As I said yesterday, thanks to all you for your feedback! It's been quite constructive, and a lot of issues have arisen. So, I think that we may be able to introduce some of them into 1.33 patch, improving the balance focus we had for it. I'll try to answer some of the questions/issues, I'm sorry as I can't do that for each post!
I would suggest also adjusting the Take Mandate CB so that you can't take any land unless you actually take the mandate (like independence CBs).
Otherwise the CB just becomes an exploit for neighbors to attack China anytime for half-price AE, and yet one more reason for people to decide that the mandate is awful and something to avoid rather than desire.
PDX should add some mechanics to force the ai Chinese warlords to unify the whole of China, instead of getting weaker after getting Mandate.
I think making AI to not make chinese warlord as tributary is essential too. Or give some event to make chinese warlord tributary as vassal when liberty desire is low will be good too. Also giving some buff for chinese reunification war is nice idea like reduced truce period.
AI Chinese warlords who meet certain conditions will always be hostile to tags occupying Chinese provinces and try to retake them.
Something I wish I saw more of was Ai Manchu/Qing. Their historical rise to power was quite interesting, but it 99% of games Manchu never forms and we instead see the EXTREMELY ahistorical big Korea almost every single game. Jianzhou, Manchu, and Qing all get the lucky nation bonus but it still doesnt seem to be enough.
Perhaps the AI the Jurchen tribes needs to be much more aggressive, and the mission that gives free cores on the land instead gave a lot of admin points. Another thing that could help is if steppe nomads had a huge chance of breaking their tributary status with Ming if they go above 300 dev so the unguarded frontier disaster would fire, or if AI nations considered how high Mings mandate was in deciding to attack or not.
The main reason China stays fractured is because the tributary state system is broken. Nations will make tributary states instead of conquering the land. How many times have you seen Japan tributary Ainu or an independent daimyo instead of uniting the archipelago?
Here is how to fix gameplay in China permanently:
1. If your capital is on the Chinese subcontinent, you cannot make another country your tributary state if their capital is also on the Chinese subcontinent.
2. Increase the number of provinces with jurchen culture so that Manchu forms more reliably.
3. AI should cancel tributary status on a country if the AI has permanent claims / cores on that nation's territory.
This will have the following results:
- The jurchen tribes will have more land giving them better armies and better economies
- The jurchen tribes will have an easier time forming Manchu
- Once Manchu forms it will conquer all the other tribes instead of making them into tributaries
- When a Mingsplosion occurs none of the new countries will be able to tributary each other
- The smaller Chinese countries will battle between themselves
- Manchu will have claims on the northern provinces and will not tributary Shun or some other country
- When Manchu forms Qing, they will be able to unite the subcontinent
This is what players want to see. They want to see Ming survive for a while, then explode, and then they want a new country (either Qing or someone else) to conquer and unite the Chinese subcontinent.
Changing tributary state mechanics will fix this issue.
Thanks to the comments in this DD, we'll be adding a few more balance changes to China/EoC, regarding what you're saying; as we have to implement and test it, stay tuned to 1.33 patchnotes when we release them.
One thing that I have never, ever seen in a campaign which I would like to see once in a while (say 2-5% of campaigns) is an expansionist, aggressive Ming. It would be interesting, should AI Ming get a militarist ruler, to see it blob outwards for once.
Well, this was a great problem in MoH/1.20 patch, as Ming used to blob as far as Muscowy, so it got nerfed. The thing is that if we buff Ming, then the Mingplossion and reconstruction of MoH would be much rarer to be seen.
Really looking forward to the update, great changes. However, I have two questions.
Can you confirm that no more provinces will be added in 1.33 or later patches?
And can you confirm that this bug is getting fixed in 1.33? Thank you!
On top of what my colleague
@Ogele has already answered, we won't be adding more provinces until game performance improves to a certain level, and that may take a while.
So a piece of feedback:
Playing a Mongol or Jurchen tag without Mandate of Heaven installed is really painful because a bunch of the things that get in the way of Ming ruining your day are DLC-only features.
Is there any scope to have a look at this?
No, TBH, as undoing previous DLC features is usually a pain code-wise.
