Small nations are a literal grind now

[aitaituo]

"Special missions are special" isn't an argument. My point is, to accomplish that mission without incurring crippling AE, you would have to stretch it out over 50 years. And you still haven't addressed the fact that a single province capture or subjugation mission within the HRE has the potential to provoke a coalition all by itself.

The alternative is splitting the mission into multiple, perhaps dozens of parts. Some missions are meant to be especially challenging, but with high reward. AE was probably not considered when the missions were written, especially considering all of the missions were written, at the latest, for version 1.0 and some were directly ported from EU3, which had no AE.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All of what you say seems to be a part of a more general strategic decision-making process. It's up to you. Let's say Sweden in your game is usually a formidable enemy, and you have a chance to take on them. There is a higher risk (potentially dangerous coalition) and a higher reward (finally your time to weaken Sweden). If the game was set up in a way that you exploit everyone's weakness one after another and blob crazy, then I don't think that'd make the game more interesting.

I'm OK with staying low for fifty years if it's necessary. (There were campaigns where I did not declare a war for at least a century.) I'm also OK with jumping in when the bigger opportunity (and corresponding bigger risk) comes. I agree that the game doesn't really let you pull a Napoleon, but do you really have to? And if you are strong enough to crush the coalition (a la Napoleonic France) then why not pull a Napoleon? If coalitions are something you'd rather avoid, then why would you want to imitate Napoleon when you just can't?

I'm sorry, but I just don't get why you think balancing war and peace means that "strategic calculation has left the building." Is full-time warmongering the only strategy, or is balancing war and peace and expanding within your means also "strategic calculation"?

You can't pull a Napoleon in this game. The war score vs war demand scaling in coalitions doesn't work that way.

 

[brifbates]

You can't pull a Napoleon in this game. The war score vs war demand scaling in coalitions doesn't work that way.

There are a fair number of historical outcomes that can't be duplicated in-game.

OTOH, your particular example, at least for the earlier Napoleonic conquests, depends on when the opposition changed historically from a war vs x+allied nations scenario to an actual war vs coalition (in game terms). It's certainly questionable (in game terms) whether the first couple of wars would have been France vs coalition or France vs an alliance with the resultant AE from the French victory triggering a coalition.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There are a fair number of historical outcomes that can't be duplicated in-game.

OTOH, your particular example, at least for the earlier Napoleonic conquests, depends on when the opposition changed historically from a war vs x+allied nations scenario to an actual war vs coalition (in game terms). It's certainly questionable (in game terms) whether the first couple of wars would have been France vs coalition or France vs an alliance with the resultant AE from the French victory triggering a coalition.

The problem isn't the coalition existing or not, but the nature of what happens when you win (or lose) against one. Had Napoleon shattered everyone in Europe, including Russia, he sure as **** wouldn't have stopped at a couple provinces...and losing had bigger complications too.

Coalitions are not providing the challenge (players game the mechanic to avoid them) nor the plausibility that a mechanic would need to be justified here. Once a player is strong enough to beat a coalition of everyone in the religion/culture proximity that can actually accrue AE, it becomes a matter of repeatedly fighting wars against shattered opposition and getting tiny gains despite that they have nothing.

Worse, in the same Tibet game, eventually somehow the members of the coalition were all people I couldn't reach ^_^. They couldn't reach me either, so it turned into a game of pissant crap warscore farm rather than an engaging experience where I'd fight on multiple fronts...and why are nations leaving the protection of a coalition at 73 AE?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they simply screwed it up outright. After all, somehow in this patch subject nations can be put in scenarios where declaring on them won't drag in their master, and individual province requests are frequently costing 0 AE even without claims on them. There's some real weirdness, and I'd argue that coalition members cowering away from a large nation with MASSIVE AE while dogpiling on little nations (even majors doing the dogpiling) is utter nonsense.

But for now, I'll just use them as a means to break truces repeatedly without penalty by constantly declaring on new members and camping a force near the leader w/o military to get the war score over and over. That's not exactly a sensible thing in practice, but at least it speeds up the process a bit.

 

[Jomini]

All of what you say seems to be a part of a more general strategic decision-making process. It's up to you. Let's say Sweden in your game is usually a formidable enemy, and you have a chance to take on them. There is a higher risk (potentially dangerous coalition) and a higher reward (finally your time to weaken Sweden). If the game was set up in a way that you exploit everyone's weakness one after another and blob crazy, then I don't think that'd make the game more interesting.

Wow, you made a whopping two sentences before you felt the need to go after a strawman that has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever at all. I'm impressed. Your sense of fair play and decency lasted a full sentence before you felt the need to descend to dishonest smear tactics. Good work, but can we try to go a full post without you BSing about "exploit everyone's weaknesses on after another and blob crazy"?

