Anniversary Maintenance Patch - 2.0.4 (Open Beta)

[Nuclear Elvis]

I get a bit weary with all the tedium of social drama pop-ups in the game. Especially the "He cheated on me, do something" type nonsense.

It would be more interesting if you Dev's gave us an extra option among our multiple-choice options, and here's my proposal:
- D. Throw all of them to the Lions in the Arena, and gain +100 Food (fewer mouths to feed, including Lions).

And choosing that option puts a Fear Factor on all the people who then don't complain about such drivel for at least 50 game years.

 

[Herennius]

I managed to reproduce the issue with pops of cultures with only citizen civil rights ignoring that limitation and promoting to nobles anyway. I posted about it earlier in the thread and both @IsaacCAT and @hurleyef expressed the desired to see it getting fixed as well, so I invested some time to properly reproduce it under 2.04.

My new report is here (with the inital post showing that the restriction is ignored at game start with Maurya as example and the following post showing a case where the game is ignoring it during a playthrough):

I:R - [2.04 beta] Pops of integrated culture with only citizen civil rights promote to noble anyway

Description of problem [2.04 beta] Pops of integrated culture with only citizen civil rights promote to noble anyway What game version are you running? 2.04 (beta) What platform are you playing on? Steam Please select any/all DLC you have...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

For the sake of completeness as usual also the inital and older bug thread of user Volkirius with my older confirming save:

I:R - Pop promotes to Noble even though civic rights are set to Citizen

Description of problem Pop promotes to Noble even though civic rights are set to Citizen What game version are you running? 2.0.3 What platform are you playing on? Steam Please select any/all DLC you have enabled. Magna Graecia Content...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

---

I'm usually not bringing stuff up again I have already posted about, but the reason here is that I feel this is a quite far reaching bug, which directly impacts a great feature and also negatively affects the balancing. With the citizen-only-restriction being ignored, we are currently in a situation where integrating is a very one dimensional thing - integrate and get nobles. Not to talk of this opening a cheap exploit to avoid the extra penalty you are suppoed to get when integrating cultures and allowing nobles...currently you just pick "citizen", circumvent the penalty that way and enjoy nobles anyway because of the restriction not working.

Maybe a fix is not so easy as I imagine it to be, which would be really sad, but of course we would have to except it...but it would be really unfortunate, if this just falls off the table unchecked or a fix fails because of a lacking fresh example. That's why I put in the effort I linked above and that's why I kindly ask you @PDX_Gorion to have a least a quick look on the matter Thanks in advance and once more - you already did great things to the game and for the IR community with what you included in the current version of this "small" patch!

 

[Gratak]

Edit:
Sorry, I seem to be a bit blind. Missed the Windows only

It seems to me that the 2.0.4 update does not work on Linux. It simply refuses to do any updating when I change from no-beta to the 2.0.4. beta and I keep getting Steam giving me below error message when I then try to launch. Using Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS and never had such a problem with any other Paradox title before, nor with the other betas of Imperator.

This problem does not appear when I use Proton (this does slow down everything and reset the mod configs...)

 

[olivenkranz]

It seems to me that the 2.0.4 update does not work on Linux. It simply refuses to do any updating when I change from no-beta to the 2.0.4. beta and I keep getting Steam giving me below error message when I then try to launch. Using Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS and never had such a problem with any other Paradox title before, nor with the other betas of Imperator.

This problem does not appear when I use Proton (this does slow down everything and reset the mod configs...)

View attachment 980595

As I said in a previous post, the beta patch is only avilable to Windows.

Edit: That also is said in the opening statement by Gorion.

 

[cisiel]

As I said in a previous post, the beta patch is only avilable to Windows.

Edit: That also is said in the opening statement by Gorion.

ok, but what about final 2.04 ? Will it be available for MacOS and Linux ?
Also, there might be some specific issues on Linux/Mac...

 

[hurleyef]

ok, but what about final 2.04 ? Will it be available for MacOS and Linux ?
Also, there might be some specific issues on Linux/Mac...

Just read the first post man. They answer these questions there.

 

[IsaacCAT]

2. I see that Civil Wars have been altered in the beta to prevent them being too small, but now they appear to always be massive (half the nation every time) even if only a small percentage of the powerbase is disloyal. I tested this in my Egypt Campaign by intentionally triggering a Civil War with a single disloyal character (the governor of Nubia with 2 provinces who was a family head) through a failed 'Bring to Trial' interaction. In this scenario he has 10% of the total powerbase, needing 14% to begin the Civil War countdown.

