What has happened to the game?

[Azurewrath]

The result of the new AE system is people allying Austria every game, and then later allying France.

You can completely ignore AE when you have some huge allies. Coalition of 20 nations? Whatever, I've got two great powers coming to my defense.

 

[WeissRaben]

If I was Austria I'd just gobble up the HRE. I'm Austria, and this is what Austria does. Ally France, done. Acquire made game.

Of course, this is the same nation that gets to circumvent AE gains for a large portion of the game because it gets railroad missions to enforce three PUs, or two PUs and a luckbox AE gain that results in a doubled land size and excellent power base.

If Austria did that, it should be deposed by the electors, they should vote an anti-Emperor and attack. There's a reason if Austria almost didn't expand in the HRE, in this period, out of inheritances: and this is that the power they got derived from the Empire. Maybe every HRE member with negative relations towards the Emperor should not count in the total - gather AE, and losing the benefits should be easy.

 

[jrk264]

Um, afaik QA isn't over design decisions in any organization

Then why is the QA process at all relevant in a thread that started with a complaint about design decisions? The QA discussion was brought into this thread by people defending Paradox, and I still haven't seen anybody explain how the QA team's effectiveness has anything to do with the problem that "[coalitions] did not used to be this hardcore" and "the game mechanincs totally changed in the last version."

Generally speaking I have not seen anybody who complains about AE or coalitions suggest that the issues are a matter of QA problems.

Without seeing the code that controls that I couldn't even begin to fathom a guess but for shoots and giggles, a rough guess is 20 to 100 K of lines of code per MB depending on the compiler / compression, so the 14MB exe has 280,000 to 1.4 million lines of code. Now say you have a function / method that is called by 10% of the code, changing it can have disastrous effects and need a rewrite of major sections / objects, where if it's just a variable that is miscalculated, it's very easy to fix and you push those out asap....

End result without seeing what is causing it, it's hard to form an objectionable opinion.

If the game's design is spaghettified enough that you can't figure out why junior PU partners can't be integrated without going over 28,000+ lines of code... that's not a defense of the work product Paradox is putting out.

 

[Had a dad]

If the game's design is spaghettified enough that you can't figure out why junior PU partners can't be integrated without going over 28,000+ lines of code... that's not a defense of the work product Paradox is putting out.

reread my statement, there wasn't a defense or accusation, just the statement that without knowing, it's hard to form an objectionable opinion.

 

[SonOfValmar]

This game should come with a disclaimer that it is a diplomatic game, not just a military one (and diplomats are mainly for things other than making claims), just for the benefit of players who are struggling to understand what it's about. When you accept that, and tailor your strategies accordingly, it starts making a lot more sense.

Such condescending nonsense. EU4 is not a diplomatic game. Beyond allying the big local/global powers and throwing your diplomats at randoms just to keep AE effects down, you are doing nothing but looking for your next war target. There is no empire to manage, no intricate marriage/dynasty system (PU's are a joke), no population or religion management (just press a button to convert and forget about it). Insinuating that the game has more depth beyond just conquering the next target is absurd.

 

[crusaderking]

Such condescending nonsense. EU4 is not a diplomatic game. Beyond allying the big local/global powers and throwing your diplomats at randoms just to keep AE effects down, you are doing nothing but looking for your next war target. There is no empire to manage, no intricate marriage/dynasty system (PU's are a joke), no population or religion management (just press a button to convert and forget about it). Insinuating that the game has more depth beyond just conquering the next target is absurd.

This. The dynasty system that Knights of Honor uses is one that is enough for EU4 purposes. Similarly, the removal of basetax and the bringing back of population the way Medieval 2 Total War simulates it too is not unreasonable a demand. While diplomacy used to be fun before, I don't really enjoy it now, at least in the current patch. Previously, as the AI suddenly changes alliances, I too can immediately form a new alliance block. But now, it is more difficult to do the same, and I feel it's because of two reasons - Wants your provinces modifier, and the rival system.

 

[grisamentum]

When some people act entitled as if every design decision should match what they personally want to play, rather than what developers have determined to be the way forward after hundreds of hours of testing and examining thousands of pieces of reasoned feedback, it's hard to always be sympathetic. It's always good to give specific feedback and in cases constructive criticism, but in a lot of threads, I'm seeing something quite different.

That's because the developers don't have hundreds of hours of testing. Most of the experienced players on this forum have more time played than most or all of the "QA team."

