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

[DasHeat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/sja0mc

I saw this on Reddit and I didn't seem to find it as feedback in this thread. Is this intended?

This was the focus of some discussion in the 18th Jan DD thread. If the new design philosophy is that CBs should only allow you to do what the CB is primarily for then the Independence CB limitation is the logical progression. You are now also unable to take land in the The Aztec CB "Flower Wars" as this is geared towards subjugation.

In that thread Lambda pointed out the following:

I don't understand the purpose of these hard blocks for war demands. Isn't there a mechanic for taking things your CB isn't about taking? Unjustified demands.
I feel like this opens a slippery slope for things like no cb (can't take anything), conquest (can only take claims), reconquest, etc.

I agree, the punitive cost of doing something not covered by that CB should be governed by the existing mechanic of unjustified demands, because they are demands unjustified by your CB.

I don't agree with this new design philosophy as I don't think it can be applied consistently (see: Lambda's examples). I also don't think it adds anything to the game or makes the game more enjoyable. It doesn't even make the game harder, just more tedious by limiting your options.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

I'm already on record disagreeing with how the new CB changes affect Nahuatl gameplay, I have to triple down on it affecting Independence as well, as it is counter-historical. The US not only secured independence in its war, but all the land to the Mississippi, which the colonies previously didn't have a solid claim to.

 

[currylambchop]

Did you guys remove holding s and reselecting to split all your units into 1k stacks? I find I can’t do this anymore, making carpet sieging a pain

also, is it intentional that Jain clerical class costs 10 absolutism, but Grant Jain liberties costs 5 absolutism, when the latter is the generic loyalty privilege which usually costs 10 absolutism?

Thanks for clarifying about totemism.

 

[Jespoke]

Some of the CB limiting makes sense, but it has gone way overboard.
Flower War may be a subjugation CB on paper, but you need to border a country to get it, which means that not taking land with it is a mistake, so the beta currently makes it a Noob Trap.
Independence is massive too. Lots of countries are subjects in 1444 that are designed to be able to usurp their overlord: Timurid subjects. Burgundian subjects. Mongolia. Butua. Sweden! And that is not even getting started on all the subjects that aren't really designed to be played, but you can make work.

 

[lambda x.x]

I haven't updated to 1.33 -- can you take provinces in cleansing of heresy cb? Or can you only force religion?

 

[DasHeat]

I haven't updated to 1.33 -- can you take provinces in cleansing of heresy cb? Or can you only force religion?

Holy War/Cleansing still allows taking land.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

I haven't updated to 1.33 -- can you take provinces in cleansing of heresy cb? Or can you only force religion?

Holy War still works as in 1.32

 

[currylambchop]

Some of the CB limiting makes sense, but it has gone way overboard.
Flower War may be a subjugation CB on paper, but you need to border a country to get it, which means that not taking land with it is a mistake, so the beta currently makes it a Noob Trap.
Independence is massive too. Lots of countries are subjects in 1444 that are designed to be able to usurp their overlord: Timurid subjects. Burgundian subjects. Mongolia. Butua. Sweden! And that is not even getting started on all the subjects that aren't really designed to be played, but you can make work.

I agree with most of this, but aren’t you not supposed to take land as Aztec? Last time I took some land I died to doom

 

[kdsw]

You need to if you want to get more possible vassals.

 

[Jaymoh]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but Coalitions aren't triggering as in one of the members of the coalition isn't declaring war. I currently have a coalition of all of Europe as fairly tiny country and just continue to rack up AE without any consequence.

 

[currylambchop]

Also, a similar complaint to flower wars is force tributary since the old way of playing Ming you’d take a few provinces from your tributaries after a force tributary war to border more nations to make tributaries.

if you don’t want to restore the oroginal behaviour of independence wars it might be prudent to allow returning cores in the independence war. So if I’m Afghanistan I could return my cores when fighting the timurids.

 

[keinjuan]

Centralizing one state gives global state governing cost reduction instead of locally due to a small oversight. In 00_static_modifiers.txt under centralize_state, state_governing_cost should be local_governing_cost instead.