When Civil War errupts from the single disloyal character from a failed 'Bring to Trial' half of the Country revolts (with about 50% of the population). Trying this with random other governors that weren't Family Heads, with no other disloyal characters of governors, still causes a massive devastating Civil War that is always half the nation. I understand Civil Wars are not meant to be tiny revolts and sometimes be devastating but shouldn't the size of the Civil War side against the player be somewhat proportional to the amount of disloyal characters and the disloyal powerbase?

With high tyranny which often is used late game to keep aggressive expansion low as it becomes more managable, the threshold for Civil War can be very low, so it only takes one or two characters with a small powerbase to be disloyal to somehow convince half of the entire nation to join them and tear the country apart. This seems reasonable when the disloyal powerbase is 50% for a 50/50 civil war or perhaps even a 75/25 for a 75% disloyal powerbase, or for special event/mission Civil Wars like the Roman Eastern Dictatorship but having it always be massive even when the disloyal powerbase is more region or even province sized seems unreasonable and can completely derail a playthrough when the 'Egyptian/Armenian/Persian/etc Revolt' always starts with half the nation despite the disloyal powerbase being small and these can be far to frequent with high tyranny/poor conditions so one can spend decades at a time putting down a civil wars when they should have only taken a few years or even months if it was one angry governor.

On civil wars not being proportional to the disloyal characters, I have been thinking and I believe it is true to the spirit. When the conflict explodes, all characters are faced by the question of who they support. Independently of their status, some can be turned when a faction rebels and a civil war usually means splitting the nation in two.

Your are with me or against me, type of situation.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

On civil wars not being proportional to the disloyal characters, I have been thinking and I believe it is true to the spirit. When the conflict explodes, all characters are faced by the question of who they support. Independently of their status, some can be turned when a faction rebels and a civil war usually means splitting the nation in two.

Your are with me or against me, type of situation.

In general in Paradox's entire game catalogue, I've always considered the portrayed rebellions to be far overpowered in contrast to more reality. It's not just the fact that by appearances - an army of far too large a size appears, but this other consideration -- the level of quality/training/gear would be substandard in contrast to "regular" forces, especially a Legion-type standing army. Paradox games, in general, do not portray effectively the nuances in training/organization differences that occur between a "regular army" and a hodge-podge ("let's go, boys") type of ad-hoc army.
Frankly, this is how the "300" defend off a massive invasion, and many other historic stories of "regular" well-trained forces defeating much larger disorganized forces.

How to portray this difference in training, organization, and equipment in-game? Simplest nerf would be a -20% or more reduction in Discipline of that army (since Discipline most directly factors into "killing" ability of our virtual armies in game).

 

[llLordCamoll]

On civil wars not being proportional to the disloyal characters, I have been thinking and I believe it is true to the spirit. When the conflict explodes, all characters are faced by the question of who they support. Independently of their status, some can be turned when a faction rebels and a civil war usually means splitting the nation in two.

Your are with me or against me, type of situation.

I understand that it might be larger than the few initially disloyal characters and their powerbase, but always being 50% of the country no matter what seems to be far too much. Sometimes it should be bigger than 50% perhaps if the government/ruler is incredibly unpopular, but having one disloyal governor that is your rival refusing to be removed because of low loyalty while the rest of your nation and characters are both loyal and stable that you decide to use 'bring to trial' to remove (which is what it is for - removing characters that are a large problem from your court or provinces that have too much power/important position(s) to simply be thrown in jail with no consequences by trying to imprison them through a trial which can have multiple outcomes: success/failure with stab hit/failure with civil war) being able to convince half of the entire nation to rebel when they overall have few greivances with the administration is both unrealistic and not fun.

Engaging in a Civil War in this period was extremely dangerous (has been throughout history) and could result in complete confiscation of all property, loss of noble status, mass execution of leaders and nobles involved (and you have that option upon winning to 'forgive' or 'punish' the rebels) so convincing someone to commit treason was usually somewhat difficult, especially when the initial rebellion was small so had a small chance of success. Thus, when given the option of 'with or against me' for the rebellion of a single councilor, governor, or family head most people are going to respond with 'Certainly not, I like my head being attached to my shoulders and my skin not being flayed'. As per the rebellion expanding, that does happen when more provinces get occupied and immediately flip, so even a single governorship rebelling could become a massive problem if your forces are elsewhere and they carpet siege multiple regions, thus encouraging the player to be careful and proactive with dealing with dissent and rebellion.

