EUIV: 1.33 Opt-in Beta Patch now Available on Steam!

[LabRetriever87]

What sets EU4 apart from Crusader Kings and Victoria II are the flexible peace treaties. Therefore, the changes to the Independence War CB, Subjugation CB, Flower War CB and (to a lesser extent) Restoration of Union CB should be immediately reverted; as lambda put it, the taking of land is already covered by the Unjustified Demands mechanic, and requires no further complexity.

Listen to the players that will keep EU4 alive long after development has ceased.

Agreed!! Fixing something that isn't broken is just dumb.

 

[bokorthedust]

I think if you attack a country who is partly inside the HRE and partly out of the HRE - Prussia or Burgundy - you can solve the issue by your CB objective. If your CB objective is a land conquest outside the HRE, then no emperor CtA. But in the peace deal you cannot take any provinces inside the HRE or steal any vassals inside the HRE. If your CB objective is inside the HRE then the defending nation gets Emperor CtA and all it entails.

Conversely, I think it's fair game for Burgundy to attack a country inside the HRE as long as it's a CB objective from one of their vassals (i.e. Flanders gets a claim on Liege). But Burgundy can't use their own claims inside the HRE without an Emperor CtA.

Edit: I also think it's fair game for any other country who gets a personal union or vassalizes a country in the HRE to attack other countries inside the HRE as long as the CB objective is from the junior partner/vassal without an Emperor CtA.

That would be an elegant solution in theory, but in practice a HRE member adds all applicable provinces to the Empire once they are cored up. The pushing your PU/vassal's claim is a mere technicality since they by definition aren't independent. In your example, what's the effective difference of Charles, king of the outside power of Burgundy attacking Liége and Charles, also king of the internal subject duchy of Flanders attacking Liége? Even if you argue that the inside the Empire entity has the claim, the one who pushes it is not a subject of the Emperor, hence the CtA.

 

[-Duiker-]

That would be an elegant solution in theory, but in practice a HRE member adds all applicable provinces to the Empire once they are cored up. The pushing your

That's the crux of the matter.

PU/vassal's claim is a mere technicality since they by definition aren't independent. In your example, what's the effective difference of Charles, king of the outside power of Burgundy attacking Liége and Charles, also king of the internal subject duchy of Flanders attacking Liége? Even if you argue that the inside the Empire entity has the claim, the one who pushes it is not a subject of the Emperor, hence the CtA.

The problem is that the game models a PU as a dependency and you cannot play as Philipp the Duke of Holland (unless you play Holland itself) whereas in real life that just happened. You take away Philipp's agency here as Ruler of Holland or France Comte. (I know that this is EU4 and not CK3 and it doesn't matter for most countries but it matters for Burgundy as it is the cause of the Liege attacks.)

In any case, I don't think that that's the main issue with Burgundy. What really matters is that Philipp dies too early in the game and Charles is left with virtually no expansion routes. If you mod away Philipp's generalship he usually dies in the 1460s and by then the Shadow Kingdom happened, giving Charles an expansion route that does not involved a suicide against Liege. I think that will make it more likely to get a full BI and should be an easy change to implement.

Edit - it is actually a nice example that personality matters for the AI.

 

[Trockenheit138]

Feedback: 1 The Cossack Corps still does not consume manpower in the recruitment interface.

2. The Iberian culture can still be changed through repeated recess.

3. The missions of Chagatai, Yerqiang and Uzbek are not suitable for them and it is difficult to meet the conditions.

4. Ayuthaya can still establish Lancang or other countries and then Siam by changing culture.

5. In Deccan, Siam and other countries, I hope it can be established in 10 science and technology time.

 

[Jurij z Rosji]

while playing, I noticed that the bot does not defend its provinces, but focuses on logging enemy forts. how it is about the allies

 

[ForVictory]

What is this new CB change that this beta bought?

 

[RMS Oceanic]

What is this new CB change that this beta bought?

CBs that involve making a country a vassal (Subjugation, Personal Union, Nahuatl Flower Wars) now forbid taking provinces in addition to those goals. And for some bizarre reason so does Independence Wars.

