There in nothing broken in the patch. Just bitching about coalitions and people twisting the issue to make it seem gameplay when it´s about taste.
When is 1.6 coming out?
- Thread starter x260bm
- 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.
There in nothing broken in the patch. Just bitching about coalitions and people twisting the issue to make it seem gameplay when it´s about taste.
Not sure I "enjoyed" every patch, but I did give them all a chance before whining about them.
The only one that was a "fail" for me was 1.4, with 1.4.1 only improving it slightly. This actually had more to do with protectorates and colonies that coalitions. But the absence of coalitions did not make for a better game, IMHO. Ugly intra-HRE blobbing, for example, was the norm in 1.4. Sure you could do more conquering, more easily, and that's fun once or twice. But unrealistically rapid expansion gets old for me. Forcing conquest to be slower, even if its done in a ham-handed, kludgy fashion really does make for a better game. Yes, it'd be nice if the system were more elegant. Yes, it'd be nice if there were something to fill in the boring parts. But, no, nothing about 1.4 was better.
And, actually, is it my imagination, or were there some (undocumented) tweaks to the coalition system? It's still pretty kludgy and ham-handed, but I've had fewer WtF moments since 1.5. No illogical coalition joins. Some coalition members staying out of wars. Small sample size, so far, and could be my recollections are just sketchy, but it seems a bit more rational.
I would consider vassal rebellions pretty broken, it completely removes a gameplay style for absolutly no reason whatsoever.
Yeah, I kinda liked keeping pet vassals around in several situations, and for role-playing. Sad to see that is going to be less doable; seems like you have only incentives to annex at the earliest opportunity.
In theory, I like the idea of rebellious vassals. In practice, this just removes another playing style/option. Maybe if diplo slots weren't so precious or if diplomats were more available, this could be made into something more entertaining.
But, while it does seem like a "fix" to a non-existent problem, in the grand scheme, a degradation in only that one mechanic is an improvement, relative to the last patch.
I'd suggest that posting a complaint thread where you don't actually specify what you are complaining about is not helpful or productive. Sweeping generalisations about forum behaviour or the forums response to the patch aren't particularly useful either.
Just now reading Brendan Simms new book, "Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy, 1453 to the Present". If anything, that book paints a picture of how whenever a country would get the upper hand in Europe, competing countries would form a coalition to pull it back down.
Sure, one can argue that this is not "fun". But it is quite historical. I think expansion should be even slower and met with higher resistance.
Sure, one can argue that this is not "fun". But it is quite historical. I think expansion should be even slower and met with higher resistance.
Shame on you Paradox. 1.5 is a disaster. I want to do a WC within 100 years, with no coalitions forming against me, and I can't!
Playing Venice and had zero rebellions from Tuscany, Naxos etc.
Only trouble I had was in the beta when Sweden was supported by Lithuania to ask Independence and it made a lot of sense, even if hair pulling annoying.
What kind of vassal trouble you had and when.
Honestly, I kind of understand why OP would do that. The exact issues that people are complaining about, and why, and what do they suggest to solve that, have been posted tens of thousands of times in this board, since 1.2 came out. Mostly by the same people who now won't write the whole list once again, for the twentieth time, because time is precious and we can't spend our whole life in the EU4 board writing the same post over and over again. Taking for granted that everyone knows a controversy exists and its essential characteristics is a pretty safe move by now. If you don't do that, you're just stuck in Step 1 forever ("saying what you don't like" and the post being inmediately rejected as "an attempt to do WC in 100 years easily") and you can't make any other kind of statement about the game.
Sigh... man there are very few features that make people pissed. OVerall the game is in good shape. The only point of big attrition is coalition, as it always was, and sorry to say that for the 1000th time but the main problem is player expectation over the speed of conquest and therefore, TASTE. Not a broken feature.
I´m finding out that coalitions are reasonable, but there are some quirks here and there with diplo. Example, Venice, I´m allied with France, France allied with Hungary. Called France over war with Naples (said call to arms = yes) and guess what, not only they didn´t join but joined the war on THEIR side a few days later. If I hadn´t autosave on I´d ragequit my game (for some reason I have tons of bad luck with bugs as Venice, dunno why lol). And no France didn´t have truce with either Naples or Hungary.
