• 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:
So the devs are keeping the lategame western edge while nerfing early game advantages other tech groups possessed, disregarding history when it doesn't suit Europe.
This is a very good way of putting it. I'm not at all claiming there's malintent here, just a lot of conflicting design aims (always the case in game dev) and perhaps a drop or two of ingrained bias (which isn't a normative moral failure or anything but should always be kept in mind and countered as much as possible).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It looks like one of those could be precisely to change again the stackwiping rules, to numbers more fitting gameplay not based on doomstacking. Any other suggestions that you may think would help with this?

I think its pretty evident that the issue regarding armies getting stackwiped is because of a bug and not because of an intentional design decision.

Cant speak for everyone obviously but I assume their frustration is that we are having a conversation about unit pips for the purpose of combat balance while a major bug that flattens the mechanic of combat had yet to even be acknowledged, let alone hotfixed.
And it isnt just ~multiplayer meta~, this bug trivializes single player experience as well

Not to say the work behind rebalancing pips is unappreciated (I like it), it would just be confidence inspiring to have led the diary with something like "we are aware of the issues regarding stackwipes and are working to hotfix"
 
  • 12
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hello, let me throw some bitter cents here.

Are you guys trying to dodge the responsibility for poor product quality when YOU are the part that is repsonsible here? We are customers, and some of us are buying Europa Universalis and other franchises from the very first versions. For, lets be clear, a lot of money. Part of this money is HEHE your salary... Heck, I'll bet some of us have longer relationship with the game than with our wifes/girlfriends and than your history at Paradox as your employer.

WE demand a respectful treatment because we earned it. And paid for it.

If you feel bad because of some constructive criticism here... well you SHOULD be feeling bad. Thats life not some candy store with pink lollipops, and if you did a bad job, you should take responsibility for it. That means some stress, feeling bad about it and maybe, just maybe, saying "we are sorry that we failed". And start listening to people who seem to have far wider knowledge of the game mechanics (how ironic is that) than you, the devs...

Instead you try to turn it on its head and blame active users here for their insight? Thats simply shameless to say the least.

Game mechanics right now are, pardon my french, "fucked up" not only in multiplayer campaigns but also in late game stages in singleplayer where doomstack 2to1 stackwipe mechanic is present and simply kills the game. Thats a fact.

We are not angry, we are disappointed.
 
  • 18
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I think its pretty evident that the issue regarding armies getting stackwiped is because of a bug and not because of an intentional design decision.

Cant speak for everyone obviously but I assume their frustration is that we are having a conversation about unit pips for the purpose of combat balance while a major bug that flattens the mechanic of combat had yet to even be acknowledged, let alone hotfixed.
And it isnt just ~multiplayer meta~, this bug trivializes single player experience as well

Not to say the work behind rebalancing pips is unappreciated (I like it), it would just be confidence inspiring to have led the diary with something like "we are aware of the issues regarding stackwipes and are working to hotfix"
I just had a look at the bugreports forum and I didn't find a bugreport about this. Did I overlook the bugreport or didn't nobody who thinks this is a major and important bug actually tell the developers about it?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think its pretty evident that the issue regarding armies getting stackwiped is because of a bug and not because of an intentional design decision.
pretty sure this feature/bug was caused by what was done in Development Diary 24th of May 2022
Captura de pantalla 2022-12-21 190248.png

Because this feature/bug the regiments in the first line were allowed to withdraw ("regiments will always retreat and be replaced once either strength or morale reaches 0") but now as a side effect of removing this mechanic the troops in the second line cant reinforce when they are outnumber by 2 or more to 1 and the withdrawal limit from a battle pass.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
Reactions:
...now as a side effect of removing this mechanic the troops in the second line cant reinforce for same reason the line. so if they are outnumber by 2 or more to 1 they get stackwipe
What I don't understand is if it's a bug, where did the 2-to-1 ratio come in? Why specifically 2 to 1?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
And this is an example of a well-driven criticism, so thanks for it. We're going to think about this, as we're aiming for a general rebalance, not regional, with these changes, so we will take what you are saying into account in the further tests and rebalance we'll be doing.
The pleasure is mine, thank you for listening/responding. I hope my criticism/feedback is of any use, and I also hope the community hasn't been too rude to all of you.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
pretty sure this feature/bug was caused by what was done in Development Diary 24th of May 2022
View attachment 931114
Because this feature/bug the regiments in the first line were allowed to withdraw ("regiments will always retreat and be replaced once either strength or morale reaches 0") but now as a side effect of removing this mechanic the troops in the second line cant reinforce when they are outnumber by 2 or more to 1 and the withdrawal limit from a battle pass.
Im aware, I think that is the bug though, that army groups (not just the regiments deployed to the front line) have men able to be deployed to the front line from reserve and instead of being deployed, the entire army is just stack wiped. Cant speak for devs but it seems fairly obvious to me that that is not by design, but a bug.

