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

[Nisura]

With the recent changes to the Alcheringa missions it would add a lot of flavour if they were able to access some monuments in a similar way to fetishist.

For example having the Dharmic dreaming cult enabled allows access to Hindu/Dharmic monuments.

More contentious could be the Baiame cult and Islamic Dreaming allowing access to Christian and Islamic monuments respectively. The mission to own a Christian province to unlock Baiame makes more sense to allow use of some Christian monuments whereas the Islamic Dreaming mission requiring trade power probably doesn't merit access to Islamic monuments.

A complete wild card could be to allow The Rainbow Serpent to allow the unlocking of Dharmic/Islamic/Christian monuments (as it requires all religion related cults to be unlocked).

Another possible way to decide which monuments can be access could be to split monuments into religious and non-religious/humanist focused.

For example Islamic Dreaming could allow access to Kilwa City (which requires Muslim faith but provides trade power bonuses), but not access to Baiturrahman Grand Mosque (which requires the Muslim faith but also provides missionary strength).

Tengri could also access monuments in a similar way, i.e. the syncretic faith chosen allows access to non-religious monuments.

Thanks for your hard work!

 

[Pavía]

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.

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.

We'll continue exploring changes regarding the CB balance, and we're open to suggestions, as I said yesterday. However I think that might be for the next patch, as we want to test out how that works in the 1.33 release version, as we're already happy with the balance we've made in the last few days after your feedback.

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

View attachment 803758
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

View attachment 803759
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

View attachment 803784
View attachment 803794
testevent flavor_teu.1

Spoiler

View attachment 803790

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?

Will take a look on this issue.

With the recent changes to the Alcheringa missions it would add a lot of flavour if they were able to access some monuments in a similar way to fetishist.

For example having the Dharmic dreaming cult enabled allows access to Hindu/Dharmic monuments.

More contentious could be the Baiame cult and Islamic Dreaming allowing access to Christian and Islamic monuments respectively. The mission to own a Christian province to unlock Baiame makes more sense to allow use of some Christian monuments whereas the Islamic Dreaming mission requiring trade power probably doesn't merit access to Islamic monuments.

A complete wild card could be to allow The Rainbow Serpent to allow the unlocking of Dharmic/Islamic/Christian monuments (as it requires all religion related cults to be unlocked).

Another possible way to decide which monuments can be access could be to split monuments into religious and non-religious/humanist focused.

For example Islamic Dreaming could allow access to Kilwa City (which requires Muslim faith but provides trade power bonuses), but not access to Baiturrahman Grand Mosque (which requires the Muslim faith but also provides missionary strength).

Tengri could also access monuments in a similar way, i.e. the syncretic faith chosen allows access to non-religious monuments.

Thanks for your hard work!

Interesting suggestion, we'll definitely take a look on this for 1.34 patch.

 

[currylambchop]

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

Bruh they literally don’t retreat the whole change is that they do retreat lmao.

also you realise if the frontline dies the artillery will go into the frontline and get killed so there’s no ‘infinite morale’ roflmao.

 

[Dunderscore]

also you realise if the frontline dies the artillery will go into the frontline and get killed so there’s no ‘infinite morale’ roflmao.

go read my post again, i literally said that

i am talking about the entire army retreating from the battle in a province, which artillery very much already do, because morale already trends to zero, because they already take full morale damage.
artillery currently do not retreat from the battle deployment until all the units in the province reach zero morale, thats how a loss occurs.

so for the third time, if one were to mod the game to eliminate/drastically reduce backline morale damage, the average morale in the battle would take forever/much longer to reach zero.

this community i swear to god lol yall cant anticipate further than five seconds past an idea

 

[currylambchop]

go read my post again, i literally said that

i am talking about the entire army retreating from the battle in a province, which artillery very much already do, because morale already trends to zero, because they already take full morale damage.
artillery currently do not retreat from the battle deployment until all the units in the province reach zero morale, thats how a loss occurs.

so for the third time, if one were to mod the game to eliminate/drastically reduce backline morale damage, the average morale in the battle would take forever/much longer to reach zero.

this community i swear to god lol yall cant anticipate further than five seconds past an idea

Morale won’t trend to 0 if you keep adding reinforcements in.

 

[Dunderscore]

I would like to remind you that I am speaking to the people who, like me, do not like cannons retreating and merely asked "will there be a define so we can mod out cannons retreating".

I am trying to demonstrate (not to you, clearly. so ill just speak past you) that modding away backline morale damage will not return the combat to "normal". For any of you who are expecting to just change the define and keep playing as if nothing happened, you will not encounter the same kinds of battles you are expecting (your infantry reached zero morale and the battle is instantly lost because your artillery have already been at zero morale for weeks/months). Every single battle with artillery deployed would drag on until after the cannons have been deployed to the front and destroyed, which most of you will recognize is not happening in every single battle currently.

