• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 20th of December 2022 - Unit Pips Rebalance

Hello and welcome to another EUIV DD!

Today we will be talking about the rebalance of the Unit Pips we're working on for the upcoming 1.35 update. This task has been led by our QA Team, which was reinforced throughout the year, and that has been key to the release of Lions of the North, as the new members that have joined the Team credit over 5,000 hours of gameplay on EUIV. But apart from testing the game, they are also involved in the game design process, a classic at Paradox, which usually relies on close cooperation between the different teams. Therefore, this is the proposal we'll be testing in the following weeks, taking also into account the feedback we receive in this DD, of course!



Hello everyone, I'm @Pintu , one of the Embedded QA’s working at Tinto.

I want to show you the rework we are doing on the Unit Pips of the different Techgroups, one of the Systems that saw very few changes since the Release of EU4. As we implemented changes to the Combat calculations in the 1.34 update, we think now it’s a good moment to address this rebalance.

First I want to quickly outline what the Unit Pips do in what parts of combat they matter, for those not as experienced in the game. In each combat phase, Strength Damage is dealt depending on the Offensive Damage Pips of the Units, while Morale Damage is dealt based on Offensive Damage and Offensive Morale Pips. Defending works the same way with the Defensive Pips of the Unit, but half of the Defensive Pips (rounded down) of the Backrow Units is added on top of that. That means that over the course of the game, the priority of pips shifts from having a strong Shock Phase to a strong Fire Phase with a focus on defensive Pips, especially for Infantry.

With this rebalance of Unit Pips we mainly want to focus on Infantry Units that are clear strong or weak outliers on their Tech level and the introduction of more choices in Artillery Units beyond the first Technologies when they become available. As always, these are by no means final numbers and will be under close observation during our Testing, apart from the feedback we are receiving in this DD, so there are good chances these will change until the release of the patch.

One of the swiftly explained changes is that related to Aboriginal and Polynesian Units: both got their total amount of pips reduced, to be in line with the American and African Unit Groups. These changes make them preserve some of their strengths, while not being an outlier over other units.

1AboriginalBefore.png
1AboriginalAfter.png
2PolynesianBefore.png
2PolynesianAfter.png

Now onwards to a change that influences other groups as well, which means they have to get adjusted together. The Anatolian group has a very big advantage with their early Units with their Offensive Moral Damage. We decided to tune that down a little in their Unit Options on technologies 5 and 9. Unfortunately, this affects Muslim Unit groups, which should not have an advantage over Anatolians at that point, which in turn affects Indian Units. That's why we had to tune them down as well.

The Anatolian Group will keep one of their big Spikes in Pips on Tech 12, which will let them be a threat to the groups around them. This is also partly because their Unit will stay around until Tech 18, significantly later than other groups get new units.

3AnatolianBefore.png
3AnatolianAfter.png
4IndianBefore.png
4IndianAfter.png

Speaking of the Muslims, let's take a look at the changes the group got independently from other groups. The Muslim Unit on Tech 23 suffered from both very poor Offensive and Defensive Fire Pips. They do have great Morale and Shock Pips to make up for it, but with the importance of Fire Phase in the later stages of the game, we decided to help them out a little by buffing their defensive Fire on the cost of their defensive Shock.

5MuslimBefore.png
5MuslimAfter.png

The Chinese Group has one outlier in their Unit selection, which is situated on Tech 19, with both 3 offensive and 3 defensive Fire Pips, in addition to 3 Offensive Morale. The one drawback with that Unit is that its successor becomes available only on Tech 25, later than most other groups. Since they have an edge with that against most of their neighboring groups, the solution for this is that they lose one offensive Morale.

6ChineseBefore.png
6ChineseAfter.png

On the same Techlevel, the Nomadic Group has a very solid, while not great, Infantry Unit, that would do with a small Nerf to fit their theme of military decline more.

7NomadBefore.png
7NomadAfter.png

The African Groups (this includes Central, East, and West African), got a small reshuffle of Pips, to make their Last Unit on Tech 30 an actual upgrade over the previous version.

8AfricanBefore.png
8AfricanAfter.png

Last but not least a small change to the High American Group, where their Unit from Tech 18 gets a small bump in Pips. Before this Unit had the same amount of total Pips as the previous unit level.

