.png){kind=avatar}
The "diplomat trick": why does it exist?
- Thread starter Subbak
- 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.
To answer the question of the thread...I think it exists because no-one could anticipate that anyone could go through the tediousness of resending several diplomats, several times a month just for a few ticks of relationship!
When DDR Jake did it, it had a purpose due to needing to exploit every mechanic possible for an otherwise impossible achievement. The fact it has become common place baffles me...its super tedious!
When DDR Jake did it, it had a purpose due to needing to exploit every mechanic possible for an otherwise impossible achievement. The fact it has become common place baffles me...its super tedious!
Ah, you could try to diversify your time. You could spend 40-60% of the time you play EUIV, on drinking and chasing women. Then you will get a girlfriend in no time. But they take up a lot of time though, so think about it first.I don't have a girlfriend
- 1
So I kinda want to weigh in on this: The diplomat trick was an exploit. Definitely. But I think that's important to note that all it did was decrease the time it took to max relations with a country. It didn't increase the max relations you could get with them. The only time you would need to use this was when you were working on a time-limit; that is, if you do not get alliance within a certain time-frame then you would be attacked. The only time you can realistically expect that to happen is at the beginning of the game, when you have weak or no allies and have a much stronger neighbour. So basically: Novgorod, the Teutons, Byzantium, Theodoro. The side-effect of this fix is that some of the weakest nations in the game have become weaker.
Does this mean that the bug shouldn't be fixed? No. But the fact that there are nations that were reliant on this glitch highlights what the game will be like without it. I think that small nations (below a certain base-tax/development threshold?) should get a bonus to their improve relations speed, to compensate for a change that the game as a whole needed, but that became for them specifically a nerf that they did not.
Does this mean that the bug shouldn't be fixed? No. But the fact that there are nations that were reliant on this glitch highlights what the game will be like without it. I think that small nations (below a certain base-tax/development threshold?) should get a bonus to their improve relations speed, to compensate for a change that the game as a whole needed, but that became for them specifically a nerf that they did not.
- 1
If this is the definition we use, that changes the entire conversation. And for the record I agree with you on that definition, it's just not the definition that was presented in the thread. Perhaps Wiz agrees with you too and in the heat of the argument had a poor choice of words.
I'm sorry are you arguing that because they left the exploit in the game so long that it became a mechanic and not an exploit? Wiz already stated that they knew about it for a long time and wanted to remove it, it was just low on the list of things to do
They will probably never be able to fix the end process save scum exploit in iron man mode, does that mean its just a mechanic and not an exploit?
I don't think anyone believes that this was removed for being "too strong" of an exploit or above some cheese/sleaze threshold as you suggest, it got removed because it was unintended design that impacted the way the game was played in a negative manner
I'm sorry. No.
Though obviously any mechanic, that remains in the game for an extended period, without any dev suggestion that it's buggy or problematic is going to be assumed to be WAD. My point is that such a logical assumption is flawed in the case of EU4.
Sorry. Not what I said, nor suggested. Bit confused how you inferred it.
You seem to be constently missing that many of the comments have less to do with this particular change than with the fact that they remind us that Paradox has an unfortunate tendency to redefine what is considered acceptable gameplay. They do, indeed, redefine perfectly legitimate mechanics as badwrongfun or "exploits" sometimes with little or no justification.
Small independent nations are actually significantly buffed in income and forcelimits in 1.12 - but that has absolutely nothing to do with fixing this exploit.
- 5
Theodoro WC by the AI confirmed. Heh, I guess I should I actually wait to play the patch before I whinge about it, shouldn't I?
(-Said no Paradox fan ever)
This has been one of my most-desired improvements since EU4's launch! I can't wait to see this in practice. Thank you so much!
Can't help but wonder -- does Albania now have a chance of resisting in player hands without relocation?
- 1
how so? Other than the function of development allowing them to build up a bit despite the fact that they can't conquest
Sounds to me like they'll have more income and forcelimits.