I think the problem is that they removed the condition to check the morale of other regiments. Seems like the intent was to stop zombie regiments from preventing a stackwipe, but it doesnt look like the code distinguishes between "defeated" regiments and undeployed regiments.
There SHOULD be a condition that disallows stackwipes if you still have men in reserve with more than zero morale

Additionally I think it might be helpful for developers to be very specific about the language were using in regards to mechanics both on the forums and internally. For example:

Additionally, an obscure condition for stack wipes based on the remaining morale of defeated regiments has been removed. You probably didn’t know about it (I didn’t), but it started mattering when 0-strength full-morale regiments were immediately retreated.
Regiments being eligible to immediately retreat is not the same as the army group being eligible to immediately retreat (one of the conditions for a stackwipe).
The stackwipe condition was, and should remain, "An army that has its overall morale reduced to 0 and is outnumbered 2:1 before 12 days will be destroyed. This destruction is known as a stackwipe"

I dont know what the solution is specifically because I cannot see your codebase but I would say retreating zombie regiments has to do with the deployment algorithm, not stackwipes. Stackwipes should be checking against the entire army group, not concerned with which regiments are deployed.

If that is too complicated to pull off in the code, perhaps you could entertain the idea of of the game autodeleting regiments that reach zero strength and remove shift consolidate as a feature (since those regiments effectively no longer exist).

That would 1) remove the phenomenon of non existent regiments being deployed at all, let alone to the front line (silly that this happens anyway, how does a regiment with zero men still have morale. The regiment should just cease to exist IMO)
and 2) remove the players incentive to tediously spam shift consolidate before battles, during wall breach assaults, etc
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
unnecesery nerf to ottomans again. Ottomans are the most powrful empire at the 14-16 centurys. nerfing ottomans's early troops is taking their histrorical power from them. There is no need for nerf.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
And these are the kind of posts that are very, very close to the red line I mentioned. Do you want to drag our attention to the imbalances of the current MP meta? That's fair, and as I also said, we can discuss it. What it's not fair is stating this so aggressively. Our intention as devs is to drive the game in the right direction, and we're putting a lot of effort into it. We also play regular MP games, even if we don't broadcast Dev Clashes as before (mainly because of infrastructure issues attached to the setup of the new studio). And we run regression tests regularly, too, run by people with a lot of hours poured into the game. So, again, and I don't want to repeat this anymore, we deserve respect for our work.

That said, going into the topic, we may want to make some tweaks to the new combat system. In this case, the more detailed feedback and proposals you give to us, the better for everybody, as it would be easier for us to adjust the changes. It looks like one of those could be precisely to change again the stackwiping rules, to numbers more fitting gameplay not based on doomstacking. Any other suggestions that you may think would help with this?

Regarding game performance, this is something we've been working on in the last few months. We already improved it in 1.34, but it's true that we have a lot of lag and spikes in the late game, which is also the hardest to tackle; we'll try to do our best on this, although we can't promise anything, as this is a very complex issue.

Wait a moment. My initial post was a response to "Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.", when you suggested, that you will be making just some tweaks to completely broken mechanic of a game, instead of completely rework it/remove it. So, if someone says you, that your game has completely broken mechanic and your response isnt something like "really? tell us where, we are going to fix it" but "naaah, game is fine", what reaction do you expect?

How about you guys start to respect players time and not waste it by putting some broken mechanics? Players are pointing you a major flaw in feature you implemented and your only reaction is kinda "naaah, game is fine"? It seems that first post pointing you a major flaw didnt drag your attention at all, so again, what reaction do you expect? It doesnt look like you are interested in getting feedback at all. You pointing out some red lines. But honestly, your reaction is just a disrespect for players putting their effort to point out bugs or broken mechanics.