Large Civil Wars that immediately start with 50% of the country, often half your capital region too, are a massive pain and can take decades to put down and completely wreck you, and if any other power decides to attack you the playthrough can effectively be over. Now, that should certainly be possible, that half the nation rises against you, but it should not be for every single civil war - there should certainly be gradations of Civil War from province-governorship(s)-quarter/half/more than half the country depending upon the circumstances, both within and without the player's control. The initial complaint about some of them being too small was perhaps warranted, and perhaps they should have been enlarged, but having every single one be 50% is too much. A 10% disloyal powerbase should not be able to 100% of the time get 50% of the nation to revolt - perhaps there should be a chance that it ends up larger, even significantly larger, than the initial disloyal powerbase, but it should not be the only option.

As for the historic precedent, many Civil Wars happened that were not half the population. A significantly powerful individual that has enough of a grudge, or was likely to lose everything anyway might, and did, go for a last resort 'all or nothing' and this is simulated through a single powerful individual/small group being threatened with complete imprisonment in the 'Bring to Trial' action. Having a low Civil War threshold from an unstable country also might prompt a smaller group to 'try their luck' and in game if you are stretched thin and weak, they might succeed too.

I have less of a problem with the strength of the rebellion's troops (a province levy will be able to pick up arms in the same way if their governor raises them) and a defecting legion will bring it's skills, but the sheer initial size being completely disproportional to those prompting the revolt I feel should be altered to more reasonable gradations.

An all-out Civil War can be fun and has it's place when your realm is very unstable and disloyal, or is shifiting governments, or going through a mission/event like the Roman Eastern Dictatorship, but it seems wrong for it to always be massive and half the country, because they often weren't and it allows one character to destroy your large loyal realm. The current state is so disruptive and would make using 'bring to trial' never usable because it now becomes 'roll for chance of 50% civil war to remove one disloyal governor' which is never worth it unless you are a tiny country, to the extent that I actually preferred the inital system as it did allow large ones too, even if some were perhaps too small.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I have opened another thread to discuss this to avoid cluttering this one.

Here:
Thread 'Civil wars in 2.0.4'
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/civil-wars-in-2-0-4.1583363/

 

[Davisx3m]

Achievements in multiplayer as well?!
That is amazing since IR is the best Pdox MP game.

 

[FPSeph]

Thank you for working on this one last patch for Imperator, this is one of my favourite games and I really liked making mods for it as well.

Speaking of which, since this game will be kept alive mostly through mods, could you look into the possiblity of allowing us to mod the types of succession, I would really appreciate it.

 

[llLordCamoll]

1. Scrolling through here I don't think anyone has mentioned the 'Levy-Merging Ruler Popularity Bug' that seems to be in the game, which may be related to the merging Legion bug where merging a Legate and a Tribune's forces together, thus removing the Tribune from command, gives a loyalty malus for revoking his office.

When one reconstitutes the Capital Region Levy (merging them back together after splitting the forces up), the ruler, who commands the Capital Levy, loses popularity. This is especially irritating when one is trying to pass the 'Divinity Statue' Law which requires 90 popularity and the ruler's popularity is constantly decreasing from merging levies while at war. It is not the splitting that causes any popularity loss, but only the merging, and it can be quite extreme, if one remerges say thirty singular cohorts back together after carpet sieging an area in a civil war or Imperial Challenge War, going from 95 popularity straight to 0 from a single click. This takes place whenever one merges ruler led troops back together, say after splitting off a small stack to assault a fort, but obviously merging many in a short time will drop it all the way to 0. I assume this is unintentional.

This has probably been overlooked and unnoticed by many as unless one constantly checks ruler popularity (for example when trying to reach 90 to pass 'Divinity Statute') one won't notice the drop, and won't be able to determine the cause unless one messes around doing tons of actions to see what causes it.

Replying to myself to add to the 'Levy-Meging Ruler Popularity Bug'. It also seems that disbanding the ruler's levy also removes popularity for some reason. I am not sure what is causing this in the code, but it is certainly strange. Something is definitely going on with merging/disbanding split capital province/ruler stacks that absolutely demolishes ruler popularity for some reason.