Edit - but all of that aside, what I'm trying to say is that the game is about a few central systems... 1) country management - economy, teching, building, stability - 2) diplomacy - alliances, dynasties, and power projection/rivals - 3) military - building and maintaining armies and navies, and using them tactically. To succeed you need to do all these things in concert, depending on the needs of who you are managing and when. If you fail on one of those three central systems, you need to understand why, learn from your mistakes, and manage the system better next time. Not complaining about the system being in the game when you thought you were playing something that is not EU4.

#1 - rofl, basically nonexistent.
#2 - mostly random, especially with 100% dynasty changes and random rivals at start
#3 - only real part of the game

 

[Had a dad]

That's because the developers don't have hundreds of hours of testing. Most of the experienced players on this forum have more time played than most or all of the "QA team."

Your statistical data to support this claim is from where?

 

[jrk264]

reread my statement, there wasn't a defense or accusation, just the statement that without knowing, it's hard to form an objectionable opinion.

We really only need that level of detail if we're trying to determine who screwed up. We don't need it to recognize that somebody has screwed up. To compare across genres, building a FPS from the ground up is really hard: you have the graphics, the user interface, the physics model, the AI... but if the latest version of Halo shipped with a bug that prevented the player from throwing a grenade when they hit the "throw grenade" button, you would call that a QA problem. It doesn't really matter if there's an internal email from the test team to the devs saying "dudes, grenades don't work"--when a game ships with that kind of bug it shows the publisher has a problem with their QA process somewhere.

Of course the original poster didn't seem to have an issue with QA at all; the QA process has somehow been invoked as a defense for the current AE/coalition system. Can you explain to me how the QA team's effectiveness has anything to do with the problem that "[coalitions] did not used to be this hardcore" and "the game mechanincs totally changed in the last version"?

 

[Sekuj]

This game should come with a disclaimer that it is a diplomatic game, not just a military one (and diplomats are mainly for things other than making claims), just for the benefit of players who are struggling to understand what it's about. When you accept that, and tailor your strategies accordingly, it starts making a lot more sense.

Is it, though? There's really still not that much to do in peacetime. It's still a matter of very uninvolved clicking to add a building here, change religion there, make an alliance there.

The trade system is a huge step in the right direction, but when it comes down to it, EU 4 is still pretty much a 3D paint the map game. M&T alleviates many issues but peacetime can still be very boring.

 

[LordNeidhart]

The result of the new AE system is people allying Austria every game, and then later allying France.

You can completely ignore AE when you have some huge allies. Coalition of 20 nations? Whatever, I've got two great powers coming to my defense.

I'm running a game as Burgundy presently, and I'm having mixed opinions regarding the AE system. I have spent the last 200 or so years with AE always around 70 with most nations of note. France and Austria have spent the entire game in coalition against me, with the other members being various minors in the HRE and northern Italy. I can't declare a war against anyone without someone being allied to someone else that's part of the Grand Anti-Burgundian Effort. So, AE is gained far too fast and lost far too slowly. But that might be a side-effect of the fact that I've expanded inside the HRE a fair bit, and Austria is my rival, which means that they probably get some extra AE off me. On the other hand, I can completely bypass coalitions by the fact that Bohemia, my bestest ally in the world, constantly calls me into wars against various HRE states, which allows me to occupy the various secondary war members and be graciously gifted territory when the Bohemians, who are the war leader, sue for peace against them. So, the results are that for the last century or so my AE levels have steadily increased to the point that France has over 150 AE against me and the average AE score in the HRE against me is in the 70/90s without me declaring a single aggressive war myself for who know how many years [except one, where I directly tackled France [or what's left of it, which would be more or less the western half of Aquitaine in CK2] and Austria for control of Toulouse and the vassalization of Milan and Savoy.

The point is, AE increase A LITTLE too fast and decays FAR too slowly, at least whenever the HRE is concerned, but its effects are hardly as catastrophic as people say. There's no "annex two provinces, get coalition of half of Europe", but there is "annex two provinces, your rivals enter coalition against you and will probably never leave again unless you spend 60 years or so without another conquest, at which point they will leave, but will join again after your next war" and "by the way coalitions can be completely bypassed if only you got an ally that is trigger happy".