 

[ForVictory]

CBs that involve making a country a vassal (Subjugation, Personal Union, Nahuatl Flower Wars) now forbid taking provinces in addition to those goals. And for some bizarre reason so does Independence Wars.

But you can still grab a province from the subjects menu of your vassal if I'm not mistaken.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

But you can still grab a province from the subjects menu of your vassal if I'm not mistaken.

Requires they be loyal, among other things. For the Aztecs that can be a sticky wicket

 

[Pavía]

As we've been saying previously on other post, thanks four your feedback! I'll update you about how are we doing regarding some of the issues pointed out here:

Thank you for always making fun games.

I have one suggestion for changes in Ver1.33, based on my observation and playing of the beta version.
In 1.33 beta, there are so many high level fortresses that sieging fortress has become strategically important. In response to this, I suggest adding some sort of option to make it easier to capture fortresses universally.
The purpose of this option is to improve the comfort level for some players and to bridge the gap between the current version and the ease of play.
One suggestion is to add those with + 10% siege ability (or +20% in some cases) to one of the military advisor's effect. Currently, discipline and morale advisors are the most popular military advisors, and the rest are not strategically important. So, by giving this ability to advisors, we can improve universal siege abilities and increase the importance of military advisors, who have been treated unkindly.
Another idea is to add improved siege ability to statuses such as Power Projection and Prestige.
In any case, I believe that Ver1.33 needs to improve on sieges for play comfort.

Thank you for your patience.

I strongly agree with this.

I gave 1.33 several hours play last night to test out the feel of the game.

Not to bag on, but as mentioned before I have nearly 4k hours in this game. The amount of forts I had to go through to get to Madrid as England was an extreme amount more than I am used to.

We can argue this is good for the game. We can argue that it adds balance. We can argue, and definitely this is correct, that the last patch didn't have enough forts. But it's going to take a lot of getting used to going through 4-5 forts just to get to Madrid (for the record, Iberian Wedding happened and Aragon had forts blocking ZoC to Madrid as well). I personally find sieging up there with dealing with rebels when it comes to how painful it is, and I'm someone who always takes offensive ideas and prioritises siege pips on generals.

If forts are going to look like this going forward, then I would have to strongly suggest maybe bringing in a siege specialist advisor, or otherwise shorten the siege phases by 20% or so. This is less a problem in the late game when everyone should have more than enough cannons, but in the early game you can literally spend ages just staring at your screen for sieges to progress. It's not about the game being 'easier' or 'harder', it's about how enjoyable it is to stare at a screen waiting for sieges to progress.

The patch is absolutely amazing and I love everything you guys have done, but this is a concern for me at least.

Certainly seems like the consensus opinion is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way on the forts, from the AI deleting forts and not bothering to upgrade forts as mil tech advances to now spamming forts everywhere to the point where warfare is a never-ending siege slog.

Maybe there's a way to modulate fort construction by area? e.g. the AI would only build one fort in the state of Gascony (selecting for the most advantageous placement with terrain, number of adjacent provinces, and chokepoints taken into account), one fort in the state of Bordeaux, etc., maybe unless it's the capital state? That's closer to modeling how most human players play. Maybe also build in (this may be present already?) modifiers for nomadic AI nations predisposing them against building as many forts as non-nomadic nations, and/or discouraging the AI from building forts in states with low total dev and/or disadvantageous terrain, e.g. all grasslands/farmlands/drylands/steppe, which would effectively accomplish the same thing.

We're taking a look on the issue of AI spamming forts (I think we made our AI too efficient on that front ). We hope to tune it down for the final 1.33 version, as it really slows mid-game gameplay too much, and changing siege modifiers globally would be too much effort-consuming in comparison.

What sets EU4 apart from Crusader Kings and Victoria II are the flexible peace treaties. Therefore, the changes to the Independence War CB, Subjugation CB, Flower War CB and (to a lesser extent) Restoration of Union CB should be immediately reverted; as lambda put it, the taking of land is already covered by the Unjustified Demands mechanic, and requires no further complexity.

Listen to the players that will keep EU4 alive long after development has ceased.