 

[GuileMike]

Where and how do we get the open beta patch? My game still has 2.03 running and I cannot find a link anywhere.

Thanks,
GM

 

[Jayavarman]

Where and how do we get the open beta patch? My game still has 2.03 running and I cannot find a link anywhere.

Thanks,
GM

Right-click Imperator in your Steam games list, then select Properties>Betas.

 

[GuileMike]

Right-click Imperator in your Steam games list, then select Properties>Betas.

Is there a code I need? It is asking for one.

 

[SAS]

Is there a code I need? It is asking for one.

In the Beta section select the open beta from the drop down list, it is at the bottom of the list.

 

[Dementive]

Another very major bug I just remembered. Revolts, civil wars, and newly created countries in general tend to destroy far too many buildings to the point to where it makes no sense and really hurts game play. Often immediately after revolting an AI country will destroy nearly every one of their buildings just to buy mercenaries in a war they are destined to lose anyway. This is especially bad when it comes to the destruction of forts, because new countries will destroy way too many forts and actually screw themselves because those forts were essential to their survival. We have tried to fix this with AI scripts in our mods but nothing we have done has been able to fix it. I and many others would love to see this get fixed because it can ruin an entire play through when you've developed an area for hundreds of years and the AI takes over for 2 months and destroys all your progress.

Another bug that goes along with this that I would like to see fixed. When territories change owners they lose all of their modifiers, which can be frustrating with province investments or unique mission tree bonuses that you spend a lot of time investing into or can never get back again.
It seems to me that there is a small change you could make to some effects that would fix this. When adding province modifiers with the add_permanent_province_modifier effect the modifers actually do not go away when the province is conquered. So if the behavior of the add_province_modifier and add_state_modifier effects was the same as the add_permanent_province_modifier effect this bug would be fixed.
Alternatively, you could make it so uses of add_province_modifier and add_state_modifier that use duration = -1 never get removed either way would be good I think.

 

[Dementive]

These are some things I feel like are missing from the script system, would add more possibilities for modders, and would probably not be too awful to implement on your end. For each of them I explain why we need it, how I think you could possibly implement it, and give an example of the syntax.

1. Defensive Leagues. There is no way to change defensive leagues after game setup so modders can't do much with them and the AI often does not establish new ones. These problems cause Defensives leagues to have a very minimal impact on the game. If we had 2 effects that basically mirror add_alliance and break_alliance but for defensive leagues we could take full advantage of the mechanic. The syntax would be:

c:CAR = {
    # Add rome to defensive league with carthage
    join_defensive_league = c:ROM
    if = {
        limit  = {
            # Check if carthage is in a defensive league with rome
            has_defensive_league = c:ROM
        }
        # Remove rome from defensive league with carthage
        leave_defensive_league = c:ROM
    }
}

2. Auto Trade. Currently the only way to set auto trade for a province is with the button in the UI which is not very flexible. Once you have hundreds of provinces it can be tedious for the user to click the button for all hundred provinces. If the ProvinceWindow.ToggleAiTradeAllowance function is implemented as a effect in script used on the state scope modders would have more control and be able to flesh out this highly requested feature. The syntax would be: set_ai_trading = yes and is_ai_trading = yes

3. Playing Sound effects. Adding the play_sound_effect effect from CK3 would allow modders to greatly enhance the audio experience of the game, currently there are a lot of soundeffects in the game that are bugged and do not properly play when they should, this would allow us to fix all of those and add more sounds where appropriate. The syntax would be: play_sound_effect = "event:/SFX/UI/Character/Unique/sfx_ui_character_give_free_hands"

4. Wrong religion happiness. There is currently no modifiers for wrong religion happiness adding them would help modders make better flavor that models minority religions. These would basically just be the opposite of the existing same religion happiness modifiers. The syntax would be: happiness_for_wrong_religion_modifier = -0.1 and local_happiness_for_wrong_religion_modifier = 0.1

These are not really bugs so feel free to ignore these if other bugs need fixed instead but I think they are all worth considering because they would be huge improvements to the game with (what I suspect to be) not too much work.

 

[WARenie]

Speaking about modding features, it would be nice to have local variants of

Tag: build_cost, Categories: country
Tag: build_time, Categories: country