Dev Diary #125 – The Most Valiant of Them All

[Bobwoodword]

The first mod I am going to look for is the one that lets you have landed characters with accolades. I want playable characters to engage with that system and be incentivized to groom heirs in them too. I get where they are coming from about making it specific to nonlanded characters but it basically means players will only engage with it as a secondary resource as opposed to their character themselves. I respect arguments can be made in favor of unlanded but just working through the pros and cons in my own head I can't help but hope it is modded out post-haste.

 

[davidproxy]

I've been rereading prior DDs for a last few scraps before next weeks diary and I have the following:

The Thug’s is not exactly a rich lineup of bonuses. But hey, if you’re a bad guy, you might still want a Thug on your side!

Have a Marauder and Thug-led gang of bully-boys backing you up, if you wish...

...but to get there, we’re better off routing our journey around the treacherous mountain passes of Stipon, as I hear they’ve been crawling with highwaymen since your, ahem, dalliance with Duke Andronikos’ wife during his son's wedding.

We allow you to customize your route by adding waypoints along your path. If employed cunningly, you may be able to avoid assassins hired by your Nemesis or gaze up at Caesar’s Needle from the hallowed streets of Rome.

All of these make me think that having a Marauder might be useful for waylaying travelers and a Thug for assassination plots. And they said there's going to be around 20 different attributes right? That's going to be fantastic. I am really hoping that they have a DD next week.



This quote is from DD 120 but I'd still like to discuss it:

The 'Hire Court Physician' Current Situation is now marked as dangerous/high prio, as being without one is indeed quite dangerous

I wonder if this just means that you're more likely to get hurt hunting, participating in tournaments, and traveling in general. Or maybe they've buffed diseases and the frequency that you get them? If you take your physician with you hunting or whatever, does that mean your court is in big trouble if disease breaks out there and vice versa? I haven't noticed any other hints about them including new hazards where you can be saved by a physician. Maybe poisoning?

 

[Ostermex]

They already said they don't reset. But to truly have them broken you need to be able to keep control of the county they are stationed in and extra large retinue are expensive, so if you have multiple of those it would usually require you to be susceptible to assassination until you unlock better succession law or keep a full treasure vault for your successor, which mean you are likely not spending on tournament and building, to have better knight and combat bonus to go along with the retinue you have, as you are putting that money on maintaining a bunch of extra large retinues. So in the end we cannot really know how broken, until we experience the new game balance, of this patch, as a whole.

No, this has nothing to do really with domain or buildings where MaAs would be stationed in.

Look at the screenshots of Glory Bonus to MaA size.

Let's say your max MaA size is 6
You get one of those, let's say it's even rank one, that's +2 to size for Cavalry. For them, now the max size is 8, and if it upgrades to +6, now it's 12.
And when your ruler, or that knight dies, you will still be left with however many Cavalry MaA stacks of 12 you could have bought in that time.

That is broken, and they could fix it, by making MaA sizes refresh on succession, but they won't, for some reason.

Also, the "money for maintaining" is not an argument, as getting money in CK3 is a joke. In my last Ironman run, I had an income of 22 gold in the first 15 years, starting as a single county, and 43 gold in 40 years. Yes, I know they will nerf the domain limit and building limit, but it won't affect it that much, not from the changes I've seen in the previous DDs.

Mind you, I want to be wrong, I actually want this game to not become extremely easy once you become a king. But seeing how Royal Court modifier shenanigans are still not nerfed, and how OP these new modifiers seem.... I am not entirely optimistic. It does seem to me, from the previous DDs, that there will be an extra challenge now, but you have to keep in mind that the AI will also have those challenges, and hence we will just be back where we started.

 

[iniudan]

No, this has nothing to do really with domain or buildings where MaAs would be stationed in.

Look at the screenshots of Glory Bonus to MaA size.

Let's say your max MaA size is 6
You get one of those, let's say it's even rank one, that's +2 to size for Cavalry. For them, now the max size is 8, and if it upgrades to +6, now it's 12.
And when your ruler, or that knight dies, you will still be left with however many Cavalry MaA stacks of 12 you could have bought in that time.

That is broken, and they could fix it, by making MaA sizes refresh on succession, but they won't, for some reason.

Also, the "money for maintaining" is not an argument, as getting money in CK3 is a joke. In my last Ironman run, I had an income of 22 gold in the first 15 years, starting as a single county, and 43 gold in 40 years. Yes, I know they will nerf the domain limit and building limit, but it won't affect it that much, not from the changes I've seen in the previous DDs.