Dear paradox, I really love the balance changes and update for 1.33 but the disabling of taking land in independence wars really cripples the early game. I've noticed this with my nevers run. I can imagine it for subjugation/pu wars, but not for independence. Please reconsider this

CBs that involve making a country a vassal (Subjugation, Personal Union, Nahuatl Flower Wars) now forbid taking provinces in addition to those goals. And for some bizarre reason so does Independence Wars.

We've made some changes to the CB balance. Right now, as long as you do the thing the CB was for, you can then take provinces after that with any remaining war score. So for example, you can't take provinces without forcing union if you used the Restoration of Union CB.

We're open to further changes in this issue, obviously, although we would want to give this design a try. Coupling it with Unjustified Demands rebalance could be something to be done in the next patch, for instance.

Looks great so far! Only thing irking me right now is the (continuing?) bug where a ruler or heir who is serving as a general will die as a general but not as a ruler/heir - like the game doesn't know the general and the ruler/heir is the same person anymore. I'd been noticing this with consorts in the previous patch, when there was the added frustration that the consort-generals weren't free / counted towards the leader limit (or was that WAD?). Now with the ruler-generals and heir-generals, they're free, but otherwise their deaths have the same glitchy behavior as the consorts did.

This bug is already fixed for the final version.

Hi there! Happy to see the introduction of an event involving Korea, Ming and Manchu (which will be fixed from what I read), to have reconsidered the status of Korchin towards Ming, and to have reconsidered the addition of a Jurchen vassal for Korchin.

- That being said, what about that easy one sitting here since Leviathan?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu-iv-taungu-ava-prome-mission-tree-reward.1471194/

- You should update terra incognita considering changes done to the Ainus.
- Ogadeen's ruler looks to have a typo in its name from what I can see.
- Playing in French, Yeren's name hasn't been updated, while Donghaïs and Oudihés are just swapped.
- Various missing descriptions in french for newly introduced features.

We've already done some of the fixes you've just mentioned for the 1.33 final version.

Regarding the French localization, take into account that other languages text usually is added later on in the development process; it's already implemented for the final version, too.

Can Yuan sinicize it's primary altaic culture too when forming it?

Yes, it's one of the main points in the changes made for that mechanic.

Add naval doctrines to the Naval Quality Comparison ledger. We can see what military idea groups other countries have picked on their diplomacy screens; it makes sense to be able to see what naval doctrine other countries have picked as well.

Good suggestion, although I think it will have to wait for 1.34 patch.

Been observing both the Ai and code changes since it became available earlier this week. For the most part I’m satisfied with the way Ai weight for things like Advisors are weighed now.

When experimenting with the “is_marine_modifier” I noticed its currently bugged and instead applies to mercenaries units only. I do not know if there is actually a “is_mercenary_unit” modifier in-game currently so I would actually recommend adding one unless it’s hidden somewhere. All other special unit modifiers appear to be working.

I would like to add on that the “Korean (Chinese) and other such cultures are a bit weird name wise. I think its been mentioned alredy but using something like Sino-Korean might be more appropriate.

I do say I’m quite intrigued by the Expand Infrastructure changes. I did something in the past and I know attaching this many modifiers can seem like a massive “OP factor” but given the concept of the mechanic its suitable. If I may suggest one adjustment too it, could it be made where its a potential trigger? I had a concept where if you had a Province with expand infrastructure + a certain amount of development you could upgrade buildings such as Temples to Grand Cathedrals before you acquire the Tech. While one example, I do feel modders would be inclined to mess with it further if it was more accessible.

Lastly are there any plans to revise ideas one last time in what appears to be the sun setting on Eu4? We’ve had a good chunk of new modifiers since Golden Century and I think it would do justice to do one final revision before the end of the game.

Edit: Oh one last thing, there were some mentions of Female Advisor chance affecting female rulers (and I presume heirs?) generation. Is.. that how it works as I’m still a bit perplexed by how it was described. This is also asking about RANDOM GENERATION specifically, not events and so on.

Actually, I posted too soon, I hadn't noticed something regarding renaming:

After the sinicisation decision, only the provinces in the Korea region have changed province names to Chinese, while retaining Korean city names; whereas, in China, it's the inverse - the Chinese city names are retained while the province names are still Korean. And then provinces in the Manchurian and Japanese regions likewise maintain Korean province names, whether or not I'd already culture-converted them, with what looks like a mix of Korean and local culture names for cities. So, it looks like maybe the name stuff was just an unintentional side effect within the Korea region?