Some of you says that 2:1 rule is a bug, caused by 'Zombie regiments' or replenishing frontlines. But this mechanic is kinda simple - when your frontline collapse within 12 days and you are doubled, you will get stackwiped. For me (correct me if I'm wrong) 'Zombie regiments' and 2:1 rule is completely independent things, so calling this 2:1 mechanic a bug isnt valid. Someone thought it out, implemented to game. Pavia said, they are play regular MP games (putting asside fact, that the mechanic is present in singleplayer and is kinda killing it also...) and tests their changes. Funny thing is, I've spotted this broken mechanic in my first played MP and in my first played SP game. So, five patches later we are here, with devs not aware of mechanic killing their game? They didnt notice something is wrong in here? And instead of taking responsibility of broken mechanic you are drawing red lines? Like, seriously?

I wont even comment on "we deserve respect for our work" thing, as your work isnt a charity. And noone is insulting you here.

On topic.
Slightly changes to 2:1 arent enough. Numbers like 5:1 or even 3:1 may save singleplayer, but wont be enough in MP games, where battles consisting 5 million stacks on one side are fairly common. Beyond some numbers stackwipes shouldnt be a thing, unless you are fighting MUCH (I mean, MUCH) stronger/weaker opponent.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I just had a look at the bugreports forum and I didn't find a bugreport about this. Did I overlook the bugreport or didn't nobody who thinks this is a major and important bug actually tell the developers about it?
I would rather asume everyone Who notice the bug thought taht Paradox already knows about it.
Wait a moment. My initial post was a response to "Maybe some tweaks here and there, but nothing as systemic as with 1.33 and 1.34 changes.", when you suggested, that you will be making just some tweaks to completely broken mechanic of a game, instead of completely rework it/remove it. So, if someone says you, that your game has completely broken mechanic and your response isnt something like "really? tell us where, we are going to fix it" but "naaah, game is fine", what reaction do you expect?

How about you guys start to respect players time and not waste it by putting some broken mechanics? Players are pointing you a major flaw in feature you implemented and your only reaction is kinda "naaah, game is fine"? It seems that first post pointing you a major flaw didnt drag your attention at all, so again, what reaction do you expect? It doesnt look like you are interested in getting feedback at all. You pointing out some red lines. But honestly, your reaction is just a disrespect for players putting their effort to point out bugs or broken mechanics.

Some of you says that 2:1 rule is a bug, caused by 'Zombie regiments' or replenishing frontlines. But this mechanic is kinda simple - when your frontline collapse within 12 days and you are doubled, you will get stackwiped. For me (correct me if I'm wrong) 'Zombie regiments' and 2:1 rule is completely independent things, so calling this 2:1 mechanic a bug isnt valid. Someone thought it out, implemented to game. Pavia said, they are play regular MP games (putting asside fact, that the mechanic is present in singleplayer and is kinda killing it also...) and tests their changes. Funny thing is, I've spotted this broken mechanic in my first played MP and in my first played SP game. So, five patches later we are here, with devs not aware of mechanic killing their game? They didnt notice something is wrong in here? And instead of taking responsibility of broken mechanic you are drawing red lines? Like, seriously?

I wont even comment on "we deserve respect for our work" thing, as your work isnt a charity. And noone is insulting you here.

On topic.
Slightly changes to 2:1 arent enough. Numbers like 5:1 or even 3:1 may save singleplayer, but wont be enough in MP games, where battles consisting 5 million stacks on one side are fairly common. Beyond some numbers stackwipes shouldnt be a thing, unless you are fighting MUCH (I mean, MUCH) stronger/weaker opponent.

Hm I would disagree with your last point. Let's think a bit about i.e. 4:1 ratio. For sw of 120k stack you would need to have like 500k stack. You get a sw, it heats but nothing you can't do a comeback. So you merge a bit to have you Main stack 240k. Enemy would need to do a 1kk stack. If they can do Such, you add some more untill they cant oitnumber you 4:1. SO assuming you have even half their army, you Can still have half of your army as a separate stacks. And win every single battle because you will be able to reinforce. This will led to change in oponent tactic and try to rather fight with smaller stacks. Of course if the enemy has more than 4 Times your army się then, well, its GG either the way, as you wount win with 4x more troops.
 
  • 1
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.
I don't know what games you have played but Ottomans have been consistently conquering Europe on mine, if I'm not around to do something about it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Personally I think stackwipes should not be based on number of soldiers alone. When you defend on a mountain fort, you are supposed to defend longer despite having less soldiers. This should be factored in calculations.