So, 1.33 will be centered around East Asia? Thought we would get either a revamped Scandinavia/Levant/South America.
We'll tackle a new region for 1.34, along with new content.
Talking about buffing Portugals Ideas to buff them to a level of a tier 1 nation, can I suggest looking at the british ideas aswell?
Their naval ideas are challenged by multiple other tags by now and the best and most proffessional army during eu4 timeline is represented with a +5% Discipline buff.
Compared to other nations of the same tier like France, Spain, Prussia, Poland, Russia or Sweden, their ideas are kinda weak. I get they should be a bit weaker since their geographic location is very safe and for gameplay reasons shouldn't just dominate both sea and land battles.
Still I think some buffs to Infantry CA or yearly army Proffessionalism ( for owners of cradle) or a buff to chruch power to make going anglican more reasonable, especially since catholic is so good now, would be very reasonable.
England needs a buff in the mid to late game. We know from history that by the end of game time the British Empire spanned a quarter of the world’s landmass. In AI hands 50% of the time France owns Cornwall by 1500 and I’ve never seen them in India, let alone owning / controlling most of it
basically it’s a sandbox but there should be outcomes that are more likely than others. France in North Africa being one example
British NI's are still quite powerful. And that Red Coats were the most professional army during EU4 timeline is something debatable.
Regarding this, I've got another picture of a recent nightly with GB performing really well:
Is Korea conquering the steps intended/desirable? It seems like Korea is now quite proficient at blobbing.
good job Korean empire every game LOL
Korea is performing quite well, although I've seen other nightlies were it underperforms and gets eaten by Jianzhou/Japan.
I don't understand the purpose of these hard blocks for war demands. Isn't there a mechanic for taking things your CB isn't about taking? Unjustified demands.
I feel like this opens a slippery slope for things like no cb (can't take anything), conquest (can only take claims), reconquest, etc.
Please could you go into the reasoning behind this change? Was it being abused some how? Also, was there a consistent reason across all the CBs, or was it lead by the Force Tributary decision, with the others changed for consistency?
It seems like an odd choice to me considering that this is what the unjustified demands mechanic is supposed to deal with. Could the Unjustified Demands modifier not have just been increased in these instances instead?
It feels like there's been a lot of alterations being made with CBs across the last few patches (Humiliate Rival: Allowing vassalization (temporarily), Expand Empire: Cost and AE changes, Force Union: AE changes) but it's never clear why. It certainly doesn't seem like something anyone is asking for, not that I think that should be the sole thing driving changes, but it usually seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
>- Force Tributary CB (along with other CB’s with a specific purpose, as Restoration of Union and Subjugation) don’t allow taking of provinces any more.
This does NOT seem like a good idea at all. This way Austria can no longer take the goldmines from Bohemia and Hungary in multiplayer games.
In general I think these CBs should still give you the opportunity to take land. I don't see the point in removing this.
In the last patches we're following a design philosophy regarding CB's, as we want to enforce their specificity. This is for two reasons: to stop players using cheap CBs to take land, so now they have to choose wisely which CB and War Objective to pick for each war.
Nice thing with the Korean and Vietnamese cultures being a choice for the player. I always felt like this would be the best solution, but it was always said that the Manchu solution was to be the only such instance of changing groups.
Is it possible to provide more Chinese culture (more potential Chinese tags) to provide more East Asian possibilities?
Can Ryukyu culture be divided out Kyushuan? Like the Malta of East Asia? Ryukyu culture is quite different from other Japanese cultures.
Existing East Asian culture is too thin compared to reality.
Oh, this sounds interesting! How does it work in the code? Will there be a chinese_korean and a korean_korean, and the decision switches all provinces and primary culture from korean_korean culture to chinese_korean culture?
P.s. I know it's a bit ahistorical and to make Japanese expansionist this early, but I think their national idea which gives a tiny bonus to colonists could be replaced with them getting a whole colonist. This would incite them to develop their own provinces, and colonize one or another nearby island. Take it from the countless indonesian tribes which get a whole colonist!
Also another suggestion and this one is about Mongols. What about giving them decision Sinocize our Culture to Mongol cultures and their nation. Yuan dinasty went fort and back acording to one documentary i watched before it colapsed. Player could perhaps have such option to finally bring Mongols within Chinese.