Most of the issues you've mentioned are already fixed, as the modifier one and the Korean names issue. We've done some number balancing for Expand Infrastructure, too.

Some additional suggestions/notes from my test run as Ming:

• Even with the Inwards Perfection reform, the clergy still lose loyalty upon seize land - is this intended?
• I'm trying out a complete pacifist playthrough, harmonising as many religions as possible and exclusively expanding through colonisation and diplomatic means; I think the changes to harmony and EoC make this playstyle genuinely compelling, but the experience could be enhanced by adding the decision to Sinicize those cultures with the option to do so as the Emperor, once the Emperor owns all provinces of that culture of course. The Emperor was historically interested in Sinicization of neighbouring cultures/areas, and allowing this would make a Humanist campaign more efficient as the Sinicized cultures are accepted without using a slot. There could be a stability or harmony cost if taking the decision as the Emperor so that it's not too easy.
• I think a Dhimmi-style estate for the Emperor, which affects only provinces whose religion have been harmonized, could make for a more interesting game as the Emperor, but I'm aware this would be a major change so this is just wishlist stuff.
• I found that my harmonization outpaced my expansion into other religions and I spent a lot of time sitting at 100 harmony, so being able to spend harmony in other ways, perhaps in exchange for an instant boost to mandate or clergy loyalty for example, would be nice.
• The mandate cost for conversion from tributary to vassal seems well balanced, and I like the feature overall.
• The non-dynamic Join the Reformation objective for the Age of Reformation annoys me, considering the previous era uses dynamic objectives well. I think for Confucian countries, this objective could be replaced with a goal of number of religions harmonised or something along those lines. The objective to convert provinces also feels off as a Confucian nation who should be focused on harmonization rather than conversion.
• In a similar vein, the Emperor should have an age objective for a large number of tributaries in place of the Feudal Society objective in the Age of Discovery.
• Mandate growth speed seems well balanced still, and the changes to the Ming disaster provide a good incentive to wait for maximum mandate before passing reforms.
• The Ming mission tree is still appalling, but I understand that's beyond the scope of this patch (please add it to the to-do list though, such a major nation with a whole paid expansion focused on it should really have more interesting missions.)
• As a colonial Ming, I was itching for some integration between the native uprising/native assimilation mechanics and the harmony mechanic. It seems to me the two mechanics could interface very nicely (perhaps provinces whose religion has been harmonised could have reduced uprising chance, or assimilation could be increased at high harmony.)

Sorry, this ended up much longer than I planned. Overall this patch seems really well thought out and makes the gameplay experience as the emperor much more interesting. Thanks for all the hard work on this update!

Thanks for your detailed feedback, really appreciate it! We've fixed the Clergy issue with 'Inwards Perfection' you mentioned.

Colonial Trade Range
Is this a bug or intended so, why colonial nations no longer extend overlord's merchant-sending range in 1.33 updates?

You might want to rethink that and add colonies to the list. At the moment if we form a colony (like the Caribbean, canada or Mexico) we are unable to ever get enough trade range to put merchants in the colonies.

It was a bug, in the 1.33 final version Colonial Nations will extend overlord's trade range, as previously.

The new beta is supposed to allow Confucian religion countries to build monuments of harmonized religions, but it’s not working quite as expected.

First, it seems only the Buddhist monuments allow Confucians to build them, not other monuments.

But the real problem is that they require that the province be Confucian but that you’ve harmonized Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. If you’ve harmonized one of those three, then you can’t religiously convert the province to Confucian, so you’re locked out of building the monument.

It should also allow you to build the monument if the province religion is one of those three, and you’ve harmonized the matching religion. That’s how Tengri works too, don’t see why I’d need to convert provinces before harmonizing in order to build the monuments.

Also, for the monuments that could be either Buddhist or Hindu (like Ankor Wat), Hindu with harmonized Hindu should be an allowed option as well, since the province starts out Hindu.

Thanks for your report, we've already fixed all the issues you mention, so the rework for monuments with Eastern Religions, Buddhism and Hinduism requirements will work much better now.