Mind you, I want to be wrong, I actually want this game to not become extremely easy once you become a king. But seeing how Royal Court modifier shenanigans are still not nerfed, and how OP these new modifiers seem.... I am not entirely optimistic. It does seem to me, from the previous DDs, that there will be an extra challenge now, but you have to keep in mind that the AI will also have those challenges, and hence we will just be back where we started.

Your are basing your view on a balance that no longer exist after the patch. From what been show until now someone who properly set up their MaA can have very large modifier now, but has to be set up at an individual level, yes you might have twice as many MaA as your opponent but wha are you gonna do against an opponent that stacked them with +300% of modifier on those that they have, because they specialized their holding on having good MaA instead of generating revenu to have a lot of MaA.

Thing indeed look like it could easily be broken, but there is just way too many piece that have changed for us to know what the balance is now, before people start getting their hand on the patch and DLC.

 

[Ostermex]

Your are basing your view on a balance that no longer exist after the patch. From what been show until now someone who properly set up their MaA can have very large modifier now, yes you might have twice as many MaA as your opponent but wha are you gonna do against an opponent that stacked them with +300% of modifier on those they have because they specialized their holding on having good MaA instead of generating revenu to have a lot of MaA.

First off, you are implying that the AI in this game is competent, which is just false.

Second, I would love if that happened, but sadly, the AI is hardcoded to build a diverse MaA composition, so they can't hyper focus on one type of regiment like the player can (for example, the player can only build Crossbowmen when they unlock them, and never lose a battle for the rest of the game, literally not a single battle)

Sadly, the AI will absolutely not play to their advantages.
For example, if they do have +300% damage modifier for light cavalry, they will never build more than one, or maximum two regiments of light cav, simply because they are literally coded to diversify their MaA types. I know, I looked into the logic behind it when I wondered why the AI doesn't build more siege units.
The AI also doesn't fully max out their MaA to the available size, as they have set number of MaA they look to keep, which is directly related to their number of levies they can raise.

Again, all things Paradox can change to make the AI more competent, but they won't.

 

[Bootymcboots]

First off, you are implying that the AI in this game is competent, which is just false.

Second, I would love if that happened, but sadly, the AI is hardcoded to build a diverse MaA composition, so they can't hyper focus on one type of regiment like the player can (for example, the player can only build Crossbowmen when they unlock them, and never lose a battle for the rest of the game, literally not a single battle)

Sadly, the AI will absolutely not play to their advantages.
For example, if they do have +300% damage modifier for light cavalry, they will never build more than one, or maximum two regiments of light cav, simply because they are literally coded to diversify their MaA types. I know, I looked into the logic behind it when I wondered why the AI doesn't build more siege units.
The AI also doesn't fully max out their MaA to the available size, as they have set number of MaA they look to keep, which is directly related to their number of levies they can raise.

Again, all things Paradox can change to make the AI more competent, but they won't.

Haven't they already changed what the core issue is here? The AI not playing to massively stacked bonuses? Now that you can't massively stack bonuses and it's dependent on stationing, things are looking a bit different in that regard.

Your previous post mention gold being too easy to have in the late game, but between the new and expensive activities and the new balances to buildings intended to address that, I think this will be less of a problem. They are trying to address that specific issue, and it's even possible that it is fully address in the upcoming patch. Not super likely but still.

Most games will have exploits and dominant strategies. Most games that have those don't have the AI use them. I would not particularly enjoy playing it if the AI rushed Crossbowmen and maxed them out. The AI are not trying to model players, they are trying to model medieval rulers and states, or perhaps even players that don't always behave optimally. And that's a good thing. Though the military AI is another matter.

I do agree that the numbers on the knights seem high and it's hard to believe that Glory will be hard enough to get that it balances out.

 

[Xaarinth]

I can't wait to mod out all of the restrictions you mentioned. Hopefully it's not too hard to make it so that there can be as many Accolades as you have knights

 

[Ostermex]

Haven't they already changed what the core issue is here? The AI not playing to massively stacked bonuses? Now that you can't massively stack bonuses and it's dependent on stationing, things are looking a bit different in that regard.

Your previous post mention gold being too easy to have in the late game, but between the new and expensive activities and the new balances to buildings intended to address that, I think this will be less of a problem. They are trying to address that specific issue, and it's even possible that it is fully address in the upcoming patch. Not super likely but still.