I agree with point 2. Making altaic and Tibetan groups also being able to sinicize would make a lot of sense and just open up a lot more interesting possibilities. I would also look at adding at the very least a Tibetan culture formable China tag and maybe a Korean chinese emperor tag (Since Altaic already has Yuan, but having more formable chinese emperor tags can't hurt in general)
I also think this is a good idea. Sinocizing Altaic + Tibetan groups should be possible and adding a tag for a Tibet or a Korea Emperor would just make the region a lot more interesting overall. Would also encourage for players in the region to actually take the Mandate to form thoee tags instead of trying to avoid it.
I don't know how I feel about not being allowed to take land when restoring a union though. It won't allow you to promise your allies land and thus lower your trust and it'll also make it harder to keep those large PU's in check. Might have to be balanced.
Regarding these, what we've already done is expanding the Manchu decision to Sinicize to Vietnam and Korea. And after this comments, we think it's also a good idea to do it for Tibetan culture tags, and also when Yuan is formed so that will cover both Mongol and Altaic tags, and will be coherent with their mission trees).
Can you tell us something about what Is your outlook on east Europe balance?
It seems to me that more often than not Austria and Russia get eaten by ottomans, giving little variance between games. I rarely see a powerful Austria, Russia, Persia and especially Prussia in my games. Always fighting ottomans that eat half of Europe can become boring at times!
Update to Scandinavia when? Possibly Scandinavia formable being changed to not be a nerf (gets rid of country specific events sadly).
We've not done as much as European balance as with last patch, as we already rebalanced Catholicism and a few more things for 1.32, and we really wanted to focus on East Asia for 1.33. We'll let you know when we come back to that.
So when will you do something about the completely out of control Ottomans?
Please consider doing something about the event where Crimea becomes an Ottoman march. Ottoman AI simply changes them to a vassal and diploannexes within a few decades. This puts them into a prime position to expand at Lithuania and Russia's expense. In two of the AI test screenshots posted, one has the Ottos blobbing hard into Central Europe, annihilating Austria and the other has them carving a path north to the Arctic Circle.
No. Ottomans are usually blobbing, but that has always been a thing in EU4, and we think that nerfing them would create more new issues than solutions. What we will be actually doing is taking a look about this Crimea issue mentioned here, as it may help balancing the Ottomans-Russia relation.
And what about a generic mission tree for chinese warlords such as Shun, Qi or whatever ?
Hoping the Chinese warlords could have some new mission tree like Qing. The current Chinese missions are kind of... poor I have to say.
We would have liked to create new content regarding Chinese missions, TBH, but we have to be careful with development time and calendars. There are other regions that deserve some more love, and we thought that a balancing iteration first would be a better starting point to improve it.
Will you guys be looking at the Dutch revolt and unification of the Netherlands? I find it slightly uncomfortable that the Dutch Revolt doesn't spawn that often in any of my games (I've only seen it once or twice), and I think this is because Burgundy has a tendancy to lose its PU in Lowlands from a poorly planned war against the HRE.
We'd like to take a look on this, as with other older mechanics; we'll see when we're goin back to Europe, as I said.
Can you please fix Georgian states' Government names and return them to being called "Principalities" on the duchy level instead of utterly cringeworthy "Khanates"? And can you please fix the starting position of the country? It wasn't even dissolved until 1447 and even that event was a brief separation, unlike the actual triarchy which happened in 1490. I feel nauseous whenever I play as my own country in vanilla due to these.
It's also generally sad that its one of the few remaining countries in the Eastern Europe which doesnt have any mission trees ("most of the other Orthodox minors already have them, like Serbia and Romanian states), but its more or less tolerable, but I cannot comprehend how simple things such as appropriate name and actual date of dissolution can fail so spectacuraly.
We'll fix the government names ASAP. New missions for Georgia would take a while, on the other hand.
It would be nice to not lose the effects of the culture specific monuments after the formation of Rome.
We'll think about this, although it's not a priority for us.
