Small nations are a literal grind now
- Thread starter Thatiswackson
- 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.
You are confusing 'fact' with preference. As TheMeInTeam pointed out earlier, the formation of coalition, AE growth is largely a preference thing up to each individual players. Many players, like the OP, clearly did not like the change to AE growth and coaliton formation but let us not forget that there are also other players who are fine with the way things are.
Even without coalitions, this is still grinding. You are still fabricating claim, except this time you're going to take as much as you can because AE won't matter half as much. You no longer have to consider alternative forms of expansion (e.g., vassalization) or cutting down on what you take because it just doesn't matter. Prior to playing this patch, OP has probably never thought "Hmm, maybe I should vassalize Pomerania instead of outright annexing two of their provinces so that people won't be so damn pissed off".
Most people are complaining that coalitions are formed too easily, not that coalition wars are uninteresting. If the coalition in OP's scenario suddenly declared war on him, I'd say it would be a pretty interesting if he doesn't reload.
If people don't want to sit on theirass for too long, they should cut down on their gains in conquest. That's pretty much the whole idea behind AE. Although I do like the idea of being able to disband coalitions (so that nations cannot form new coalitions in the duration of truce) but that's more to do with making coalitions interesting rather than toning down how easily they form which is OP's chief complaint. I disagree with reducing AE using diplomatic power though; that basically means that you can take as much as you want provided that you have the DP to spare. Plus, we can already improve relations with diplomats.
Show me a single person who thinks that once you have the coalition, that the coalition itself isn't boring. I'm well aware that a number of people view avoiding coalitions as a minigame; however through every single thread, there has been not one person who says "interacting with coalitions, themselves [and not just avoiding them] is fun". If you'd care to be the first, I'd be fascinated to hear why.
The point is to hit a good tradeoff between alternatives. Good strategy is when you come upon two choices and the answer is non-obvious. Take your example above, if I come up to then end of the Pomerania war and I know the vast majority of the time (say something like >95% of the time), I'm going to want to take the vassalization, that's bad. If I know the vast majority of the time, I'm going to take the direct annex, that's bad too. What should be the design goal is for each possible Pomeranian war to have a different answer; well maybe I'll direct annex if I'm allied with the Emperor and Denmarkt is busy with Sweden. Maybe I'll vassalize if Scandinavia has been united and I took the Diplomatic idea set.
And we know people won't "take as much as they can" because there a billion other concerns that also make you limit your direct conquest. I mean if I have 96% OExt, I'm going to think really hard about just direct conquesting land to put me over 100. If I'm short on AMP, then maybe I will spend a diplo-relationship instead. And of course there is the whole thing of managing my border friction. But right now, virtually none of this matters >95% of the time, the answer is going to be - don't direct annex in the HRE - the AE gain trumps every other possible strategic concern.
Oh come on, don't be obtuse. Right now we have a pretty simple set of syllogisms:
High AE gain/low threshold -> coalitions form
Coalitions -> coalition wars
Coalition wars -> boring gameplay
Therefore (by basic logic)
High AE gain/low threshold -> boring gameplay
As long as these three syllogisms hold, there is a large degree of functional equivalency between coalition mechanics are boring and coalitions form too soon.
Thanks, I had no idea, I'm such a moron. I never figured out that the whole point was to play slow. I'm glad you like an ahistorical game with lots of down time because hey - slower is magically better, but I do wholly and utterly get the dynamics of AE. I can spot a linear control loop a mile away. This happens to be crap design, and hence why Pdox has made precisely zero progress through five patches of making this whole AE thing work well.
Yeah, it figures, you likely couldn't handle it. So I'll make a deal, if you don't like buying AE reduction with DMP, you don't do it. Oh look, it is a win-win you get to do what you think is best and so does everyone else.
And frankly this objection is utter BS. Do we say the game is broken because you can acquire as much Mil tech as long as you have points to spare? Of course not, because there is a non-linear scaling for the points needed to pull ahead in Mil tech. We could do the same thing here. Oh you want to burn 5 AE with one country? Great, that costs 10 DMP. You want to do 10? Well great that will be 25 DMP. You want to do 15? Great that will be 35. Exponential growth curves for costs allow you to have a nice sliding scale so you can make a really good determination of exactly how much it is worth, but don't allow you to go crazy. Oh and lest we forget - you need to do this with every member of the coalition. This of course would give rise to things like, well even I tank my DIP tech, I can only stock away 999 DMP, so I have 5 countries at 60 AE, 10 at 40, and 15 at 30, well let's see, getting the all down to 15 would be ... oh wait.