Most games will have exploits and dominant strategies. Most games that have those don't have the AI use them. I would not particularly enjoy playing it if the AI rushed Crossbowmen and maxed them out. The AI are not trying to model players, they are trying to model medieval rulers and states, or perhaps even players that don't always behave optimally. And that's a good thing. Though the military AI is another matter.

I do agree that the numbers on the knights seem high and it's hard to believe that Glory will be hard enough to get that it balances out.

Have you seen the "Knight in army" bonuses in this DD? +60% Damage just for existing in the army???
The player will absolutely be able to exploit the everloving crap out of them, not just MaA size. The player will always have more MaAs and knights than the AI, thus more Knights with Accolades, thus a stronger army.

Yes, the new expenses will be an awesome moneysink. Too bad they are ENTIRELY optional and avoidable for the player (since there are no penalties for not doing them when you don't want to), while the AI will most probably be forced, by the code, to do them, thus waste money, while the player will be able to hoard it all.

Yeah, sure, there will always be strategies that the players will do that are cheesy, but I don't consider buying the best available unit (both damage wise and money wise) to be cheesing??? Disinheriting is cheesing, playing optimally and buying MaAs you built your buildings around isn't cheesing, that's just good play.

And it isn't my/our fault that Paradox nerfs the AI in the code, when they force them to diversify their MaAs (to clarify, in the code, the AI is told to first pick the best possible unit they can, and after that, the AI has a penalty on their choice that is basically a "Same unit penalty", meaning that the AI will almost never build the same unit twice), and when they tell them to only build a certain percentage of MaAs compared to their total available levy.

I think this patch will be a step in the right direction, since I see some nerfs, but now, in this DD, I also see something that the player will easily be able to exploit.
It's a "Two steps forward, one step backwards" situation.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Have you seen the "Knight in army" bonuses in this DD? +60% Damage just for existing in the army???
The player will absolutely be able to exploit the everloving crap out of them, not just MaA size. The player will always have more MaAs and knights than the AI, thus more Knights with Accolades, thus a stronger army.

Yes, the new expenses will be an awesome moneysink. Too bad they are ENTIRELY optional and avoidable for the player (since there are no penalties for not doing them when you don't want to), while the AI will most probably be forced, by the code, to do them, thus waste money, while the player will be able to hoard it all.

Yeah, sure, there will always be strategies that the players will do that are cheesy, but I don't consider buying the best available unit (both damage wise and money wise) to be cheesing??? Disinheriting is cheesing, playing optimally and buying MaAs you built your buildings around isn't cheesing, that's just good play.

And it isn't my/our fault that Paradox nerfs the AI in the code, when they force them to diversify their MaAs (to clarify, in the code, the AI is told to first pick the best possible unit they can, and after that, the AI has a penalty on their choice that is basically a "Same unit penalty", meaning that the AI will almost never build the same unit twice), and when they tell them to only build a certain percentage of MaAs compared to their total available levy.

I think this patch will be a step in the right direction, since I see some nerfs, but now, in this DD, I also see something that the player will easily be able to exploit.
It's a "Two steps forward, one step backwards" situation.

Considering one of the ways in increasing accolade level is by going to tournaments, you as the player deciding to coast only on NPCs tournaments might backfire… you would want to create your own tournaments as well to try and maximize them.

 

[Ostermex]

Considering one of the ways in increasing accolade level is by going to tournaments, you as the player deciding to coast only on NPCs tournaments might backfire… you would want to create your own tournaments as well to try and maximize them.

Yes, but then you max what accolade you want to max, and then what?

No more going to tournaments, keep stockpiling gold, while the AI will have to do it all the time.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Until I get my hands on the DLC, I will have to see how fast it is to reach rank 6 accolades, specially when knights die and thr accolade decreases level

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Have you seen the "Knight in army" bonuses in this DD? +60% Damage just for existing in the army???
The player will absolutely be able to exploit the everloving crap out of them, not just MaA size. The player will always have more MaAs and knights than the AI, thus more Knights with Accolades, thus a stronger army.

*If* you can get your knight to rank 6 without them dying and the title going dormant or losing ranks.

And the number of Acclaimed Knights is such that the AI can reasonably be expected to have a good fill of them. The AI takes the necessary techs. The AI can be taught to take the relevant dynasty legacy, at which point it's a matter of rank, and whether the AI in question is a King or Emperor.

And of course the AI can equally have an accolade with those bonuses.

Yes, the new expenses will be an awesome moneysink. Too bad they are ENTIRELY optional and avoidable for the player (since there are no penalties for not doing them when you don't want to), while the AI will most probably be forced, by the code, to do them, thus waste money, while the player will be able to hoard it all.