Amazing work. Focusing on balance is what this game needs most at the moment, maybe excluding some major bugs. Love to see Persia and Mughals. As usual, I will post the balance list, with exceptional plea to fix the intitution spread speed, as written in point no. 1 in major problems!
MAJOR PROBLEMS
- The institution system is balanced horribly, and is one of the major problems of the games that last until 1600s and later. It basically results in African tribes being on equal technological foot as European powers. Only the Printing Press institution is spreading at a correct speed; the pace of the rest of them is seriously concerning and due to change.
- Colonization is broken. The speed of colonization is hilarously too big, resulting in the entire world - including the American and Brazilian interior as well as African inner lands (!) - being completely colonized by the year of 1700. The Africa issue stands on its own, and it's amusing that the African-themed expansion doesn't have anything to stop the colonization of interior Africa by the Europeans. If Europa Universalis is anything else than a glorified 4X game, fixing the entire issue of colonization should be one of the priorities. This post has great amount of additional suggestions: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-trade-diplomacy-and-quality-of-life.1453724/
- The mercenaries scaling is broken. Lategame mercenary armies are too big; they need to be capped, or balanced in a different way. The mercenary effect on Army Professionalism is also worth to be looked at, as a simple -5% change every mercenary company hired is off-balance when we hire a 5K or 100K company, or when we don't disband them after the end of the war.
IMPORTANT BALANCE PROBLEMS
- The historical direction of the game has been heavily discarded over the number of patches and updates; while the game should obviously be a sandbox, some features added in previous paid DLCs (!) are completely forgotten. Manchu forms much more rarely than before, and Prussia almost never forms. Mughals never form. Zaporozhie is a not very amusing joke, being nowhere to be seen ever, despite very unique mechanics it possesses. The Middle-East is very much not working correctly as well. Persia almost never forms, and thus the Ottoman Empire, after dealing with the Mamluks, never have a strong rival on the other side of their territory, leaving the fight to the Habsburgs and usually-declining Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The whole area of Persia seems to be extremely border-gorey, with no nation being able to unite the rest and form Persia. Lack of mission trees in the Middle-East may be related to this issue. Fixing old content is a great way to make the game feel fresh without having to create actual new content!
- The conditional military access allows for seriously ahistorical gameplay. Getting rid of it is not necessary, but limiting it would be much appreciated; for example, it could only work for the same religion, so the Ottomans could not go through entire Europe to siege Paris. In this example, they would have to either ask for the access, or wage war against the HRE to get to France.
- Centralization of states mechanic is currently not worth it in any situation as long as the Expand Administration mechanic exists.
- Catholic colonies are at this moment bugged; because of the Treaty of Tordesillas, they do not declare wars on anyone, as opposed to the Protestant colonies.
MINOR PROBLEMS
- The Council of Trent is broken. The tradeoff between the two sides (conciliatory and harsh) is the difference in price paid from the Curia Coffers; however, at that point of the game, the Coffers are flowing with money, making the choice utterly one-sided. Additionally, the choice made by the Curia controller is most often opposite of what should be picked.
- The downfall of Mamluks is not represented properly. If a proper Disaster would be added, the Ottomans could be toned down a very little, allowing them to take on the Mamluks without the (very) many bonuses the Sublime Porte has, preserving their "boss" status while enabling a more historical outcome of having the peak of their power in the 16th-17th centuries.
- The hegemons mechanic is useless at anything that is not a world conquest. The bonuses could be scaled down and the requirements could be toned down and made relative, so for example Great Britain could become a naval hegemon naturally over the course of the game, much like in history.
- Many missions are outdated. It is not about the entire mission trees (although the power creep is real), it is about such missions as Spanish cultural conversion of Grenada, which is now broken (ineffective in cost to reward). There are more examples, including:
- Missions on the Indian subcontinent often require high estate loyalty/influence, which was not adjusted to the estates rework.
Hello -
Regarding 1.33 I really hoped for some more balancing and adjusting of 1.31 and 1.32 features. For example its kinda harsh to add new mechanics for the jewish faith and then have almost no possiblity to play with it. Besides much needed new events/possibilities to get jewish (or give an input of the important role a lot of jewish minorities had in a lot of countries/goverment), there are 5 things that are gameplaywise i.m.o. a bad choice. I played a lot with jewish after the patch.