- 4
Sorry I just don't see the consistent pattern of this happening, although personally I don't really pay much attention to whether something was changed or removed for being an exploit, or simply balance change or just general feeling that the mechanic had a negative effect on game play, but I honestly think the semantic argument over what is an exploit got out of hand and whether or not using an exploit is cheating is equally semantic
also what is "badwrongfun" is sometimes still a legitimate mechanic but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed or removed. Even if this design was intended for diplomacy I would argue that it encourages tedious boring micro management and ultimately detracts from the game. The same was true of the old College of Cardinals, it was boring, and tedious, it was functioning as designed but that doesn't make it something that should have been kept since frankly it was not an enjoyable mechanic, one simply hit a button until you lucked into the Papal Control bonus, or until you had so much power you could never lose control of the papacy
- 2
Seems like a reasonable question.
Doesn't seem like a particularly helpful nor knowledgeable answer.
Would it just be something like a doubling of the capital bonus? Or would the buff be some kind of multiplier to base_tax/manpower for "all small independent nations"? Or all OPMs? Or a relative buff due to larger nations getting a base_tax/manpower nerf?
Or, as he was suggesting and as seems more likely, are we just talking about small independent nations, being unable to conquer, are going to have more resources to spend on internal development?
We can do some sleuthing here by working under the singular assumption that Paradox staff haven't misspoken.
Wiz said, specifically: "Small independent nations are actually significantly buffed in income and forcelimits in 1.12"
He said in 1.12, not in the CS expansion. Therefore, we can rule out internal development entirely since this feature is locked behind the expansion.
The question of relative vs absolute is noted, but the phrasing used here suggests that it's an absolute buff to small independent nations as opposed to a straightforward nerf to the larger nations. Buffing small independent nations is not the same thing as nerfing large nations. Therefore, we can assume that small independent nations have more income and forcelimits than they did before on an absolute basis.
This leaves the question of how this is achieved. I can see two possibilities. One is a conditional modifier for small nations that gives a boost to these values. This could get awkward as initial growth could penalize instead of help, though this could be worked around with a "progressive" modifier so that you keep a bonus, but it grows smaller as you continue to expand. Basically the same concept as a progressive income tax.
A second possibility is that the base / capital bonuses for all nations have been increased. This is technically a boost to all nations; however, in terms of percentages, this proves to help small nations more than large ones. If you previously had the income and FL to support 4k troops, and after this change you can support 8k, then you've doubled your capabilities. A large nation that went from 20k to 24k doesn't see as much of an impact; it's a 20% increase. Further, 4k vs 20k is fairly dismal -- the smaller nation has 20% the power of the larger nation. But with 8k vs 24k, now the smaller nation has 33% the power of the larger nation. One issue is that Wiz specified "independent" nations, but a subject nation would enjoy this same boost. For this to be the method, subject nations would have to have a new penalty that slashes their base income and force limits back to the previous value.
Other possibilities, like every nation getting a percentage boost to income and manpower, can be rejected because this would not be considered a "significant buff" to small independent nations.
So, while we don't know the details, we can confidently conclude the following: Small nations have higher absolute values of income and force limits in 1.12 than before, in a way that makes them stronger vs larger nations than they once were. And it has nothing to do with improving development over time (which means it's almost certainly out-the-gate Nov 1444 modifications).
- 3
I guess I was assuming that the AI would still have access to development, even if the player didn't. Did devs say otherwise, somewhere?
Otherwise, all good points and decent speculation.
I recall a recent post by Wiz that suggests all features are made equally available to AI and players (except for interface improvements), but I don't remember where... and I'm not completely sure it was in this direction (it may have been about stuff the player gets but the AI doesn't rather than the other way around).
That said, I can't recall a DLC feature that AI could use that players couldn't for EU4. CK2 has them just for playing different religions and such, but in EU4, if the player can't sally or access a CB (because of DLC wall only) then neither can the AI. Development in particular would be really awkward if the AI could use it without CS installed. Optimal strategies would require maintaining "developer vassals" to build up your territory, alternately releasing and absorbing depending on where you want to build.