 

[Palbulchul]

Just out of curiosity:

Is there any reason why Ming would want to convert her tributaries into vassals? When I tried it last time, vassalization came at the cost of diplo relation slot. (Tributaries don't cost it.)

 

[IndigoRage]

Just out of curiosity:

Is there any reason why Ming would want to convert her tributaries into vassals? When I tried it last time, vassalization came at the cost of diplo relation slot. (Tributaries don't cost it.)

From the perspective of the AI, them keeping them tributaries is fine (though a shakeup is nice when dynasties change, Qing was a lot bigger than its predecessor on paper). From the perspective of the player, the need to keep tributaries limits your available routes of expansion if you don't want to break their tributary status and declare war. It's a solution to the desire to keep large numbers of tributaries (Mandate) and the desire to actually expand.

 

[Palbulchul]

From the perspective of the AI, them keeping them tributaries is fine (though a shakeup is nice when dynasties change, Qing was a lot bigger than its predecessor on paper). From the perspective of the player, the need to keep tributaries limits your available routes of expansion if you don't want to break their tributary status and declare war. It's a solution to the desire to keep large numbers of tributaries (Mandate) and the desire to actually expand.

So you'd vassalize those in the path of the conquest in order to keep them loyal to you instead of joining the war against you. Did I understand you correctly on this?

 

[IndigoRage]

So you'd vassalize those in the path of the conquest in order to keep them loyal to you instead of joining the war against you. Did I understand you correctly on this?

It's not that they would get in the way. They're the ones in the way.

 

[FocusedHope]

So you'd vassalize those in the path of the conquest in order to keep them loyal to you instead of joining the war against you. Did I understand you correctly on this?

I assume the intent is that you vassalize them, you annex them, then you tributary your new neighbors.

 

[assasindroid-1]

Started up an Oirat campaign, did the initial war with Ming, fought Kazan/Chag/Uzbek, then when I went back to fight Ming they had built forts on every border province but 3. About what I would do if I were Ming playing against an enemy that had crushed me in a war so looks pretty good. My only problem with it is that they didn't prioritize getting a complete wall up. They have a line of 5 forts right next to each other while also having an spot thats open so I can march around it. Edit: just want to be clear I think the forts are entirely reasonable and well done, I just think it should prioritize blocking me from getting in to China

 

[bokorthedust]

I've read through the patchnotes again, and tried doing a search on it too: is it intentional that the -3 diplo rep that you get for 10 years upon annexing a subject stacks its duration? I'm doing a Kilwa run on 1.33 and annexed 3 vassals simultaneously in 1511, and the -3 rep will go away in 1541.

If it's intentional, I'm not sure I like the change, it seriously gimps the multiple annexations at the same time tactic. In previous patches it just reset the 10 year duration if you annexed a subject while you already had the penalty, but if it will extend now every time you annex someone new instead then that heavily nerfs vassal play.

What's your opinion on this? If it's intentional, do you agree with the change? Of course if it isn't I'll also make a bug report on it if needed.

 

[BigHamster]

Ok, here one more example of erratic AI behaviour

 

[bokorthedust]

Ok, here one more example of erratic AI behaviour View attachment 805425

Did you use the introduce heir button? That gives all of your RM partners a restoration of union CB on you and that makes the AI turn domineering towards you no matter the strength difference.

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

Ok, here one more example of erratic AI behaviour View attachment 805425

Did you introduce a heir?

 

[BigHamster]

Did you use the introduce heir button? That gives all of your RM partners a restoration of union CB on you and that makes the AI turn domineering towards you no matter the strength difference.

Ah, so this is intended then, ty guys, then this is feature not a bug.

Btw just noticed another kinda bug, upon forming Swabia goverment rank fell down from Empire to Duchy while still beeng HRE Emperor.
Also all expanded infrastructure got reset upon forming Swabia.

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

Since Nivkh finally got its own culture, I think it should be able to see the same provinces as Ainu.

 

[grotaclas]

Btw just noticed another kinda bug, upon forming Swabia goverment rank fell down from Empire to Duchy while still beeng HRE Emperor.

I think that bug has been in the game since 1.30. As a workaround you can get a new government reform or switch to a different reform on a tier which you already have

 

[dhazlett]

Ah, so this is intended then, ty guys, then this is feature not a bug.

I think the summary is that it is indeed a feature and not a bug, but the time I ran into it (and from forum discussions the time everybody else ran into it) it is a *huge* surprise so I do think that some more severe warnings in the dialog box for the feature is warranted. There are many cases (especially in HRE land when you have 4 larger allies) where hitting that button is game-ending.