1. Christians can crusade you - why? Is there any reason for that? There should be at least a variation if its need to be possible.
2. You loose the mameluk goverment reform if you convert to jewish after conquering the ethiopian provinces. - Why? The Mameluk Goverment is a lot about diversity of his rulers etc, but suddently you lose all of it (without any warning or reasoning) I guess it would be great to allow the goverment to be also jewish to don't miss out a big part of immersive events and content just for switching to jewish.
3. You can't form ethiopia while being jewish - you need to be coptic. Why? As a ethiopian minor you just lose out of the possiblity of converting and reforming later in ethiopia and are stuck now forever with a bigger missiontree as the minors don't get any love. Also as jewish reformed ethiopia your coptic missions are not pssible.
4. You can't form Israel as a jewish mameluck or likewise - why?
4. The temple of jerusalem event. You need to know the wiki for that - why? As there are just a few and very soon repetitiv events for the jewish faith you miss out about this possiblity. A very simple solution would be, that you get an event when conquering jerusalem, that it maybe would be a good reason to convert the holy city back to his faith, as it could help the glory of the old monument or something like that.
Estates:
Kilwa. The 30 Influence for their unique Estate privileg about the gold mines is waaay to high, so I would never pick it, as it would be very hard to get away ever again (together with the +5 Power Costs, what is fair). I guess 15-20 Influence would be still high, but managable. Maybe you could combine it with -5 Crownland for picking. (or smth)
Please also consider to make the estate overview tab more apealing and logical for newer players - there are alreay a lot of good mods to to that.
China: I still thing its a big downer to let people feel that first play ming, that they don't have missions. Conquest missions are not needed, but it would be very nice and userfriendly to make just a few missions that tell the people to handle the situation in the north (and warn them about the disasters or let him rebuild the "great wall"), to harmonize one religion (and give them a buff one time), to use the mandate of heaven once or gather 2-3 new tributaries and one about the estates. With that you could get 4-5 missions without overpowering ming, but give the player a nice connecting of existing features for ming and the player wouldn't feel, that mings missions tree would be empty (and ofc you could transfer this missiontree to ming revoltertags)
As a historian: One big missed opportunity with monuments was for me, that there are no informations about the herritage/reason for the monuments. WIth most of the other things you could actually learn something. It is a shame, that there is not even a small tooltip with 2-3 sentences about the monument itself as we have it for most of the other immersive and also educating features. I don't think it would be a big effort, but a very good thing to give it a bigger quality!
I also really hoped to get more details about making monuments more usefull (I suggested 3 ideas with your positive response a while back ago)
We're going to through these two very detailed posts, as there a lot of issues being commented on there. Thanks to both of you!
Will there be a rework of the collapse of Ashikaga and the start of the Sengoku Jidai?
Not in the short term, TBH.
When can we except these changes to go live?
Later Q1. We've got an internal fixed date for it, but we want to be sure that final changes are well implemented, tested and polished, and that may take some weeks, so I don't want to advance any date for it getting live, as we're not in a rush, as it's a free patch not coupled with a new DLC.
Hello! As usual my suggestion is that you please put El Morro Castle in the correct province. San Juan is having its 500 year anniversary this year and what better way to celebrate it than having its famous Castle where it belongs EU IV.
[BGCOLOR=rgb(30, 40, 62)]Even the King of Spain is paying us a visit[/BGCOLOR] next week; a visit which will likely include a visit to the fortifications as part of the ceremony.
Already fixed that for 1.33, along with the modifier it gives to the Overlord; it looks that just in time.
Out of curiosity, how long do the devs take to rework an outdated mission tree? Come to think of it, all those before Emperor (for Europe) are extremely flat now, of course Sweden-Denmark, but also Poland, Lithuania, and even Russia to some extent.
It depends on how outdated it is, and how deep the rework to be. For instance, regarding Origins and Leviathan mission trees, it took a few months, as they were to be created mostly from scratch.
I have a suggestion. The Siberian tribes still use generic ship models, maybe they should use the Asian ones.
Will try to fix this for 1.33.
