AI should have a maximum fort limit. There are great walls and maginot lines everywhere.
- 5
- 4
-
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.
I would also change it to be an admin point cost, rather than reform progress.
- 2
- 1
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.
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.
- 9
- 1
- 1
I like bits of the patch, but gotta say - some of these 'exploits' that are getting fixed are really ruining the enjoyment of the game. I just played a game as Sweden and the inability to take land (even your core in Gotland) in the independence war just sucked. It slows the game down so much when you're fighting a huge war for literally 23% war score so the truce isn't so long.
Smilarly, the ai fort system is awful. Austria covered Bohemia and Austria proper with level 4 forts. And I get that this is a good strategy tactically, but my god it makes the game so bloody painful to play. You dont want to declare wars because theyre just awful - it's just siege after siege (sieges themselves being a painful mechanic anyway). Maybe it's unintentional and just a consequence of too much money in the game? But as soon as higher level forts/stacked forts start appearing I don't want to keep playing.
I feel like lately the Dev team have lost sight of what actually makes the game fun, and focusing on removing exploits or ahistorical things (like why did we care so much about adding end game tags... I'm not gonna do it, but I also don't care if people modifier stack in ironman through forming multiple countries if that's what they enjoy?). Similarly with all the halved modifiers for policies and stuff... It feels like we're balancing for streamers and multiplayer, and removing all the highs of playing just a quick fun EU4 game.
I am loving the greater communication, but it I've been playing for like 4-5years now and it's never felt more tedious/laborious.
Smilarly, the ai fort system is awful. Austria covered Bohemia and Austria proper with level 4 forts. And I get that this is a good strategy tactically, but my god it makes the game so bloody painful to play. You dont want to declare wars because theyre just awful - it's just siege after siege (sieges themselves being a painful mechanic anyway). Maybe it's unintentional and just a consequence of too much money in the game? But as soon as higher level forts/stacked forts start appearing I don't want to keep playing.
I feel like lately the Dev team have lost sight of what actually makes the game fun, and focusing on removing exploits or ahistorical things (like why did we care so much about adding end game tags... I'm not gonna do it, but I also don't care if people modifier stack in ironman through forming multiple countries if that's what they enjoy?). Similarly with all the halved modifiers for policies and stuff... It feels like we're balancing for streamers and multiplayer, and removing all the highs of playing just a quick fun EU4 game.
I am loving the greater communication, but it I've been playing for like 4-5years now and it's never felt more tedious/laborious.
- 9
- 3
- 2
I noticed a minor thing in the Balkans this patch:
The two northernmost provinces of the Macedonia state used to be Serbian culture with temporary Bulgarian cores, but now they're Bulgarian culture with temporary Serbian cores. Is there a reason for the swap?
The two northernmost provinces of the Macedonia state used to be Serbian culture with temporary Bulgarian cores, but now they're Bulgarian culture with temporary Serbian cores. Is there a reason for the swap?
- 3
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?
- 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.
- That being said, what about that easy one sitting here since Leviathan?
- 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.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
A few suggestions after testing the beta some more:
Make the first option in the "End of the Hundred Years War" event (flavor_eng.9104) remove claims as well as cores in the France region. It's weird for England to have permanent claims on France for the entire game despite choosing to give up on conquering France.
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.
Estates that are exempted from losing land shouldn't have their loyalty decreased by seizing crownland.
The Reformation could be made to work better:
Make the first option in the "End of the Hundred Years War" event (flavor_eng.9104) remove claims as well as cores in the France region. It's weird for England to have permanent claims on France for the entire game despite choosing to give up on conquering France.
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.
Estates that are exempted from losing land shouldn't have their loyalty decreased by seizing crownland.
The Reformation could be made to work better:
- It still starts several decades too early. Swapping the start dates of the Printing Press and Colonialism institutions and then gating the start of the Reformation behind the presence of the Printing Press in the province of the first Center of Reformation could fix this, but that's probably a consideration for another patch.