I mean, the fact that nobody, anywhere on the board has ever suggested such a thing, might, just might mean it would be prudent to stick to the points actually raised rather than showing yourself to be incapable of sustaining a rational debate by feeling the need to implicityly lie about the other guy's position.

Now, that we've got that out of the way. So let me make sure I understand this right, I'm a position where Sweden will be a future threat, such that I change my strategy to take advantage of a momentary weakness to make myself better off ... but I'm also supposed to be in a position where the resulting coalition (and if I'm actually hurting Sweden, we aren't talking about just one province) of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, whomever on the Baltic is borderline (say The Hansa and the Livonian Order, but excluding Poland and the TO thanks to alliances) are all going to go into coalition against me ... and in a war I get to fight one (or more) sets of non-coalition allies too. That's idiotic, and you know it. If I can handle the coalition (and it ain't hard) then I can handle a full power Sweden. If I can handle the coalition, then the gains made by avoiding the coalition and ignoring the strategic situation are greater than the cost of hitting Sweden when it is weak.

I'm OK with staying low for fifty years if it's necessary. (There were campaigns where I did not declare a war for at least a century.)

That's fine, you are welcome to enjoy your ahistorical, low difficulty game. I prefer something more challenging and historical.

I'm also OK with jumping in when the bigger opportunity (and corresponding bigger risk) comes. I agree that the game doesn't really let you pull a Napoleon, but do you really have to?

Only if this is meant to be historical grand strategy.

And if you are strong enough to crush the coalition (a la Napoleonic France) then why not pull a Napoleon?

Largely because coalitions have a magical "you can't take piss for gains" shield on them. If I beat all of the HRE and Spain do I get to say annex the West Bank of the Rhine and the Austrian Netherlands? No, the coalition mechanism prevents that. Well do I get to establish the Confederation of the Rhine if I crush the Austrians and the Russians in the next war? No. The coalition mechanisms prevent that too. Is it faster (outside of chain capping a coalition like shown above) to avoid the coalition until it becomes impossible not to? Hell yes. It is pathetic that the best way to remake European in vassal states and direct conquests - like actually happened historically - is to not have coalitions and avoid them like the plague.

If coalitions are something you'd rather avoid, then why would you want to imitate Napoleon when you just can't?

Because I want better coalitions. Something that looks at the balance of power, not just who was stupid enough to take one too many provinces in the last fifteen years. I want coalitions that don't just mind numbingly lock themselves into utterly predictable behavior. I'd like to see coalitions offer me an honest challenge - not some BS tedium where I repeat the same boring war over and over again.

[QUOTE[I'm sorry, but I just don't get why you think balancing war and peace means that "strategic calculation has left the building." Is full-time warmongering the only strategy,[/QUOTE]
That's okay, we've already established that you don't get strategy and can only reply with hyperbolic strawmen.

or is balancing war and peace and expanding within your means also "strategic calculation"?

If, and only if, my "means" are a non-linear system with multiple equilibria points. As is, no, my "means" are a flat AE threshold with a virtually fixed burn rate. That is a classic linear optimization problem, not a strategic calculation. If this were a strategic calculation, then I would not be able to find optimums by trivial inspection of the payout matrix.

So please, don't be a jerk and keep making points where you offer nothing but strawmen and false dichotomies. Everyone wants fun challenging limits so blobbing is counterbalanced and multiple strategies (e.g. slow dispersed conquest, fast concentrated conquest, diplomatic expansion, economic/trade leverage, colonization) are viable paths to power (like they were historically) - each with differing risks and rewards. Right now, just a slow dispersed conquest mixed with a touch of diplomatic expansion (as most of your diplomatic resources go into managing coalition formation) is excessively favored. Fast concentrated conquest (like was done with Napoleon, the Mughals, Prussia, Russia, the OE, and arguably a bunch of others like Sweden) is completely nerfed right now by magical coalition mechanics. I promise, your ahistorical play style will still be viable.

 

[Jomini]

To put it briefly, bulldust. The strategic question throughout isn't "oh my god will this spawn a coalition?" If you can't handle a coalition forming then you shouldn't be playing a grand strategy game of any complexity. As a strategic planner you know that you don't just plan for the first battle or the current war but the subsequent ones as well (not to mention contingency stuff like what if halfway through our advance this happens). You go into a war with a plan for the resulting peace already in place, or at least a general idea of what it will look like. If you only plan up to the first fight and wing the rest you're asking for trouble.