9HighAmericanBefore.png
9HighAmericanAfter.png

Let's now move on to the Changes to Artillery. These mainly focus on the Introduction of one new Alternative per Unit, which focuses more on a defensive style, where Artillery is used to push half of their defensive Pips towards the frontline while sacrificing their damage output with lower Offensive Fire and Morale Pips. There will also be a small Adjustment on Tech 13, with making one of the Options a defensive one.

10ArtyBefore.png
10ArtyAfterHalf1.png
10ArtyAfterHalf2.png

You may notice that for the new types of Artillery we've just named them the 'Defensive' version of each level. This is not definitive, as it's mainly a placeholder; so, we will accept suggestions for naming each of the unit types.

And this will conclude the Dev Diary for this week and this year. Just like the Idea Group rebalance of last week, we are very eager to read your feedback and suggestions on this topic to improve it as much as possible.

See you at the next DD, on January 10th!
 

Attachments

  • 1AboriginalAfter.png
    1AboriginalAfter.png
    236,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 2PolynesianBefore.png
    2PolynesianBefore.png
    178,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 10ArtyAfterHalf1.png
    10ArtyAfterHalf1.png
    245,3 KB · Views: 0
  • 10ArtyAfterHalf1.png
    10ArtyAfterHalf1.png
    245,3 KB · Views: 0
  • 60Like
  • 12
  • 9Love
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't get why we still need High American tech group
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting changes.

Are changes to cav planned too?
Especially muslim cav has very underwhelming pip distribution towards lategame iirc. A buff would be really nice potentially for persia and and mameluk (to enjoy those camel unit models). Also western cav early game is extremely weak.

Also noticing high american gets adjusted. My tin foil head is tingeling. Is the next reworked region going to be mesoamerica?
Cavalry units pips changes were discussed, and they're not getting a general rebalance, as the Infantry and Artillery does. The reason is that we still want to assess more in-depth the changes to the combat system we implemented in 1.34, and Cavalry is the most difficult set of units to rebalance. Maybe there could be some surgical changes, but it's too soon to comment anything on that.
Could it be possible to have mutliple different variations of units recruited and not only 1 type?
So in macrobuilder you could have a list to recruit different types of inf units, for example like both Latin Medieval Infantry and Halberd Infantry options, not only one type, thus giving more varierity to battles and even how you take battles and reinforce (or cut off enemy reinforcements).
We don't plan to have that at this moment and to be honest, that would be such a big rework of a kay game system, that is very unlikely that we would be designing something like that.
Hi, are you considering further changes to the combat calculations? Currently it appears that the best way to play the late game is to merge your entire army into one single stack to stack wipe everything. This causes rather silly results in which in late game mp the wars consist mostly of running single stacks worth several million men as anything lower than that gets instantly wiped when first row dies.
Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.
 
  • 7Like
  • 5
Reactions:
I suppose my chief question is: why are unit's still better or worse based on what tech group they are in? Why is it still set so a given nations soldiers will perform better or worse then an equal tech nation just because one is from one area of the map and the other is from somewhere else?
 
  • 11Like
  • 8
Reactions:
Cavalry units pips changes were discussed, and they're not getting a general rebalance, as the Infantry and Artillery does. The reason is that we still want to assess more in-depth the changes to the combat system we implemented in 1.34, and Cavalry is the most difficult set of units to rebalance. Maybe there could be some surgical changes, but it's too soon to comment anything on that.

We don't plan to have that at this moment and to be honest, that would be such a big rework of a kay game system, that is very unlikely that we would be designing something like that.

Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.
can you make combat system in eu4 more easy to understand? real values of pips why differences cav to inf ratio etc.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I suppose my chief question is: why are unit's still better or worse based on what tech group they are in? Why is it still set so a given nations soldiers will perform better or worse then an equal tech nation just because one is from one area of the map and the other is from somewhere else?

when they designed the system it was more that they had to fit combat into these groups as for administration and diplomatic these groups work better they create differences with military.
a complete rework what cost a lot of work can keep current system but looks like this:

tech group 1: 3 options each to specialise infnatyr cavalry or artillery (eg. player choose infantry top class 3, arty 1 cavalry 3).
tg 2: same
tg 3; same
tg 4 same

options differ in gold cost, the more powerful beign more expensive, allowign richer nations better quality troops.
In a certain time era you can decide with national ideas to give certain nations a discount on the top tier upgrade
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Cavalry units pips changes were discussed, and they're not getting a general rebalance, as the Infantry and Artillery does. The reason is that we still want to assess more in-depth the changes to the combat system we implemented in 1.34, and Cavalry is the most difficult set of units to rebalance. Maybe there could be some surgical changes, but it's too soon to comment anything on that.