I love the changes to the East Asian region. I feel like this region fell a bit behind after all the changes and new complex systems and in the Emperor and Leviathan DLCs. So its really cool that you came back after Leviathan and addressed the northern east asia as well.

But there is one thing that I feel like still needs to be adressed. And thats the "Japan" tag. I think it currently feels very unrewarding to form Japan as one of the daimyos. Not only do you lose your unique government reform, but in most cases the national ideas of your daimyo are better than those of the Japan tag.

I feel like a "united shogunate" type government reform for Japan, that is less vassal and more tall focussed, and buffed national ideas would do the trick and would probably still be historically acurate (But I am no expert here).

Otherwise I really look forward to the new patch and hope japan gets his update in the future.

Japan mechanics are really complicated to rework at this moment, as they're really different, as you say. Because of that we left them out of this East Asian update, as MoH/EoC features had more pressing issues; the only exception is that now Shinto countries may be able to use Buddhist monuments.

If you really rework the BI, the why not a more fundamental rework of Burgundy?

- Start by removing Philipp as a starting general. (There is this the bug in the game that treats starting generals as if they been generals since they were born.) Then Philipp usually lives until the Shadow Kingdom fires and Charles doesn't suicide against Liege. (Of course fixing the general bug or making Charles not a bold fighter would also work ). In real life Philipp dies in 1467 and not in 1445.

- Flanders as a PU but not Artois or Luxemburg treats these entities in an inconsistent way. Flanders was a PU as of 1385 (at least according to Wiki). It seems that it was integrated into the "Burgundian State" in 1386. Luxemburg was only added 1441 but is a province ingame. So why not model Burgundy differently?

1. For example, give them all the PUs. Introduce some base level of autonomy (like the great privilege does now) or model the unrest the centralisation causes, as an unified Burgundian State in 1444 will be probably be OP. The struggle between Burghers and the Crown could fit nicely into a slightly reworked mission tree.
2. The alternative would be to separate all of them into different PUs like Beyond Typus does. The problem with the last approach is that Burgundy becomes underpowered (or maybe totally OP given an expanded vassal swarm) and probably unmanageable for the AI and novice players. It also would make the centralisation so much more difficult.
3. If you don't want to change the structure of Burgundy, at least fix the PU dates so that Flanders can be integrated right away.

- Philipp was also a Duke inside the HRE so Burgundy should be able to attack HRE minors without the Emperor interfering. This is really just an ingame problem because of the HRE mechanics and the fact that we cannot play Philipp, Duke of Holland ingame. Deus Gratia recently modelled this nicely by moving their capital inside the HRE.

- Last but not least, the BI has become unreliable - the Emperor often doesn't demand the lowlands but simply gives up. That's annoying for the player as one can't grant the "Great Privilege".

- As a bonus, Deus Gratia modelled the purchase of Gelre and Further Austria nicely - these could be nice mission that would add flavour to the mission tree.

Edit: I didn't have time to play the patch yet, so if you have fixed Philipp/the general bug I apologise in advance. I just assume that it is still there.

Thanks for your feedback! As I said previously, we're not entirely happy about how the Burgundian Incident works, so we'll take a look on that for 1.34, including suggestions as this that have been made by the community.

 

[Mindel]

We're open to further changes in this issue, obviously, although we would want to give this design a try. Coupling it with Unjustified Demands rebalance could be something to be done in the next patch, for instance.

If you go the route of allowing province-taking through unrelated CB, then I would suggest also increasing the penalties for unjustified demands, in the form of both increased AE as well as warscore cost. I don't think it makes sense for a province to cost the same warscore (or AE) via conquest as it does through unrelated CBs. The penalties should be serious.

This would preserve the principle of having to choose appropriate CB while allowing some limited degree of province-taking.