Your strategic question is more along the line of "If I do this (attack Sweden for their land in your example) how much can I take before I can't handle the blowback?" or "Can I make the reward worth the risk involved in triggering a coalition of nations x, y, and z? If not can I make that coalition not happen by doing a, b, or c?" You can easily judge how winnable the war with Sweden is but you also need to judge what that win means-will it gain me a couple provinces without adding a major risk of a coalition gang banging me? Can I instead pop loose a diplo-vassal target as a reward? and so on. The coalition potential is just another factor to look at in your long term planning and decision making.

No, my point is that the coalition blowback is virtually always costlier than just hitting Sweden on schedule. Look at this way. It costs X for me to take down Sweden & allies at full strength. If I engender a coalition I either need to fight it (to lock in the truce) or I need to keep resources back in case I fight it. Well how much will fighting the resulting coalition be? Generally, at least 2x as much as fighting Sweden itself - when a nation declares war on you, their allies still come to the party and alliance leader chains can make that worse. Generally, when you trash somebody's ally they also end up in the coalition.

So going the trash Sweden now (say at 0 cost) typically means that at some point in the near future I expect to pay 2x (either in foregone conquests because I now have a coalition I can't push further or in military resources tied down & spent for some period of time against the resulting coalition).

Because of how coalition peace mechanics work (with their complete and utterly disproportionate cost/benefit ratio), any time they pop up, they utterly destroy the cost effectiveness of strategies that involve their use. For the cost of fighting a Scandinavian coalition, I can typically take out 3 - 4 normal alliances. As has been noted many, many times before, I can get more out of beating or deterring Bengal than the coalition, so on what planet does it make sense to go down the coalition route?

The point isn't that you can't be silly, take down Sweden, and then survive and burn off the AE ... it is that is irrational from a strategic perspective in virtually all circumstances. Max gains from Sweden (taken in whatever form you like), even it costs nothing but the siege attrition, just isn't a big enough prize for the cost of having to deal with a coalition of Sweden x2 in size.

 

[mcmanusaur]

I awe at why so many feel the need to insult me, i am merely stating my opinion. After being a huge Eu3 fan, and somewhat alright with pre 1.5 Eu4 I am extremely disappointed as it feels that the game has completely shifted course. Try to refrain from deriding my "case" without even presenting one. If I do not speak my word then how will my opinion be heard, that is my only endeavor.

My "case" is that like I said you doubled your territory in five years and were only facing a modest coalition; that's within my expectations for coalitions. Also I never really insulted you personally.

 

[unmerged(804580)]

To Jomini:

After reading your responses, I came to think that we're not on the same page when it comes to what constitutes "a strategy game." Taking over the Austrian Low Countries in one war or establishing Rhein Confederacy (as in history) isn't exactly what I demand from the game - perhaps I just don't have such a high expectation from just a video game. I don't mean to be condescending or demeaning, please don't get me wrong on this point - I just don't expect a video game to be capable of reflecting the actual history.

For the same reason, I still don't get why you're upset about your example with Sweden, but after pondering for a while, I think you expect the game to reflect a realistic piece of history, that it's unrealistic that Livonians and other Baltic states would care about otherwise threatening Sweden. In reality, it might even be in their interest that you take a few provinces from Sweden to weaken them. On the other hand, I expect the game to follow its own rules, and nothing more - to me it's a balance of potential reward and potential risk, and weighting the two is sufficiently "strategic" to me.

To TheMeInTeam:

Declare wars here and there, expand as much as you can, wait for five years and go back immediately - or break truces if you want. If you can handle the consequences, then there's nothing that prevents you from declaring wars and taking as many provinces as you want. Napoleonic Wars was not a single event.

 

[kuolema]

there's nothing that prevents you from declaring wars and taking as many provinces as you want.

as many provinces as you want.

Have you even read the complaints about coalitions?

 

[Variton]

So please, don't be a jerk and keep making points where you offer nothing but strawmen and false dichotomies. Everyone wants fun challenging limits so blobbing is counterbalanced and multiple strategies (e.g. slow dispersed conquest, fast concentrated conquest, diplomatic expansion, economic/trade leverage, colonization) are viable paths to power (like they were historically) - each with differing risks and rewards. Right now, just a slow dispersed conquest mixed with a touch of diplomatic expansion (as most of your diplomatic resources go into managing coalition formation) is excessively favored. Fast concentrated conquest (like was done with Napoleon, the Mughals, Prussia, Russia, the OE, and arguably a bunch of others like Sweden) is completely nerfed right now by magical coalition mechanics. I promise, your ahistorical play style will still be viable.