The penalties for not using the mechanics would, on first glance, appear to be that you're not going to be gaining the bonuses for hosting the activities, and maybe even not attending them - at which point AI characters can take advantage of the activities to gain experience for their Acclaimed Knights, to recruit Knights that fit the accolades they're using, to make the alliances and so on that events at activities allow for. Basically opportunity cost.
Now, I could be wrong, and I'll have to wait to see what's going to happen with the expansion, but just sitting there on money and doing nothing productive with it doesn't seem likely to be a good strategy, *even with* buying mercenary units to swell your numbers.

Yes, but then you max what accolade you want to max, and then what?

Maybe try to get other accolades working?
Get your allies to come to your tournaments so that they can work on their accolades for their knights.
Maybe use the activities to *make* alliances, even if that just keeps people off your back.

Maybe go to activities to raise the relevant paths for your character and his court, so that they're more experienced.

Or maybe play and experience the content of the game rather than looking at it solely as a wargame that can be optimised to the point of no-fun.

 

[Ostermex]

And of course the AI can equally have an accolade with those bonuses.

The way the AI is coded now, it can end up with +60% Light Cav Damage, and it will still only have one regiment of Light Cav, and it'll be at like 4/8 size.
Sorry, that's literally the code.

The penalties for not using the mechanics would, on first glance, appear to be that you're not going to be gaining the bonuses

How is not getting a bonus a "penalty"?

And the number of Acclaimed Knights is such that the AI can reasonably be expected to have a good fill of them

Yes, this is a good thing, limit it to such a way that the AI will have it in the same capacity as the player. Real shame it isn't done with more things.

but just sitting there on money and doing nothing productive with it doesn't seem likely to be a good strategy

First off, I didn't say that. I said that the player will be able to save up money for a long term goal, like for example, saving all his goal for when he finishes the Architect tree with his Stewardship ruler, so he can maximize his building gold. Or, to not go to such an extreme, the player can use his gold on, as I said multiple times, increasing their MaA size/regiments, while the AI will always look to make feasts/hunts (hence why we get so many invites when you have a decent amount of vassals), and now, the AI will ALSO look to always do Tournaments/Tours, while the player will be free to ignore or partake at their leisure.

And secondly, yes, it absolutely is a good strategy, as you can insta-win any war, by stockpiling gold, and then just buying like 10 merc companies. It literally never fails, as long as you can somewhat match the AI army numbers, as you get merc knights as well as merc MaA. Now, given, that might not be as powerful as it is now, with the bonuses, but something tells me that will still remain an absolutely viable strateg to win any war. It will also become an inevitable thing, as from what I see with the domain limit nerf and the building slot nerf, meaning less building, meaning less gold being spent, meaning the player will max out buildings earlier, which leads to earlier gold stacking for the inevitable merc doomstack (ofc, if necessary).

Maybe try to get other accolades working?

If I build only Light Cav, and get the Accolade for Light Cav, why would I want any other accolade, if the alternative is saving more money, so I can get more....
You guessed it, Light Cav.

But yeah, you are right, eventually the player will probably do that, but by that time, the player will already position himself in a place where no AI can challenge them, leaving the player to mess around with other content.

Maybe use the activities to *make* alliances, even if that just keeps people off your back

Honestly, in this game, you never want to make people "get off your back" (Unless you are sure you can't win), as war might be the best way to make money, since ransoming is insanely OP.
In the start of my last Ironman run, where I was a duke, I had a liberty war happen to me, where the enemies outnumbered me 3:1, was around 100 gold at the start, and by the time it ended, I was at around 1000 gold, and that is with all my troops constantly raised, and no allies. Basically picked off all the armies, ransomed out all the heirs and rulers. The AI never stood a chance, since they don't know how to fight properly in this game.

Also, why use these to make alliances, when they are already extremely easy to make? The player already has at least 4+ kids with every Ruler.

Or maybe play and experience the content of the game rather than looking at it solely as a wargame that can be optimised to the point of no-fun.

I am experiencing content, and I do generally enjoy it.

But I am also playing a Grand Strategy game, where at literally ANY point that I apply actual strategy, I am punished by the game becoming increasingly easier:

"Well, don't buy optimal MaAs"
"Don't build buildings that are clearly the best"
"Don't marry for genetics, that's cheesy, marry for alliances"
"Wait, don't marry for alliances, you are steamrolling every war"

Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Bootymcboots]

Have you seen the "Knight in army" bonuses in this DD? +60% Damage just for existing in the army???
The player will absolutely be able to exploit the everloving crap out of them, not just MaA size. The player will always have more MaAs and knights than the AI, thus more Knights with Accolades, thus a stronger army.