As far as improved relations goes, sorry, but you see relations get hard capped, particularly late game. -25 great power, -5 claim, -15 has CB, conquered province -10. That tends to be stock standard and comes out to -55. Of course with late game coalitions you tend to get hit incessantly with Sabotaged reputation, so that gives us -105 - whoops improved relations doesn't work at all. And there are fun things like -5/-10/-20 for wrong religion. -50 rival for pretty much every major state in the end game ... d'oh past -100. And let us not forget things like border friction. Or if you actually dare to take a province from someone. Or if you, you know, actually have any AE penalty. Improved relations can only slow coalition formation if you sit on your ass for half the game (or ahistorically game the AE mechanisms), eventually the whole system just locks down. Further, all improved relations does is push the effective cap higher (basically from 0 to -100), eventually you still get the exact same dynamics
So no, just cutting "down on their gains in conquest" doesn't do a damn thing except insofar as you just sit on your ass waiting for a magical timer to count down. The system really is a classic linear control loop, and nothing that anybody likes, thinks, or believes changes that. You can have a linear control loop based on a simple timer ... but then you either wait out the timer, or you get the control mechanism feeding back on you. The latter might be fine ... except in this case it is utterly tedious to the point of utter boredom with sides of ahistoricism and elitist condescension for fun.
I agree with this man's statement as well. Probably the most well rounded post in this thread, I would love if paradox would actually read this and give it some thought.
It's not even close to being "well rounded". It's actually pretty one sided.
And his argument hinges entirely on one line that is completely opinion
coalition wars->boring gameplay
If you don't agree with this argument then his entire stance collapses. You can also make somewhat of an argument that coalition->coalition wars isn't true either. There's enough anecdotal evidence around to discredit any argument that the existence of a coalition inevitably results in a coalition war.
When 1.4 came out a number of people said that they not only enjoyed world wide coalitions, they found the game boring without them. Who knew so many players had spent years alone in deep space?
Exactly. In my current 1.5 game as Tuscany, I've conquered all of Italy and Croatia, part of France, Switzerland, and half of Greece. I've had a number of coalitions form, but have not yet been attacked. Not even once.
Also, should they finally decide to declare war, I will look forward to actually fight a defensive war for once.
I like coalitions, and I actually think they are pretty well balanced in 1.5. Obviously it would be great if I could interact more with them, but the same can be said about basically every other aspect of the game. More options/features are always welcome.
Funny how you skipped over this part of what he said:
I guess its easier to just fish for a sentence you can attack and take it out of context instead of actually giving him a reason.
So yeah, his argument doesn't just hinge on an opinion, it hinges on the fact that noone has actually said why interacting with coalitions is fun.
Great, please provide me with the link so we can be sure to address their concerns and hopefully arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. I'd love to read these posts.
Please note, I'm well aware that some people what a punishment mechanism (get too big, the game punishes you), hence my very specific phrasing. So am I looking for someone who actually likes the current coalition wars - people who like actually having them, not people who like the struggle of avoiding them. We have a million possible penalty mechanisms, and coalitions wouldn't be going away under any proposal ever put forward by anyone who talks about changing things (and for the record I was one of the people who said a lack of coalitions in 1.4 was bad for the game, and I detest the actual mechanics which have remained unchanged).
I have yet to see anyone who thinks the coalition mechanics are fun. You were given a direct chance to tell me you liked them, and why. You choose to ignore that chance, ignore everything substantiative about my post, and give this worthless one liner. So what am I supposed to conclude? That you and everyone else secretly likes actually interacting with coalitions after they form, but are just being dicks by refusing to say why?
When I open up any "coalitions suck" thread. It takes about 5 posts, tops, before someone says "here is how you avoid coalitions"; I have never, ever seen "here is how you have fun coalition wars" or "actually I like having ever larger coalitions that only let me take 4 provinces in spite of beating all of Europe".
If people hold the counter opinion they are being awfully quiet about it.
So if you like actually interacting with coalitions after they form, then please tell us why. I'd like know.
If you slow expand, the coalition will only declare if you are seriously weakened. By gaming the AE system you can keep the coalition in check and they don't bother until you end up in war against a major, you get something nasty - like a peasants war, or you seriously deplete yourself.
Like, I've always said, coalitions are easy, but slow. Your game is a textbook example of this. They have arguably made the game easier for you (locking a large portion of your enemies into a single truce timer that you can exploit), but don't actually challenge you (they ignore slow growth so once you are big, they are too afraid to declare, particularly if you a major power in alliance).
Many of my suggestions would actually change this and make coalitions more dangerous, but a lot of folks don't bother reading or understanding them.
I just don't understand what the problem is with coalitions then? If they are easy to handle and may even make the game easier (which I disagree with), why do people hate them so much? (And I am not necessarily reffering to you, since apparently you have some ideas that make coalitions even harder. Haven't had time to read the entire thread) It is the ONLY thing holding me back from conquering most of Europe. Coalitions are the only thing that actually makes the AI work together. Without them, it is too easy to expand in whatever direction is easiest at any given time, say if a neighbour is severely weakened by another war, rebels or week alliances.
If the coalitions didn't ensure some kind of backup to the weak AIs, human players would conquer new land from day one, and for the rest of the game. Instead of waiting for AE to drop, you'd just have to sit around and wait for manpower to replenish or loans to be paid off.
Since we ARE able to expand from a 1 or 2 province minor to the strongest nation in the entire world, even without being attacked by a coalition, I fail to spot the problem.
I agree that improvements could be made, but as I've said before, the same is true for every other aspect of the game.
Last edited:
It's amazing to see these posts that have no supporting arguments whatsoever trying to point fingers in this regard
.People rarely try to argue with Jomini. It's a lot more typical to quote him and then just claim he's wrong.
