5. Their limitation is the engine. Vicky 3 is running on a new engine but I think so is CK3. Anyhow that is not affecting EU4. They can't just slap the game on a new engine. Given how they stated the number of calculations caused by countries (escpecially army movements later in game) and provinces is affecting the performance removing provinces and tags is the easiest way to improve it.

 

[gigau]

They can't just slap the game on a new engine.

Interestingly enough, during, i think it was the 2016 fangathering in their offices in Stockholm, Johan said that it's basically what they did for EUIV... or worst.... they took CKII, removed the CK aspects, slapped EUIII on it, and then hammered out bugs for a couple of months.

Starting with before Imperator, they created their Jomini version of the Clausewitz engine, that they are keeping clean, and use that as basis for their new strategy games since.

 

[ArtFart]

Please make the wasteland in Africa colonizable.

Unless you want the performance to be even worse, this is a bad idea imo. Maybe allow for them to have the country name displayed over them after a certain amount of provinces around them are taken, similar to how some of them work already, but do not make them into their own province, that's the main reason as to why the games performance is bad atm, too many provinces.

AI always up to date in tech, even in remote areas.

I've seen the opposite of this. I turn up to the New World and they are barely tech 4 or 5, in the early to mid 1500's. Even in Africa, where you'd think Ethiopia and Mali etc would be alright, they are also very lo compared to majors. So I am not sure where you've seen this.

They cheat. Hard. The have money to build multiple forts always fully upgraded (next to each other ), tier 3 trade centers

Can I ask how this is a bad thing? The game is more challenging now, meaning it's more fun, unless you preferred the old game of map painting with no consequences. I am actually really enjoying the new difficulty. Furthermore, I do still see countries struggling with their economies. It wasn't long ago when I found an Austria in severe debt after a few consecutive wars. So they do still struggle, but it's rarer, which for me is better. As for trade. I always found I could easily dominate trade nodes within months of contact with them, now the AI retains trade pretty well, meaning you can't just overflow the node and easily start making money, which is good imo. You can still take the node's majority, but it takes longer now.

I do agree with your sentiment about the AI not colonising enough, or colonising the wrong area's. Too many times have I seen a Castilian Brazil or Portuguese Caribbean. It locks the AI from their mission tree. It's dumb, and needs addressing. I would live to see them colonise SEA more too, places like Taiwan and the Philippines. I have found when I get there, I can easily stomp the natives, so again not sure where you get that they are bigger than the western powers from.

Final note, I think the game has come a long way under Tinto, I feel it's more refined now. I personally think it's a great game, better than it was before, more challenging, more fun. But I can see where you are coming from. Maybe revert back to an older version if you feel this isn't for you, because I think the vast majority of players like the new changes, and I think Tinto intend to carry on in this direction.

 

[gigau]

Final note, I think the game has come a long way under Tinto, I feel it's more refined now. I personally think it's a great game, better than it was before, more challenging, more fun. But I can see where you are coming from. Maybe revert back to an older version if you feel this isn't for you, because I think the vast majority of players like the new changes, and I think Tinto intend to carry on in this direction.

I agree. In a way, it feels that the Tinto team is more committed, more passionate than most previous teams in a long time.

 

[ArtFart]

I agree. In a way, it feels that the Tinto team is more committed, more passionate than most previous teams in a long time.

My thoughts exactly. Likely because this is a team dedicated towards EU4, not like before where it was PDS, who were constantly switching staff around different projects (still are). Means we have a solid team and that really shows imo