I´m finding out that coalitions are reasonable, but there are some quirks here and there with diplo. Example, Venice, I´m allied with France, France allied with Hungary. Called France over war with Naples (said call to arms = yes) and guess what, not only they didn´t join but joined the war on THEIR side a few days later. If I hadn´t autosave on I´d ragequit my game (for some reason I have tons of bad luck with bugs as Venice, dunno why lol). And no France didn´t have truce with either Naples or Hungary.
Yeah, though I keep seeing numerous, loud protestations that it's all about something else.
But Naples had an alliance with Hungary, right? I gather they made a conscious design decision to honor defensive calls over offensive calls, regardless of relations, rivalries, etc. So, Naples auto-calls Hungary, Hungary auto-calls France, Venice gets screwed. Not saying it's good, and earlier versions seemed to have some variability regarding which call would be honored (with things like relations and strategic interests playing a role), but that might be as far back as EU3.
1.5 is an excellent improvement on 1.4
A few people are upset about the return of AE because the coalition war score mechanic stinks. That needs to be fixed in 1.6
This is nothing like 1.4, which was a mess, and which I played only once because it was way too easy.
1.4 was a disaster.
A few people are upset about the return of AE because the coalition war score mechanic stinks. That needs to be fixed in 1.6
This is nothing like 1.4, which was a mess, and which I played only once because it was way too easy.
1.4 was a disaster.
lol why is everything an all or nothing scenario for some people...
It's a pretty good patch overall, people just concentrate on the few negative changes in their opinion and conveniently forget the other 70+ improvements.
Already I'm seeing improved ai decision making and ui improvements.
Step in the right direction I feel.
It's a pretty good patch overall, people just concentrate on the few negative changes in their opinion and conveniently forget the other 70+ improvements.
Already I'm seeing improved ai decision making and ui improvements.
Step in the right direction I feel.
Yeah this patch is alright, try it out before you judge it, it's much better than the previous versions obviously.
The reason people focus on the "negative changes" (actually, an obvious bug regarding AE was fixed back to 1.3 levels; there have been no changes in features) is because they are absolutely essential for gameplay. The mechanism for controlling the flow of the game via allowing/disallowing expansion (which means AE+Coalitions) is probably the single most important thing in the game. If you deeply dislike how that's done, then all the other minor changes don't matter. It's like if you're walking through a dark alley and a stranger stops by and stabs you in the belly, gives you 5$, makes a great song and dance routine for you to enjoy, and finally recommends you a really nice YouTube video. The only thing that really matters is that he stabbed you in the belly.
So very true.
Some more patches that don't address the 800 pound gorilla of design flaws in this game while pumping out mediocre DLCs and only the PowerBalance bracelet wearers will be left.
Reposting this in a family friendly version:
Icefrog is Dota's main developer.
Replace Icefrog with Paradox in the comic
Icefrog is Dota's main developer.
Replace Icefrog with Paradox in the comic
Just saying, I have played maybe 20 hours total since 1.2 came out (and 400 hours before that); just enough in each patch to see that I don't want to keep on playing. I don't really think what the comic says is the case for most people here. I would be crazy if I played a game I don't like, and I'm not, so I don't.
This is something you just have to get used to with PI, if you want to enjoy their games. Unfortunately, PI has a quite poor track record of launching polished games. Historically, it usually has taken a couple of expansions and patches for the games to stabilize and become really great. The positive aspect on this is that PI are extremely receptive when it comes to forum feedback. You won't find CA or EA attitudes here, and that is a good thing!
If you wish to skip all of this "noise", as it is, surrounding a PI game, I suggest you only buy the titles that have had the two-three expansions and patches. If that is your fresh start, then you will have a much better experience. Me, I have already bought EUIV to support PI. I haven't played it yet for real, and I won't, until WoN has received its first patch.