It's amazing to see these posts that have no supporting arguments whatsoever trying to point fingers in this regard
People rarely try to argue with Jomini. It's a lot more typical to quote him and then just claim he's wrong.
Maybe that's because most of his post is based on opinion and not facts, like this:
How am I supposed to argue with that? I can't dictate taste. I cannot tell you what to like. I like coalition wars, but since he doesn't we aren't going to agree anyway. The only way to counter that kind of argument is by doing something similar myself:
High AE gain/low threshold -> coalitions form
Coalitions -> coalition wars
Coalition wars -> the only thing that makes me have to THINK about where and when to expand, and thus the only thing that actually adds some form of challenge to the game.
I just don't feel like debating that way.
Your third statement ("Coalition wars -> boring gameplay") is NOT one I agree with. Coalition wars are in most respects exactly like any other war, and neither more or less boring.
Regardless, though, it's true that most people would change coalitions in some way (just as most people would change every major mechanic in some way). I'm up for changing them, and think TheMeInTeam's suggestions have some merit. (Though I'm genuinely disappointed by his repeated trolling in this and other threads.)
But just because you have to fight 2/5/20 nations instead of 1 doesn't make coalition wars any more "boring" by default. Indeed, when you don't choose the war it can make it more exciting, though not necessarily in a pleasant way.
Don't you feel cheated?
- 1.4 abolished vassal feeding, it was compensated with reduced AE (maybe too much). However cores dissapeared.
- 1.5 re-increase AE, but you don't have alternatives such as vassal feeding. On the other hand some cores don't dissapear (good). In my 1.5 end games i am 10 levels behind in admin tech with 15-40% inflation because coring is the only alternative for some nations and admin points are too precious. (Who cares about diplo?).
But wait, there is more! AE doesn't decay nearly as fast as before!
As for coalitions, i personally don't mind, because in general it is a country hundreds of miles away that will start the coalition war.
A lot of players critize gamey tactics, but restrictions and barriers will push players to be gamey, thats a given. Barriers are meant to be broken. There are ways to avoid AE, but some nations are stuck with them. Some forumers will say that expansionist gamestyle is bad, but for an O-3PM you need to be expansionist otherwise you will die 100 years later.
1.5 is a great patch for big nations or border nations with different religions, but is really hard for small nations landlocked in a region of similar religion. 1.5 is for me by far the hardest patch of all. I still find my fun it with my second Granada game.
EDIT: my point is. Right now there is a missing method for expansion, i told my idea on the 1.5 release thread and apparently other players share the same one: let your vassals fabricate claims, and as an overlord press their claim! That would be a lot of fun!
- 1.4 abolished vassal feeding, it was compensated with reduced AE (maybe too much). However cores dissapeared.
- 1.5 re-increase AE, but you don't have alternatives such as vassal feeding. On the other hand some cores don't dissapear (good). In my 1.5 end games i am 10 levels behind in admin tech with 15-40% inflation because coring is the only alternative for some nations and admin points are too precious. (Who cares about diplo?).
But wait, there is more! AE doesn't decay nearly as fast as before!
As for coalitions, i personally don't mind, because in general it is a country hundreds of miles away that will start the coalition war.
A lot of players critize gamey tactics, but restrictions and barriers will push players to be gamey, thats a given. Barriers are meant to be broken. There are ways to avoid AE, but some nations are stuck with them. Some forumers will say that expansionist gamestyle is bad, but for an O-3PM you need to be expansionist otherwise you will die 100 years later.
1.5 is a great patch for big nations or border nations with different religions, but is really hard for small nations landlocked in a region of similar religion. 1.5 is for me by far the hardest patch of all. I still find my fun it with my second Granada game
.EDIT: my point is. Right now there is a missing method for expansion, i told my idea on the 1.5 release thread and apparently other players share the same one: let your vassals fabricate claims, and as an overlord press their claim! That would be a lot of fun!
Last edited:
+1, I agree that challenge is what makes any game fun. One aspect i agree about the criticism about coalition war, is that the reward is non-existant.
Coalitions remove strategy via unified truces and threat timings + fewer choices the player can make. You make important decisions less often, which reduces the skill required to optimize play.
And it *is* tedious, once you start beating coalitions, to get almost nothing for doing so.
And despite this, you don't think implementing Jomini's suggestion to give coalition members buffs, making them more of a challenge to the player, is a good idea? Instead we should continue to have a system where the player defeats larger and larger combinations of enemies for smaller and smaller gains without ever really being under threat?
Part of the issue is that coalitions aren't really a challenge to begin with. The player fights coalitions and beats them until he decides they're too big to be worth fighting for the tiny reward, and then he has to sit there and wait for the AE to tick down. There's no incentive to actually fight that massive war against the juggernaut coalition because the potential gains are so miniscule. The risk and reward don't line up at all, so the player will never take the risk. Instead the only legitimate strategy, as is repeatedly explained by 'experts' on the forums, is simply to avoid coalitions altogether. They're not actually fulfilling their role as a challenge to player expansion, they're just acting as a deterrent.