 

[Alexios Fan]

Confucianism is very contradictory, which is one of the reasons I hate it. First, because of harmony, Confucianism cannot be changed on a large scale. As you harmonize with other religions, you will rely on tolerance to reduce rebellion. When you integrate religion, you rely on True Faith Tolerance, which is very paradoxical. Secondly, you have to consider whether you want to harmonize with other religions as early as possible. If you harmonize with other religions very early, you can reduce a lot of rebellion (the difficulty of increasing True Faith Tolerance is much lower than the other two tolerations, and True Faith has no upper limit), and you can also use the great project of other religions, but, You will no longer be able to use religious ideas cb - this is the most effective means of early expansion.If you harmonize them very late, you can't use grand projects and harmony's buffs. In addition, it must be recognized that the level of religions that can be preached is far higher than those that can only be tolerated. Just like before 1.31, almost everyone was more willing to use Coptic rather than Hinduism, even if the number of Coptic provinces was far less than Hinduism. This is because true faith can hardly be lower than zero, while the other two tolerance can not be higher than 3. In fact, Confucianism does not reject the spread of its own ideas. I hope to remove the debuff that reduces the degree of harmony by preaching, unless the provinces which are changed are already harmonious religions.@Pavía

 

[Smeeved]

Any news on the artillery backrow morale damage define?

 

[So_MeOne]

Hello there! Thank You for implementing so many of the community's suggestions.

I think I've found an issue in the beta.
When requesting in the peace deal realease of two or more tags with some overlapping core provinces, game differently displays borders of those nations during the peace deal and after it.

For example:

Spoiler

I clicked Shu first, Xi second. Game map shows that only Xi is getting released, while summary says that Shu and Xi are both getting released.

Spoiler

In the end, they both got released.

Also, I have a question on another topic. The event "The Prussian Confederation Revolts" (event id: flavor_teu.1) can only trigger after year 1460. Historically, Prussian Confederation rebelled against the Teutonic Order back in 1454, starting the Thirteen Years' War (1454–1466).

Spoiler

testevent flavor_teu.1

Spoiler

Thirteen Years' War (1454–1466) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prussian Confederation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since the in-game "after 1460" date isn't historically accurate, can we expect just a little change, moving the event's earliest possible date few years earlier?

 

[Maya9173]

Will special unit types ever be un-hardcoded so modmakers can change them?

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

@Pavía

Thank you for listening to our concerns regarding the forts. Really appreciate the clear communication.

Looking forward to the final version.

 

[Dunderscore]

Any news on the artillery backrow morale damage define?

I dont know why people are so stuck on this as if it will alleviate the issue. Even if you mod the game to reduce the amount of morale damage taken by cannons you will just be increasing the length of battles beyond what they were in the previous patch.
Say for example you make cannons take 99 percent or even 100 percent reduced morale damage. Then your average morale never trends to zero and the battle doesnt end.
Even if you went for something moderate like 50 percent less morale damage in the backrow, youd still have battles that last much longer than you are used to.

 

[currylambchop]

I dont know why people are so stuck on this as if it will alleviate the issue. Even if you mod the game to reduce the amount of morale damage taken by cannons you will just be increasing the length of battles beyond what they were in the previous patch.
Say for example you make cannons take 99 percent or even 100 percent reduced morale damage. Then your average morale never trends to zero and the battle doesnt end.
Even if you went for something moderate like 50 percent less morale damage in the backrow, youd still have battles that last much longer than you are used to.

Cuz the cannons didn't retreat anyway so in the previous patch it was as if they took 0 morale damage.

 

[Dunderscore]

Cuz the cannons didn't retreat anyway so in the previous patch it was as if they took 0 morale damage.

they DO take morale damage. which is why armies with artillery will retreat eventually.
when the average morale of all engaged units (including the artillery) reaches zero you are forced to retreat. if you mod the game to cause cannons to take close to no morale damage, you are essentially removing morale from the game.
you guys understand how averages work, right? if cannons dont take morale damage in the backrow then the average morale will not reach zero until every single infantry unit has been removed and every cannon has been deployed to the front row.
i love getting downvoted for explaining how basic mechanics work, great community here

edit: lol @nOxr "respectfully disagrees" with basic math

 

[Jespoke]

We've made some changes to the CB balance. Right now, you have to use the primary goal set for each CB first as a peace request (let's say, Independence). Then, you can use the remaining Warscore up to 100% for other peace requests (provinces, etc.).

I think the principle here is fine, but maybe money should still be allowed so that an Independence War/Subjugation War/etc can still ask for some sort of concession if they can't quite reach enough Warscore/Reason to Accept for the main objective. Especially because Reason to Accept can get pretty funky at times.