What a statement, given Jomini's own neutral writing style. Everybody certainly agrees that the game should accommodate all playstyles and all historical outcomes. But we are talking about a game here and immortal developers.

Jomini is arguing, but what it really comes down to is this:
1) 1.4 was terribly easy
2) 1.5 is harder, perhaps too hard for newcomers.

In a unperfect world I vote for option 2 and hope that PDS makes the game more closer to the fantasy of Jomini in the future.

I awe at why so many feel the need to insult me, i am merely stating my opinion. After being a huge Eu3 fan, and somewhat alright with pre 1.5 Eu4 I am extremely disappointed as it feels that the game has completely shifted course. Try to refrain from deriding my "case" without even presenting one. If I do not speak my word then how will my opinion be heard, that is my only endeavor.

I understand your position, because I really disliked 1.4 and if that were the direction PDS would take EU4, I would really be disappointed. 1.5 was exactly the right course for me.

HRE is a different game mechanic from the rest of the world. If it's focus on a more balanced gamestyle does not fit your preferences, why not play as someone else? Why should _all_ the EU4 map accommodate the needs of one group of playstyle?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

What a statement, given Jomini's own neutral writing style. Everybody certainly agrees that the game should accommodate all playstyles and all historical outcomes. But we are talking about a game here and immortal developers.

Jomini is arguing, but what it really comes down to is this:
1) 1.4 was terribly easy
2) 1.5 is harder, perhaps too hard for newcomers.

In a unperfect world I vote for option 2 and hope that PDS makes the game more closer to the fantasy of Jomini in the future.



I understand your position, because I really disliked 1.4 and if that were the direction PDS would take EU4, I would really be disappointed. 1.5 was exactly the right course for me.

HRE is a different game mechanic from the rest of the world. If it's focus on a more balanced game-style does not fit your preferences, why not play as someone else? Why should _all_ the EU4 map accommodate the needs of one group of playstyle?

I would agree... we can't expect a game with limited tools and a limited AI to accurately represent historical events on a smaller scale. The developers have produced a sandbox strategy game that represent 400 years of history where the social/technological change from year 1 to 400 was very different. They offer a rather good representation of a plausible historical outcome during these 400 years.

As a player you can easily break the AI and severely alter the balance of the game. You basically have a few options for ending up with a plausible historical outcome...

1. You give yourself reasonable goals and don't exploit too much of the AI stupidness, such as attacking them right after they just ended a war since the AI are pretty crappy with managing its manpower and economy in general during war. Even though it is historically correct to prey on the weak the fact is that overall political climate might not make it possible, while in the game the AI can't think like that so you as a player will have to do that for it by restraining yourself.

2. Add crap-load of extra bonuses to AI manpower, unit bonuses and economic aid. Give events to the AI that replenish some of their manpower after peace negotiations, that would help allot to alleviate some of the AI weaknesses.

3. Do a combination of 1 and 2.

Giving increased AE to the AI for taking provinces does not make the game harder in my opinion, that AI will just waste more time weakening itself in coalition wars that often does not make sense. Often, coalitions are not strong enough either...

Overall the game will do a reasonably good job at representing a plausible historical outcome in the 400 years the game go through even if many single events as they occurred in history is not possible because the game mechanic don't allow it.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

On the coalition and diplomacy issue my solution would be a total change on how it would work.

Countries should always impose a static threat level based both on previous aggression and its current strength (economic power, military, technology and political stability). Military conquest in the past should linger much longer than it currently does since no one directly trust someone that forcibly just take what they want. But being close to such a country should make you submissive rather than aggressive of you are weak, that and you should seek support from someone else close that are equally or close to equally strong. In war such small submissive nations should perhaps give economical aid rather than be directly involved for fear of being attacked and annexed by its more powerful neighbor.

When a nation is attacked other nations should be able to form either defensive or offensive coalitions that simply, at some point, enters into that war. Nations should also be able to give its support to either side directly if they feel like it. If it is a coalition of nations they would form and when they feel that enough nations joined they will together join that war as normal junior partners unless some partner is much stronger then they would take the leadership of the alliance. It should not be so easy to do separately peace with a minor in an alliance that are doing well.

The AI would have to be programmed with much greater understanding of threat and power equalization.

Wars should end with trading of territories and not only the leader gaining spoils of war all the time.