Speaking of which, I think the capital state should also be able to benefit from "centralize state," although it is admittedly just a bit odd to do so with supposedly the most centralized state. It is just that when you are playing hyper-tall with only a few states, you could have even more governing cost reduction with a non-capital state by spending 10-20 years worth of reform progress. This is even with the current beta's -10% governing cost reduction, which some on the forum have said too small, which is definitely true compared to the non-beta's 20 flat reduction after percentage based reductions (which I thinks works better than percentage based but that's another thing). A niche situation indeed but I thought the spirit of the new changes was to enable hyper-tall as a more viable play, especially for Korea with inward perfection (love the new changes!) or republics with bonus reform progress. Btw, one of the devs said reform progress generation will be determined by only non-oversea core provinces and I also love this change!

Edit: minor changes

 

[AutomaticK]

Any update on:

1. Game not running above 60hz when in exclusive fullscreen
2. UI scaling causing blurring of all text/UI (would love a fix in CK2 as well!)

These would be very much appreciated!!!

 

[SaoMagnifico]

Please, please reconsider the massive nerf to the Independence CB. Without being able to take land in the independence war, starting as a subject nation is now essentially non-viable. Flanders, for one, is literally surrounded by Burgundy and its subject; this change means it won't be able to expand for at least 15 years after gaining independence. How does that make sense?

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

Something I'm noticing when it comes to Fort Placement logic is that the AI doesn't take into account subjects. For example:

Here Castile AI has correctly placed forts on our direct border, but not on the border of my subject Aragon. I think that the AI should absolutely take into account subjects when building forts.

 

[TheSadKiwi]

- Trading range no longer extended by fleet basing rights, but is by non-independent subjects.

As a pirate enjoyer I am quite saddened by this, what is an honest pirate supposed to do now? Conquer land?
Could be cool if pirating(privateering) didn't require trade range as the pirates live off the booty or coastal towns or whatever

 

[NIborGER]

I understand blocking tacking land in a subjugation war. However, locking flower wars (nahuatl religion) from taking any land seems a bit cruel. Maybe instead of entirely blocking tacking land increase the cost for it by 200%?

 

[NIborGER]

I understand blocking tacking land in a subjugation war. However, locking flower wars (nahuatl religion) from taking any land seems a bit cruel. Maybe instead of entirely blocking tacking land increase the cost for it by 200%?

Just noticed if as Aztecs you do the nahuatl->animist->devpush feudalism+renaissance->nahuatl stuff, you automatically become fully reformed when switching back to nahuatl. I don't think its a good solution. If you dont want to convert to the old ways to prevent "modern" nations from breaking if they switch, I have some suggestions:
a: Check for tech group: If not in the meso american group a nation doesnt have to reform, but also doesn't get the boni from reforming (extra colonist etc.)
b: Check for tech: only if a nation is above admin tech ~15 they get a free reform and get the boni for free. Otherwise they have to pass them.*
c: Nations getting converted to nahuatl dont have to reform but also never can get the boni from reforming. (<- please only if an alternative way for reforming once religons is introduced that doesn't include sitting and hoping that portugal settles next to you)

*I would rate it as extremely rare that an old world nation gets forced into meso reilgion and break before this tech (however asians might not be save)

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

I'll say a few things as a player with near 4k hours in the game.

Firstly, I really appreciate how much effort and work has gone into making this patch. It's clear that the team is trying to make the game the best version of itself it can possibly be. Something I'd really like to highlight is how much better the performance is on 1.33. It's substantially better than 1.32, and infinitely better than 1.31. The game in general has clearly gotten a lot better over the last two patches.

This being said...

I feel like sometimes certain adjustments are made that then go overboard. An example of this is that the AI were deleting/mothballing too many forts, but now they're building too many. Most HRE free cities end up with level 2 forts, Milan built an extra (unnecessary) fort right off of the start in my test game.

The AI didn't play with estates before, now they keep seizing and causing themselves revolts.

And then obviously there's things like the Independence War CB change which I think is popular with absolutely no one.

Regardless, it's a fantastic patch and I really appreciate the work done, but I do hope that a few things will be tweaked before full release because a few things have gone in the wrong direction.

Just a little side note, Burgundy aren't making Philip a General anymore which has seen him live into his late 70s in two of my saves, by which time Charles the Bold is dead.

 

[mochi_bimbou]

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.