 

[Freudia]

There's no "annex two provinces, get coalition of half of Europe",

Can only neighbors join coalitions against you? I was setting up a scenario that I was sure to get this response (Bohemia taking two provinces off Bavaria), but the only nation who joined the coalition was Bavaria, even though like 90% of the HRE that I'm not allied to (Austria, Saxony, and Brandenburg) are past the threshold to join. Even nations who have me set as rivals (Hungary, Poland, Teutons) didn't join. Very strange, although in Poland and Teutons case I think it's because they're at war with each other.

 

[LordNeidhart]

Can only neighbors join coalitions against you? I was setting up a scenario that I was sure to get this response (Bohemia taking two provinces off Bavaria), but the only nation who joined the coalition was Bavaria, even though like 90% of the HRE that I'm not allied to (Austria, Saxony, and Brandenburg) are past the threshold to join. Even nations who have me set as rivals (Hungary, Poland, Teutons) didn't join. Very strange, although in Poland and Teutons case I think it's because they're at war with each other.

I'm pretty sure it's not limited to neighbours, I've had Venice and Sweden join in coalitions against me a couple times too and they're nowhere near my borders.

 

[Freudia]

I'm pretty sure it's not limited to neighbours, I've had Venice and Sweden join in coalitions against me a couple times too and they're nowhere near my borders.

So the mechanic is just inconsistent on when it decides if nations will join the coalition against you.

 

[aitaituo]

So the mechanic is just inconsistent on when it decides if nations will join the coalition against you.

Not exactly. It's mainly tied to attitude and having a negative opinion and high AE isn't necessarily enough to induce the outraged opinion. Coalitions are brainless, in that the AI will join no matter what if the conditions are right, but the system for determining the conditions is fairly sophisticated.

 

[josh127]

Can only neighbors join coalitions against you? I was setting up a scenario that I was sure to get this response (Bohemia taking two provinces off Bavaria), but the only nation who joined the coalition was Bavaria, even though like 90% of the HRE that I'm not allied to (Austria, Saxony, and Brandenburg) are past the threshold to join. Even nations who have me set as rivals (Hungary, Poland, Teutons) didn't join. Very strange, although in Poland and Teutons case I think it's because they're at war with each other.

Only a neighbor can start the coalition against you, but others can join.

I don't know all the details for the others you mentioned. I know they can't leave a coalition while at war, but I have no idea if that doubles over for joining as well.

 

[DDRJake]

Only a neighbor can start the coalition against you, but others can join.

Sea-province connection counts as "neighbouring" in this regard. Denmark could start a coalition against Algiers, but Ashanti could not.

 

[grisamentum]

Show us a screenshot of your steam hour count.

I have yet to see someone ask this and not end up looking stupid. Thanks for providing some small amusement to me and the rest of the forum.

Maybe you should try learning more about the debate that's been going on here for months instead of challenging one of the best known commentars with hilarious accusations of inexperience.

 

[Korsan82]

When some people act entitled as if every design decision should match what they personally want to play, rather than what developers have determined to be the way forward after hundreds of hours of testing and examining thousands of pieces of reasoned feedback, it's hard to always be sympathetic.

.... still lmfao
:rofl:

 

[RobRoy3]

...afaik QA isn't over design decisions in any organization...

Can't speak for Paradox, and I wouldn't use the term "over", but I've worked in several organizations where some form of QA is absolutely involved in design decisions, even required to sign off on design documents, architecture documents, etc. QA is often used synonymously with "testing", but it can really be much more.

The more pervasive a QA function is, however, the more expensive the development process tends to be (both cost and schedule). Trade-offs.

The result of the new AE system is people allying Austria every game, and then later allying France.

Works better for me other way around. But leads to a certain sameness in games.

...the QA process has somehow been invoked as a defense for the current AE/coalition system. Can you explain to me how the QA team's effectiveness has anything to do with the problem that "[coalitions] did not used to be this hardcore" and "the game mechanincs totally changed in the last version"?

I think I missed the transition to that topic, but many of what I perceive to be problems with 1.6, I would attribute to both design issues and QA issues. But there is hardly universal agreement on what, exactly, is problematic with 1.6. Some of the issues that are the most divisive (e.g., AE) appear to be working entirely as intended. And I've seen no sign that either AE assignment or AE decay is up for modification in 1.7. (Haven't seen confirmation that there won't be any AE modifications, either, of course.) But that means that, no, that particular issue can't be considered a failure of QA just because I, or others, may not like it or may think it's poor design or may think it was clearly better in other versions.