We don't plan to have that at this moment and to be honest, that would be such a big rework of a kay game system, that is very unlikely that we would be designing something like that.

Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.

But you do realise, that playing late game on mp game started to be unplayable? Instead of playing the game and use what was the bast in late game you have a shi### game, where you fight With doom stacks because you can get instant sw if they have twice your size? When you add huge perf issues game has in a late when you start to use those few kk stacks it adds to totally broken game after 1750. The same with single Player, when you just abuse this 2x size army thing to wipe all AI enemies. I hope that "some tweeks" will mean like changing this stack wipe rule to like 4-5 Times bigger. Not twice only.


Just think how stupid it is now. You are sieging enemy fort with, Well 240k troops (so waaaay overstacked). Then the Defender just use 500k stack and force march in your stack. You wont react quickly enought to sent instant reinforcements. So after 1750 you will have instant wipe after like 10 days of battle. So as attacker you need to have much bigger stacks end this ends up in stacks of few mln fighting few mln. And one missclick when you and your allies armies won't be combined then you can see stackwipe for 1kk Just because first line broke. So one mistake, one missclick, one lag and your whole army is wiped.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
All in all I'd wager this is bad change to the game (besides for me liking the nerf to Anatolian because I have unreasonable hatred to the Ottomans), what this change primarily does is widen the gap between Europe and rest of world. I understand tech groups exist to emulate trends within history, that being of European military might, along other things like decline of nomadic powers.

But tech groups are imo really bad way of emulate it, it does not matter how well you are doing as Asian power for example, whether that be up to tech Mughal Empire or Japanese empire, your army will simply be worse then Europeans for no fault of your own. Even if you go military ideas, even if your nation is drilled/built for war, even if you are same if not higher tech then Europeans, if its not unit pip tech it does not matter, you will be behind for no fault of your own.

Sacrificing Muslim tech group for sake of keeping gap between Anatolian and Muslim is so bizarre to me, Morocco already has hell of journey to go on, and now their gap with Western Castile/Aragon/Portugal is even wider?

Further defensive pips for artillery are more or less always better then offensive pips, so what is the point of adding defensive artillery? It's an automatic pick. If anything this is nerf to the AI who won't automatically pick defensive, and buff to players of certain skill/knowledge who will always know to take defensive artillery from now on.

I like the idea of tinkering with tech groups/unit pips, but this to me just seems like nerf to Polynesian/Aboriginal/Anatolian/Muslim/Indian/Chinese and Nomadic, and buff to High American and artillery.
 
  • 22
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Cavalry units pips changes were discussed, and they're not getting a general rebalance, as the Infantry and Artillery does. The reason is that we still want to assess more in-depth the changes to the combat system we implemented in 1.34, and Cavalry is the most difficult set of units to rebalance. Maybe there could be some surgical changes, but it's too soon to comment anything on that.
can you do at least something with winged hussars? This unit is available too late - at tech 22 but most of the big hussar victories were in the early XVII century Kircholm 1605, Klushino 1610. Of course new unit should be weaker but it would be introduced in the correct time period.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We don't plan to have that at this moment and to be honest, that would be such a big rework of a kay game system, that is very unlikely that we would be designing something like that.
But game has no troubles with having units of different technological levels in the same army. For example, in 1.29.x when mercenaries could still be mixed with regular army, merc regiments were not automatically upgraded when upgrading main units, so units from two different technology levels could coexist in same army. Same with regiments hired on subject territory if subject's technology is inferior.

Inability to switch unit type per army is severely limiting whole "alternative unit types" feature, especially for infantry. When you have 1k infantry regiments babysitting colonies, you cannot switch infantry type freely anymore because those regiments may be attacked by natives at zero morale and wiped.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sigh. The Ottomans already vastly underperform their historical counterparts. The last thing they need is another nerf. Quite the opposite--I'd give them their cores on the Beyliks and better CCR value back if I were in charge.

I really hope they get a great mission tree when the Middle East immersion pack is released.
 