Yes, the new expenses will be an awesome moneysink. Too bad they are ENTIRELY optional and avoidable for the player (since there are no penalties for not doing them when you don't want to), while the AI will most probably be forced, by the code, to do them, thus waste money, while the player will be able to hoard it all.

Yeah, sure, there will always be strategies that the players will do that are cheesy, but I don't consider buying the best available unit (both damage wise and money wise) to be cheesing??? Disinheriting is cheesing, playing optimally and buying MaAs you built your buildings around isn't cheesing, that's just good play.

And it isn't my/our fault that Paradox nerfs the AI in the code, when they force them to diversify their MaAs (to clarify, in the code, the AI is told to first pick the best possible unit they can, and after that, the AI has a penalty on their choice that is basically a "Same unit penalty", meaning that the AI will almost never build the same unit twice), and when they tell them to only build a certain percentage of MaAs compared to their total available levy.

I think this patch will be a step in the right direction, since I see some nerfs, but now, in this DD, I also see something that the player will easily be able to exploit.
It's a "Two steps forward, one step backwards" situation.

I did, and I said the bonuses for the knights seemed too high. But I also don't know how easy they'll be to maintain.

I don't want them to penalize me for not choosing options. I to have options both for roleplay and building purposes so I can choose what kind of run I want to do, and I want the opportunity cost to be the issue not a penalty. The 'penalty' of not doing feasts is fewer friends and missing out on the opinion buffs. The penalty of not hosting grand tournaments is you don't get to buff yourself or your knights as much among other things.

Correct on the building front, which is why this new update will likely reflect a change for the MAA for the AI. Their diverse MAA will be supported rather than barracks stacking since that won't even be a strategy anymore.

 

[Ostermex]

barracks stacking since that won't even be a strategy anymore

Oh, but it will.

Might not be barracks, but there will be a new 'barracks', since you will now be stationing your MaAs inside a holding to get bonuses.

Bonuses provided by the buildings.

Level one Barracks give +20% Damage to the Heavy Infantry/Spearmen MaA stationed there
Level one Militia Camps do the same for Archers/Skirmishers, and they both increase by 20% with each level, as seen in DD 120

Now, if there is also a knight Accolade that gives +60% Archer/Heavy Infantry Damage in the army...

Numbers might still get crazy.

Also, again, as I said, this patch will be an overall nerf, for sure, but it will nerf the AI as much as the player, and I personally think that's just a band-aid on the wound that is balance issues, hence why I call this "Two steps forward, one step backwards"

The AI needs to be buffed (don't mean this literally), not the player nerfed, since the player, in the current game, will always outshine the AI, almost no matter what they do.

 

[Sou713]

The next update is looking great with all the new features. But please, you can't be implementing all this and still not allow player characters to personally fight in battles and put their prowess to use. I don't want my carefully crafted martial character to simply command battles, but to get into the thick of the fighting and score some kills as well. And beside duelling rivals and duelling over artifacts, which is getting really old, I should also be able to duel in the middle of actual battles.

 

[Bootymcboots]

Oh, but it will.

Might not be barracks, but there will be a new 'barracks', since you will now be stationing your MaAs inside a holding to get bonuses.

Bonuses provided by the buildings.

Level one Barracks give +20% Damage to the Heavy Infantry/Spearmen MaA stationed there
Level one Militia Camps do the same for Archers/Skirmishers, and they both increase by 20% with each level, as seen in DD 120

Now, if there is also a knight Accolade that gives +60% Archer/Heavy Infantry Damage in the army...

Numbers might still get crazy.

Also, again, as I said, this patch will be an overall nerf, for sure, but it will nerf the AI as much as the player, and I personally think that's just a band-aid on the wound that is balance issues, hence why I call this "Two steps forward, one step backwards"

The AI needs to be buffed (don't mean this literally), not the player nerfed, since the player, in the current game, will always outshine the AI, almost no matter what they do.

Yeah but with counter efficiency it would be actively bad to just focus on one unit. Since the buffs are per men at arms rather than applying a buff to one kind of unit.

Why build a bunch of light cavalry buildings when you could build a healthy variety? Sure there are other bonuses to men at arms (like from cultures) but those tend to be smaller and even with them you're missing out on other counter efficiency (which is getting a buff apparently based on this dev diary) and terrain bonuses.