Enough have been said on entitlement of some here. Let's move on to fixing that issue.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
What I don't understand is if it's a bug, where did the 2-to-1 ratio come in? Why specifically 2 to 1?
The 2-to-1 ratio comes from the conditions of stackwipe. this was changed long ago. it used to be 10-1 i think. the 2-to-1 ratio used to work decently well, but when they removed the zombie regiments, the logic broke after this. i suspect the reason they call the zombi regiments a "bug (feature?)" in "the Development Diary 24th of May 2022" is because the zombie regiments were originally a feature to prevent stackwipes in 2-to-1 big battles. (this is just my theory)

Captura de pantalla 2022-12-22 122904.png
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Im pretty sure the 10:1 stackwipe is ~supposed~ to happen instantly, without a battle
the 2:1 is part of an AND condition with reducing army overall morale to zero in under 12 days
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
On the topic of stack wipes I would sugges to just remove the X:1 ratio for SW on battles with full combat width, reason being the problems it is bringing and may bring even if the ratio is changed. The incremental amount of modifiers the game is getting each patch, and new modifiers like morale_damage (from last patch) it becomes easier to SW (with the bug on topic) and stack modifiers to snowball. Last changes have made quality become even more important than before (and it was already good), in particular morale is probably too strong right now: in part because of the artillery retreating, and the morale taken by reserves being a % of enemy morale (the overall manpower reduction also makes discipline slightly better in order to lose less troops).

Now this has just been a reasoning of how things are (as far as I see), so I'll try to bring some solutions (probably not perfect):
1 - As said: remove the ratio to wipe full width armies if reserves have morale/can reinforce
2 - Be very carefull with modifiers such as morale_damage (hussars have 50% which is insane if you take in account that a standard Catholic Poland has already insane amount of morale, even with the limited amout of those special units), maybe a system for where modifiers can be (gov reforms, ideas, missions, permanent event modifiers, etc) so stacking same type modifiers is more dificult. That may be a lot of work, so as an alternative maybe just be conservative with the modifiers and not make them more than 10% (that could be applied mostly to negative modifiers such as advisor_cost
3 - Roll back the artillery retreat so it doesnt. I understand the initial change, and its fine to try to change battle meta. But I dont see the change brings any desirable tactics or whatever: it makes quality of armies even stronger (since it makes enemy artillery retreat faster, so not only you do an increased dmg when the enemy artillery is active becuase of your better quality, but when you make the enemy artillery retreat there is going to be an opening of time where you will fight against infantry without almost any artillery defending nor doing dmg, making your infantry hold more and thus your artillery hold more, saving reserve/reinforcement artillery. Plus enemy artillery wont reinforce with full morale, rather with 70%-50% or evne less, so it will be fighting even less time than previous batch. Another problem with artillery retreat is that when the weaker one start to reinforce will create a cascade effect on enemy artillery making the infront artillery take more dmg and thus retreating earlier than neighbour artillery making the retreat of the hole batch in spets insteaf of instantly, making it easier to reinforce day by day)
4 - On quality of life topic: a Expand Infrastructure on the development macrobuild would be super nice, since it is province per province and it depends on development. Also I would make it so it gives Force Limit (0.25-0.5), or even increase it as local % (I know the local_land_forcelimit_modifier modifier doesnt exist)
5 - A small tweak but important to clarify modifiers: rename the development_cost_modiifer to "Development Efficiency"/"Local Development Efficiency" (back as it was), it makes way easier to diferenciate between "Development Cost Modifier" modifier and "Development Cost" modifier
6 - A proposal to sumplify and generalize special units such as Cawa, Hussar, Carolean, Banner, etc etc. Some of those could be grouped and just make 1 single special unit name "National Elite" or probably a dedicated name for each nation that had historicaly something like that, so it is easier to add modifiers via missions, decisions, events, missions, etc. I understand some of those special units amount depend on diferent criteria, but I dont think it would be super bad to just unify it, or even add some modifiers to main culture, accepted culture, religion, or whatever criteria to increase the amount flat or %. I think it would be wa easier to introduce more special units on future DLC/patches. Some of the actual special units coudnt be grouped, such as streltsy or cossacks, since they coexist with diferent condition

I'll try to bring more proposals/suggestions, but that is for today. I would like to thank you for your hard work, I do think you are doing your best and even with some bugs like the big SW mentioned before (that are not expected) or even mistakes (from my point of view) like the artillery retreat, I think last patch Lions of the north was a great success and a huge help to modders such as myself, the new modifiers and QoL were very wellcomed.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Im pretty sure the 10:1 stackwipe is ~supposed~ to happen instantly, without a battle
the 2:1 is part of an AND condition with reducing army overall morale to zero in under 12 days
With one remark, that you need to reduce morale to 0 for only first row for the sw rule. Not the whole army overall morale. And thats the biggest problem here.