I wonder will there be Faction system update in 1.33 patch. It is one of the worst system now.
We'll want to rework the Faction system in the future, but that's not a thing for 1.33.
Could we also take a quick look at the Korean dynamic province list while we're in the far east?
In light of Korea finally getting its well deserved buff (bless the devs), I'd like to quickly go over a few suggestions for Korea's province names. Rename Hamheung's provincial capital to Hamheung. Rename Yukjin's provincial capital to...
forum.paradoxplaza.com
We'll take a look over this.
First of all, HOLY SHIT I LOVE YOU for just being even willing to implement changes like this. I hope this continues and applies to other systems in the game too!
That said, I'm not sure how to understand this
If shock and fire were to also count towards morale damage, how would morale still be the best? Is fire/shock going to only add a small bonus to morale damage? if so, how much and what would it depend on? +1 fire/shock pip advantage would be equivalent to what bonus?
PS: might be a weird question, but what exactly led you to first realize that this is an issue, and that this could be the solution?
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE that you did, but given the history of EU4's development over past years that's also very.. new
Hello Pdx,
About the proposed combat change: - "Regiments’ fire and shock pips now also count toward morale damage in their respective phases. Many of you will know that morale pips have been superior to fire and shock pips. This change will make the pips more equal in value, although morale pips may still be the better pick most of the time. To preserve the overall flow of battles, we’re thinking not to apply this to artillery protection from backrow, as it is asymmetrical."
I would advise against this change.
Firstly, the proposed change doesn't aim to fix something that amounts to a critical problem. Not all modifiers, not all strategic choices are or have to be similar to equal. This can be true even when the disparity is significant, as it is here. It is not apparent how the gampleplay would be improved, in and of itself, by lowering the gap in respective values of pips.
Second, the proposed change doesn't adress the supposed problem. Morale pips for one will still remain on the whole superior to the previously called kill casualties pips. More importantly, the defensive pips will continue to outperform offensive pips.
Third the proposed change causes harm greater than that of the supposed problem. It adds further unnecessary complexity to a mechanic that is already difficult to explain to newer players (even veteran players often fail to understand let alone remember long term the exact workings of combat). Especially if exceptions are added, like the artillery one here. In addition the exception will not prevent all cases of the usual flow of the game being disrupted. An example that is likely to be encountered & to frustrate newer players, is that the ottoman troops would be stronger yet in the early game.
The last point is that there are alternative direct or indirect methods that can achieve the stated goal. Other modifications to the combat equations are possible, though perhaps not desirable. But also changes to warfare mechanics such as forts, sieges, assaults, attrition, manpower, mercs could lead to differences in the current value of the pips.
I wonder if the ambition of the change is to make possible a reform of the lackulstre 'technlogy group - pip selection' mechanic. Then somewhat equalising the value of the pips would serve a purpose. But I hope you will reconsider the means by which you set out to achieve this.
Happy new year
Well, regarding this, it came to the mind of
@Gnivom :
"When researching for making the AI understand troop quality better, it has struck me that morale pips are many times more important than fire and shock pips (I'm talking about the regiment templates). This is both because morale pips apply in both phases, and because morale damage is generally more important than casualty damage. The result is that experienced players will always pick units with maximum morale pips, and have a significant advantage over AIs and less experienced players. I don't know if we want to tweak the combat system right now, but we can make this change:
- Make fire and shock pips affect morale damage as well as strength damage (this would make them have the same total impact as morale pips, but morale pips would still be a bit better since morale is more important)."
So, it's not an extreme change to combat meta, but a tweak to it. We understand that may be some concerns with it, but we also think that this kind of changes from time to time are positive for the game.
Please tell us that bugfixing will continue to be a priority for Tinto even after 1.33.
This is an investment that never fails to pay dividends for the game.
Reserved this comment to the end of the post: Yes, absolutely! We're really committed on reducing bug count of EU4, and that will continue being one of our priorities in the next patches. We'll take more in detail about this in a DD in a couple weeks.
.png "image (1).png")
.png "image (2).png")
.png "image (3).png")
.png "image (4).png")
.png "image (5).png")
.png "image (6).png")
.png "image (7).png")
.png "image (8).png")