Thoughts on 1.33

[TheMeInTeam]

While I like the football explanation, it's more likely the case that a colonial nation (the word 'New' being above the screenshot - you can see 'New Castille' written out northeast of Xiu) getting too many provinces from your conquests in the region and not enough financial subsidies to build an army to deal with it.

This could always happen, particularly in Mexico and Peru, unless you take care to avoid it since the vast majority of provinces will have separatist cores rather than being previously uncolonized.

Player usually does this alongside an army in region, but this conduct is atypical/new for AI and unless it is copying the part about "killing the rebel explosion" the AI probably shouldn't be coping the "shovel-feed OE into CN" part.

 

[MojaveDreams]

I would like better Naval AI having dismantled the ottomens with 6-7 marines,galleys and ally poland as the knights.

Hopefully EU5 gets some Naval Ai work.

 

[themrspartan]

5) Colonization has indeed been a problem ever since they added a ton of natives in 1.31. They really should have done something about it.

It's a bitter pill but they really need to just delete about half of the native tags, both here and in Australia. The fact that you have to declare war on aboriginal tribes like a dozen times to colonize Australia is absurdity.

 

[makaramus]

I think I know what you guys experincing
I allied austria as venice aganist ottomans. It had constantinapol (not save scumming I want to play a proper game and Ottoman AI is really good at its start now) so empire rank strong and everything. Austria at first literally did nothing, wasnt following following my armies or listening suggestions
then I attached my armies to follow him and it started moving and doing genious moves and even took Istanbul.
It seems like AI when you are not strong enough doesn't listen to you and act as he is the main player expecting you to follow it. Makes sense kinda... even if you are the war leader and even if you are smarter than AI as player AI shouldn't know this and act with that knowladge. I kinda like it. I was acting on support role for AI this time instead of it being my slave.

 

[Aelisa]

Yeah, I don't know, man. When I went to conquer the Siberian natives, and they all had a tech-appropriate fort (that moved around with them when they migrated. Fancy!), I started to think, huh, maybe there's such a thing as too many forts? As a whole, I'm really not a fan of every OPM having a fort, and everything larger having... just a ton of forts. It's just tedium for the sake of tedium. I get that the intent is to add more strategy and difficulty (... or something) with the change to forts, but it's just silly. Feels like the AI conjures ducats out of thin air for the forts as well. I get that the AI cheats, but that just feels a little too ridiculous and obvious. God knows that if I played Muscovy and decided to build and maintain 20 forts, my economy would be completely busted.

While I realize this is mainly just venting, I can also add my experiences with playing Kongo the other day. By the time I reached Lake Victoria (took like 10 years, there's a mission reward that bridges the uncolonized gap), all of the tribes up there somehow had forts? I mean... what. They make like 0.5 ducats a month, nobody is fooled here (and just to check, none of them start with forts either. Also, they're a tribe in the middle of Africa. I somehow doubt they had medieval European castle-equivalents around every corner, so it's not doing immersion any favors either).

 

[Atomcreator]

At this point I just wish they would announce EU5 and learn from the experiences of players in EU4. For me, imho, the game has been going backwards for some time now. I still do get fun from it, but that is mainly due to older mechanics. the stuff being added recently is just bad and has made the game worse. I would like them to now draw a line under this title and move on.