Ex.
The Teutonic Knights is attacked by an alliance of the Polish and the Lithuanians. Livonian order view the Teutonic order as a rival so they might decide to join in the war or perhaps declare war themself but at this point they don't. Sweden on the other hand have been in a trade dispute with the Teutonic Order for a long time and declare war soon after, their intent is only to wage a Naval war,more or less to establish supremacy and gain some trading power from them. Now, the Austrian is worried of a power balance and send a request to Poland after six month that if thy don't stop hostilities they will enter the war in defense of the Teutonic Order (they create a defensive coalition), the Hungarians see their chance to beat down the Polish since they lost two provinces in an earlier war and enters into that coalition (with conquer as CB since it has one) with the Austrians to just show superior strength CB (given by a defensive coalition per default). The coalition is deemed strong enough and both Austria and Hungaria enters the war to end hostilities. Austria take over as the leader since they are the much stronger part in this war. At this point the Livonian order do not enter into the war, not with Austria and Hungary drawn in.

Sweden quickly overpowers the Teutonic fleet and gain a victory and a peace settlement granting some payment and trade transfer to Sweden.

Poland and Lithuania loose too many battles and request peace. Austria did not go all in and allowed the Polish to peace out relatively early, they do not want to upset the power balance in the region too much. Poland will have to pay all the nations a hefty sum of money and give the provinces previously take back to Hungaria (they have core on them), Lithuania is forced to give one territory to the Teutonic Knights (that they have a core on). There should basically not be many non claimed or cored provinces given up as a aggressor is defeated like this, it should happen but not that often.

The meaning is that alliances would be much more dynamic and you can't take for granted what will happen when you declare war. You could even end up in a huge chain of events with a huge amount of nations taking part in the war directly or indirectly. The important thing is that countries need to make more sound choices based on threat and the power of their adversaries. Coalitions should just be a way to judge one sides relative power and a good time to join a war together outside permanent alliances.

It would simply make the game more fun in my opinion, also more realistic as a bonus.

 

[RegulasFade]

1.5 has the problem of being too random in general.

AE would be much easier to mitigate if you could have a reliable ally, however currently the AI's willingness to ally with you will flip constantly all over the place.

Also the size/location of surrounding nations has a large impact. If you have lots of medium sized nations (like in India, or Indochina) then annexation becomes a much faster and more effective expansion method that gives you minimal AE.

HRE has the situation that it's own HRE system heavily detriments expansion to begin with even before considering the AE rules (i.e. all the extra diplo hits and problems).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Declare wars here and there, expand as much as you can, wait for five years and go back immediately - or break truces if you want. If you can handle the consequences, then there's nothing that prevents you from declaring wars and taking as many provinces as you want. Napoleonic Wars was not a single event.

But if I do that too much, the AI *leaves* the coalition . At >70 AE, because reasons I guess.

That's not the point though. The point is the disproportionate cost/benefit. My original argument centered on the coalition member joining, but since there is no separate peace, that also means that the coalition target also stands to lose very little (IE when Ottos rolled me as Ethiopia, which was a ridiculous coalition in the first place, only to demand concede defeat, which is a ridiculous demand). Not only is there little penalty for winning on other side, there's also disproportionate penalty for losing on either side.

 

[blaidd]

1.5 has the problem of being too random in general.

AE would be much easier to mitigate if you could have a reliable ally, however currently the AI's willingness to ally with you will flip constantly all over the place.

I've found that in 1.5 it's necessary use a diplomat on rotation between your allies improving relations and keeping them all as close to +200 as possible. If you do this it's not hard to keep two great power allies at once.

 

[lucaluca]

You conquered 4 provinces in 4 years inside the HRE... What did u expect?

 

[Jemz]

1.5 did not brought any "challenge" to the game, you do not need more skills to play it. It brought more inertia and dead time, tho.
Conquest is already hard capped by coring and annexation time, I don't understand why you would need more dead time between wars - especially when war and conquest are the purpose of the game.

 

[Umega]

Taking it slow just is not fun, i don't want to wait for 30 minutes real time just to barely expand. This may suit some people but not me, and quite a few other people as well.

Have you tried playing with easy AI difficulty instead? AI nations are much more lenient towards you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Have you tried playing with easy AI difficulty instead? AI nations are much more lenient towards you.

This suggestion reflects excessively poorly on the people making it, because it misses the actual issue with coalitions.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

1.5 did not brought any "challenge" to the game, you do not need more skills to play it. It brought more inertia and dead time, tho.
Conquest is already hard capped by coring and annexation time, I don't understand why you would need more dead time between wars - especially when war and conquest are the purpose of the game.

There are no true purpose to the game, you bring your own purpose. You can pretty much "win" the game with a relatively small power if that is what you try to achieve.

The inertia as you call it is there to make the game actually last the 400 years, and there are plenty of things to do outside combat if you just look closely enough. It might be that you are not particularly interested in the part of the game, but it doesn't mean there are other things to do.