  • 17
  • 11
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't feel like you should nerf the ottomans that much earlygame. They were a genuine threat and their unit pips being so much stronger early techs helps them be that threat that they were historically. Nerfing them just so they're more on par with western countries when they don't even reach their historical borders half the time ingame feels a bit silly. I don't like the change. It'd be better to nerf them on lategame techs rather than earlygame.
On the contrary, by nerfing ottomans you increase the chances that they can get some better QoL and historic events/missions that won't end up throwing them into AI WC territory (and being way more fun as a player, to not have to manually fabricate claims on Constantinople and beyliks for example). I say, go further and implement this: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...a-middle-east-expansion.1561210/post-28687592
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Cavalry units pips changes were discussed, and they're not getting a general rebalance, as the Infantry and Artillery does. The reason is that we still want to assess more in-depth the changes to the combat system we implemented in 1.34, and Cavalry is the most difficult set of units to rebalance. Maybe there could be some surgical changes, but it's too soon to comment anything on that.

We don't plan to have that at this moment and to be honest, that would be such a big rework of a kay game system, that is very unlikely that we would be designing something like that.

Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.

And to be clear, it's not that some of us wants to redifine how stackwipe work. Just to get rid of or change the rule of stackwipe with 2x the army. This was introduced in 1.34 and probably simple change to have 4x teh army would fix problems with few mln vs few mln stacks.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
All in all I'd wager this is bad change to the game (besides for me liking the nerf to Anatolian because I have unreasonable hatred to the Ottomans), what this change primarily does is widen the gap between Europe and rest of world. I understand tech groups exist to emulate trends within history, that being of European military might, along other things like decline of nomadic powers.

But tech groups are imo really bad way of emulate it, it does not matter how well you are doing as Asian power for example, whether that be up to tech Mughal Empire or Japanese empire, your army will simply be worse then Europeans for no fault of your own. Even if you go military ideas, even if your nation is drilled/built for war, even if you are same if not higher tech then Europeans, if its not unit pip tech it does not matter, you will be behind for no fault of your own.

Sacrificing Muslim tech group for sake of keeping gap between Anatolian and Muslim is so bizarre to me, Morocco already has hell of journey to go on, and now their gap with Western Castile/Aragon/Portugal is even wider?

Further defensive pips for artillery are more or less always better then offensive pips, so what is the point of adding defensive artillery? It's an automatic pick. If anything this is nerf to the AI who won't automatically pick defensive, and buff to players of certain skill/knowledge who will always know to take defensive artillery from now on.

I like the idea of tinkering with tech groups/unit pips, but this to me just seems like nerf to Polynesian/Aboriginal/Anatolian/Muslim/Indian/Chinese and Nomadic, and buff to High American and artillery.
i fully agree with you, therefore i suggested to devs to look into a gold based army upgrade system, which allows richer nations to invest in serious changes to their military (also the aspiring nation can save up money and test its luck on the battlefield), i cant blame devs i understand they dont like these suggestions as it implies vastly more work than change coding a pip here and there.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
And to be clear, it's not that some of us wants to redifine how stackwipe work. Just to get rid of or change the rule of stackwipe with 2x the army. This was introduced in 1.34 and probably simple change to have 4x teh army would fix problems with few mln vs few mln stacks.

This stack wipe thing will be history when population numbers are put into play and armies just disband and with ck3 you can chase some left overs.
I think eu5 will try to embed guessed population figures. An advantage to the game engine and its game performance unlike with vic3 not every pop needs to be tracked.
The pop is there just as a measurement, requirement
 
Last edited:
Sigh. The Ottomans already vastly underperform their historical counterparts. The last thing they need is another nerf. Quite the opposite--I'd give them their cores on the Beyliks and better CCR value back if I were in charge.

I really hope they get a great mission tree when the Middle East immersion pack is released.

currently in our nightly 1.35 tests ottomans are doing better than in 1.34..
 
I cant understand, why you are changing such a meaningless thing as unit pips, when the game is completely broken at current state. It doesnt matter at all, what pips unit have, if you have 2 times more units. Fighting strong AI? Just merge all of your units in one stack, wipe all their armies. Simple as that.

Playing Multiplayer? Right now is completely unplayable. You have more disciplined army? More ICA/ACA/Whatever? Doesnt matter. Just merge all of your units in one stack, wipe all their armies. Simple as that. There's no strategy. There's no tactics. There's no way to outplay your enemy. If you ever enter to battle outnumbered 2:1, you will get stackwiped. There's no reinforcements. No real battles. Just stackwipes. Try to loose 2-3 million army in one stack, cause of 2:1 rule. No matter, how strong your army is.

Do you even know, how your game looks like lategame? Just some tweaks? Remove 2:1 rule or there is literally no point playing this game anymore. Im not even talking about performance issues - playing with lag/spikes on speed 1 is just absurd. Looks like no more EU4 for some people...
 
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions: