• 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:
Units from north american, south american, meosamerican, andean, polynesian and aboriginal should gain cavalry units later in the tech tree, in the current version all of them gain access to cavalry before contacts with the old world.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
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.

@Pintu I decided to have a go at naming these. Most of these cannons were developed in the 15th century, so I had be very liberal with coupling the name to the approximate time the tech level is reached. Sometimes the 'defense' cannon is just another name for something very similar to the 'offensive' cannon.

I also decided just having two choices at each artillery level is too boring for my taste, so I mixed it up slightly ;) For two levels I changed the amount of available choices. For mil level 10 I have three types to choose from, to represent the expansion of artillery use in the 15th century (and because ingame, this is the about level where I care most about the choice :) ). For level 25 I decided that this tech uniquely should keep a single option, since tech 25 is called 'Royal Mortar' I think it is fitting all cannons get upgraded to 'Royal Mortar' here.

My suggested list is:
7Houfnice
Large Cast Bronze Mortar
10Culverin
Falconet
Basilisk
13Small Cast Iron Cannon
Large Cast Iron Cannon
16Chambered Demi-cannon
Demi-culverin
18Leather Cannon
Three Pounder
20Swifel Cannon
Peterero
22Coehorn Mortar
Horse Artillery
25Royal Mortar
29Flying Battery
Grande Battery
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
What is the point of the defensive cannons? As implemented many are a false choice due to having an odd number of defensive pips and therefore having fewer effective pips overall, but even if that were corrected what do they actually add to gameplay? I don't see much added if anything at all.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What is the point of the defensive cannons? As implemented many are a false choice due to having an odd number of defensive pips and therefore having fewer effective pips overall, but even if that were corrected what do they actually add to gameplay? I don't see much added if anything at all.
Well

Adding new choices to strategy games isn't a bad idea, even if you yourself might know the correct answer to these choices.
As going on reddit, or even these forums would quickly prove, even after 9 years since the game's release most people have very little understanding about how combat works in this game, meaning that there's a lot of people who could potentially choose the correct unit type wrong.
 
Adding new choices to strategy games isn't a bad idea, even if you yourself might know the correct answer to these choices.
I get that, but the choices need to not be false choices and moreover they need to actually improve the strategic elements of the game. Choosing artillery unit types doesn't do either from what I see. How is choosing defensive cannons going to affect your strategy in any meaningful way even if they were somehow viable?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I get that, but the choices need to not be false choices and moreover they need to actually improve the strategic elements of the game. Choosing artillery unit types doesn't do either from what I see. How is choosing defensive cannons going to affect your strategy in any meaningful way even if they were somehow viable?
Not much

I mean I see your point, but also I think that unit pips are such a small and irrelevant part of the game that it doesn't really matter what they put into them
so adding new cannon options is an okay choice
not great, but okay; it creates the impression of the mechanic being deeper than it is
 
Not much

I mean I see your point, but also I think that unit pips are such a small and irrelevant part of the game that it doesn't really matter what they put into them
They actually matter more than you'd think as anyone who plays around Anatolia at game start knows. Or alternatively anyone who's faced, say, Eastern tech cav with Western tech cav at certain tech levels.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They actually matter more than you'd think as anyone who plays around Anatolia at game start knows. Or alternatively anyone who's faced, say, Eastern tech cav with Western tech cav at certain tech levels.
These are very minor exceptions(that were just reduced with this patch), but I also didn't mean "irrelevant" in that way

I meant it more as in. this isn't an involved mechanic in any way
The mechanic is an equivalent of getting an event every 40 years where you have to choose between 10 and 11 prestige
 
  • 1
Reactions:
the artillery unit types added, the "defense" ones, are better than the old ones, in general (as far as I see). They have overall more paired defensive pips, and help elongating the battle for the morale dmg to reserves to affect more (I guess if that is what you desire), and even without that more defense pips on frotn row tend to be better than more dmg from artillery. They should change those, indeed, but it is tricky to balance. Maybe make one type for a niche situation
 
Hello, longtime player, first time posting. Love the game, ya'll are terrific.

I just wanted to note that a lot of people have complaints about how OP the Ottoman's are throughout the game, and I personally find it to be an appropriate amount of power. After-all, who else is going to challenge me in the 16/17th centuries?

The nerf to the Anatolian units would weaken the AI, but I caution that it would also weak an Ottoman player too. So I suppose my suggestion is to consider during testing that yes, the Ottoman AI could use a nerf, but keep in mind that playing as them already doesn't feel anything like what watching the Ottoman AI does. They should feel powerful to play as, and I hope this doesn't change that.

Thanks for reading my post!
 
I will give a more detailed explanation of the interaction between 2:1 overruns and zombie regiments, as there seems to be a lot of speculation regarding this.

One of the conditions for the 2:1 rule is that the average morale is zero. The crucial point is the definition of average morale here. I.e. over which set of units is the average actually taken.

Prior to 1.34 all units in combat where taken into account. They can be divided into 5 distinct subsets:
(i) Units in the front row
(ii) Units in the back row
(iii) Units in reserve
(iv) Units which already retreated from battle
(v) Units which were never deployed, as they started the battle with zero strength.

Note that Zombie regiments guaranteed that subset (iv) is always empty while 2:1 overruns are still possible.

Further note that one cannot damage regiments in subset (v). Therefore, they completely prevent overruns. This is a very old problem, but was a major issue in 1.33, as the AI learned to shift-consolidate. This led to subset (v) often containing regiments.

I talked to @Gnivom about removing (v) to fix the bug and I learned about the plan to remove zombie regiments. Therefore, I argued that (iv) also needs to be removed from the calculation. And further the order of checks suddenly becomes relevant, as described in an earlier post.

Therefore, only (i)-(iii) should remain.

According to quite a few posts here it seems that unfortunately (ii) and (iii) have also been removed and only (i) remains, which is problematic.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I will give a more detailed explanation of the interaction between 2:1 overruns and zombie regiments, as there seems to be a lot of speculation regarding this.

One of the conditions for the 2:1 rule is that the average morale is zero. The crucial point is the definition of average morale here. I.e. over which set of units is the average actually taken.

Prior to 1.34 all units in combat where taken into account. They can be divided into 5 distinct subsets:
(i) Units in the front row
(ii) Units in the back row
(iii) Units in reserve
(iv) Units which already retreated from battle
(v) Units which were never deployed, as they started the battle with zero strength.

Note that Zombie regiments guaranteed that subset (iv) is always empty while 2:1 overruns are still possible.

Further note that one cannot damage regiments in subset (v). Therefore, they completely prevent overruns. This is a very old problem, but was a major issue in 1.33, as the AI learned to shift-consolidate. This led to subset (v) often containing regiments.

I talked to @Gnivom about removing (v) to fix the bug and I learned about the plan to remove zombie regiments. Therefore, I argued that (iv) also needs to be removed from the calculation. And further the order of checks suddenly becomes relevant, as described in an earlier post.

Therefore, only (i)-(iii) should remain.

According to quite a few posts here it seems that unfortunately (ii) and (iii) have also been removed and only (i) remains, which is problematic.
Also the front row regiments do no retreat befor 12 days, so past tech 22 or with high diference between morale of armies the wipes are quite easy to happen. So either count as you say the i, ii, and iii or let regiments retreat before 12 days
 
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.
nothing will save multiplayer games because they’ll always be doing gimmicks to try and get an edge over the enemy even if they don’t make sense, like who even thinks of putting a million men doomstack and using it to stackwipe other stacks is reasonable gameplay?

besides, if a million men attacked a few hundred thousand men and the armies are of similar quality, it would likely IRL result in a ‘stackwipe’ just look at battle of Poltava

I think taking devs design decision (I.e. removing the zombie regiments) and trashing them cuz it is ‘breaking a specific subset of competitive multiplayer‘ in a largely single player is a bit uncalled for
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Gimmicky way? Clearly you have no idea, what are you talking about. Considering late game AI may run doomstacks around 300-400k, you may get instantly stackwiped with your '80k sieging stack". Sooo, its not about "player abusing explotis to kill AI", but also "AI killing all of your armies".

I understand that its hard to imagine such a numers for someone, who have no idea about multiplayer, but still. Doesnt mean that problem disappeared.
AI 300k death stack still lose to my 100k sieging stacks in the current patch, there’s no instant stack wipe, unless ur at super low army quality (since it seems ur complaining about the zombie regiments, they only come into play if you get reduced to 0 morale before the enemy)
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
And about the stackwipe rule I got it from game mechanics change in 1.34 (or 1.33). And The rule state, that if there is a battle and within first 12 days (or the amount where you can't retreat) the whole first line of enemy army is killed or retreat due to morale, then if on that exact moment you have more than twice the enemy army size = instant stack wipe. So will 60k infranty do a sw 20k cav? Rather not, because the rule of first row wont be fullfiled. You need arti to do enough dmg. But will 1kk army with full cannons backrow do a stack wipe of 490k army? In most cases yes. Specially on mp game when you maximize army quality to do as much dmg as possible.
Tbh if you destroyed the enemy’s front row and attacked his reserved directly before he could reinforce IRL, it becomes a rout and you essentially destroy the enemy army (i.e. a stackwipe) so I don’t actually see how this is a problem outside of multiplayer balance.

I think It’s a realistic change tbh and not sure why it’s worth to make the army quality supreme for the purpose of MP, when the game has to be somewhat based on history, if a million guys attacked 400k it would probably lead to a rout of the 400k soldiers (especially if they’re of lower or equal Army quality)
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
nothing will save multiplayer games because they’ll always be doing gimmicks to try and get an edge over the enemy even if they don’t make sense, like who even thinks of putting a million men doomstack and using it to stackwipe other stacks is reasonable gameplay?

besides, if a million men attacked a few hundred thousand men and the armies are of similar quality, it would likely IRL result in a ‘stackwipe’ just look at battle of Poltava

I think taking devs design decision (I.e. removing the zombie regiments) and trashing them cuz it is ‘breaking a specific subset of competitive multiplayer‘ in a largely single player is a bit uncalled for

Million men doomstack (in MP) emerged in this patch, caused of implementation 2:1 rule. Before that, there was "normal" combat system using quality of troops via battle. You could do many things, to win a battle being outnumbered . Also your enemy could do quite few mistakes, caused by need to stay divided (cause no point in overstacking),so you could win, even being outnumbered. Skill and quality over mass. Now? You can do nothing.

So how about remove this nonsense instead of trying to find any justification for this game-breaking rule?

"if a million guys attacked 400k it would probably lead to a rout of the 400k soldiers (especially if they’re of lower or equal Army quality)"

Then why dont let game solve it via proper battle? Whats the point of this rule at all? Why this was implemented?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So how about remove this nonsense instead of trying to find any justification for this game-breaking rule?

"if a million guys attacked 400k it would probably lead to a rout of the 400k soldiers (especially if they’re of lower or equal Army quality)"

Then why dont let game solve it via proper battle? Whats the point of this rule at all? Why this was implemented?
The rule always exist but because they removed the actually game/immersion breaking zombie regiments it is leading to more stackwipe, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for single player at all. For MP, since u guys always play with custom balance mods why not ask devs to add a define allowing you to remove stackwipe or change the ratio in your mod, rather than demanding for stackwipe to be removed in those circumstances

EDIT: why is it game breaking to have zombie regiments? Because they make it much harder to stackwipe for majority of players who play SP (and enjoy stackwiping cuz it’s fun), they also prolong battles artificially which was a big complaint in previous patch (not that I necessarily agree with said complaint but it was very popular in 1.33)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Correct me if Im wrong, but zombie regiments and 2:1 rule is completely independent things. And Im not sure, why you even call this as an argument discussing 2:1 rule. And 2:1 rule was added in 1.34 patch (?)

Not everyone plays with mods, so this in not a valid argument also. Should I mod game because it has nonsense implemented?

So, battles lasts too long, so lets just break the game? Are you serious? How about adress those big complaints regarding battles lasting too long by not breaking the game, huh?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Zombie regiments were Just a bug, that was hiding nonsense with 2:1 rule. When this was fixed, the problem with 2:1 was brought to light.

But still, this is either a big or really bad game mechanics design, because it breaks not only late mp game. SO something that makes a lot of ppl still playing eu4, but also late sp. Ano No arguments about reality of sw will change it, no sample rl battle will change it. Because there are also samples of battles, where smaller force totally anihilated bigger ones.

To sum it up, game mechanics that breaks mp game should be sole reason to change them. But when it also negatively impacts late sp game this makes it even simple choice what to do.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
the 10:1 was the old condition, same years ago was change, now is 2:1 and 0 moral in the first line

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.

Yea I meant when it was working correctly, Im aware that its bugged now