Not saying it won't be viable to just ram as many of one kind as possible, it will probably still work, but it won't be optimal play.

Once again you're not going to find me disagreeing that the knight bonuses seem high though. We'll see how it plays out when the update hits but they are quite huge bonuses and so would need huge costs to make them feel like a valid exchange.

 

[Ostermex]

Why build a bunch of light cavalry buildings

Let's say I have 5 slots for MaAs, and the max size is also 5.

1 goes to a Siege Unit I have available.
4 will go to Light Cavalry, which deal base 22 damage.

My domain limit will also be 4.
I station all my Light Cav in my Domain, where I have +60% damage buildings
Now I have 2000 Light Cav dealing 35 damage.

Then I also work to get a knight with the +60% Light Cav Accolade
Now I have 2000 Light Cav dealing 48 damage.
That is before Perks/Traits/Traditions/Train Commanders

And here's the kicker.
The knight bonus will apply to any mercenary Light Cav I buy as well, since it applies to the army the knight is in.

Essentially, If I build a healthy variety, I don't maximize the benefit the Knight Accolade gives me, since it wouldn't give damage to Archers/Skirmishers/Etc.

Now, imagine all this, but with Crossbowmen, and the Culture Tradition that gives you +2 size to your Archer MaA

Yeah but with counter efficiency it would be actively bad to just focus on one unit

Countering doesn't matter to you when you only max one unit. I know, I've done it.
I've maxed out Crossbowmen, and the highest damage penalty they've received due to being "countered" is -10%

This is because "countering" is proportional to the size difference of the units countering and being countered.
And since the AI counter unit will never come close to the number of your single built unit, it, as I said, doesn't matter.

Essentially, AI's ~400 Heavy/Light Cav won't make any sort of difference to my ~2000 Crossbowmen

 

[TravlingCanuck]

Yeah but with counter efficiency it would be actively bad to just focus on one unit. Since the buffs are per men at arms rather than applying a buff to one kind of unit.

Why build a bunch of light cavalry buildings when you could build a healthy variety? Sure there are other bonuses to men at arms (like from cultures) but those tend to be smaller and even with them you're missing out on other counter efficiency (which is getting a buff apparently based on this dev diary) and terrain bonuses.

Not saying it won't be viable to just ram as many of one kind as possible, it will probably still work, but it won't be optimal play.

Once again you're not going to find me disagreeing that the knight bonuses seem high though. We'll see how it plays out when the update hits but they are quite huge bonuses and so would need huge costs to make them feel like a valid exchange.

The reason I'm concerned that it will remain optimal play is the bonus to regiment sizes that come with having the right Accolade.

The building changes make it more difficult to buff your whole army. Each regiment now needs to be stationed in it's own building to get buffed. That's an awesome change and I was glad to see it. It also led me to believe, as you suggested, that you'll now want to build a mix of buildings to have a nice mix of different unit types, each of which is modestly buffed. Excellent stuff!

Then Hastiluder and Accolades came along and turned that on it's ear. One side effect of each building buffing only one regiment is that you want your regiments to be as big as possible to get the maximum benefit per building. Now, once you get an Accolade that lets you have bigger regiments of one type (and also makes regiments of that unit type more powerful and less expensive), you're incentivized to build only those types of buildings and only those types of regiments (on a 1:1 basis).

Maybe the countering rules have been fixed/modified such that it's better to have diversity even if that means a smaller regiment with less effective troops, but I'm doubtful (hope to be wrong!) Even it it does, though, that just incentives getting a second Accolade in play that gives you increased regiment sizes for a second military unit of a complementary type and dividing your military buildings across these two types. Plus a Hastiluder dude to increase all those regiment sizes even further.

Having bigger MAA regiments is such an overwhelming advantage that I was shocked to see that the Hastiluder trait allow one guy give you a one era advantage over your neighbours. But now with Accolades added in you can be two eras or more ahead of your neighbours.

I'm still hopeful that there are more unannounced changes coming that changes the equations further, but the whole fix to buildings and then undermining that with regiment size bonuses smacks of two different teams working on different aspects of the update, one of who was creating a great fix to a problem that has plagued the game up to now, the other of whom undermined those efforts by throwing shack-wacky bonuses at one of the few parts of the game not previously subjected to odd bonuses.

 

[Ostermex]

Then Hastiluder and Accolades came along and turned that on it's ear.

Exactly.

Just what I meant when I said "Two steps forward, one step backwards".