- Centers of Reformation could target provinces better:
- Instead of focusing on countries without cardinals, they should focus on high development provinces without cardinals. It would have a similar effect, but also better capture the historical trend of Protestantism spreading quickly in cities. It might make the French War of Religion more likely, too.
- They should target provinces with separatism and non-accepted cultures. This would make the Dutch Revolt and possibly the French Wars of Religion more likely.
- They should be slightly more likely to target the British, Nordic, West Slavic, and French culture groups.
- Centers of Reformation wouldn't focus almost exclusively on Germany, but wouldn't be more likely to target Italy.
- Countries that "should" go Protestant or Reformed don't. The main offenders here are Scandinavian countries. I suggest changing the AI's decision to convert from Catholicism based on the following weights (ideally these would be implemented in defines or scripted functions to facilitate modding):
- If Denmark has the Count's Feud disaster and isn't broken by pretender rebels, it should be more likely to convert to Protestantism.
- Higher numbers of cardinals should make countries less likely to convert away from Catholicism because they represent free papal influence that would be lost. Ideally, this number would be compared to an "expected" number of cardinals based on the number of state provinces above a particular development level.
- The comparison represents how many provinces "should" be the seats of cardinals from the perspectives of their owners. The point of the comparison is to prevent backwater OPMs from always wanting to convert to Protestantism, but to make larger countries on the periphery of Europe like England, Sweden and Denmark more likely to convert.
- Yearly papal influence from national ideas should make countries less likely to convert away from Catholicism.
- I understand these ideas usually have Protestant/Reformed effects as well, but I think those should be primarily alt-history options for players.
- Taking Religious Ideas should make countries less likely to convert away from Catholicism. Religious ideas represent a commitment to the current official faith.
- Taking Humanist Ideas should make countries more likely to convert to Reformed if it's present in their provinces and less likely to convert to Protestantism in general.
- Protestantism often represented a chance for local rulers to exert greater control over their states' religions.
- Calvinism represented a popular rejection of centralized authority, not an opportunistic power grab by local elites.
- Humanist Catholic countries should only consider discarding their religion if their own provinces want a different religion, not just because they see other countries going Reformed.
- The greater the amount of its stated development that follows the state religion, the less likely a country should be to convert. This goes for both the absolute amount of development and the proportion of development.
- This would complement the cardinal-based weights I outlined above, which focus more on development than province counts.
- Countries that have subjects with large numbers of provinces should be less likely to convert.
- This has the practical effect of helping the AI keep liberty desire low, and the historical effect of using Lithuania to make Poland less likely to convert despite Poland having few cardinals and lots of provinces.
- As long as the Reformation starts 20-30 years early, the conversion speed of Centers of Reformation should be reduced.
- Currently, the Reformation relies almost entirely on carpet-converting all of Germany and half of the adjacent regions. It should rely less on Centers of Reformation and more on countries proactively converting.
- It would also be nice to see a religiously divided Germany that doesn't reliably change the official faith of the Holy Roman Empire to Protestant, which is what happens in almost every game under the current balance.
- Austria's inability to remain Holy Roman Emperor when the Holy Roman Empire's official faith is changed also appears to be contributing to Ottoman expansion into Europe. Even with Hungary and Bohemia fully integrated, Austria isn't strong enough to hold the Ottomans back without the extra income, manpower and force limit it gets from being Holy Roman Emperor.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
I'm seeing AI declare a lot of wars that they should not ... ie, they are allied to the Emperor, probably thinks Emperor will join them (Trust) but instead the Emperor goes on the Defending side.
Burgundy getting stomped frequently in early 1.33 games ... which is annoying when the player wants to try to inherit an intact Burgundy.
I'd speculate that something 'got broken' when you tweaked away some of the AI reluctance to wage war.
For that matter, they are initiating wars while too far in debt to join yours.
Burgundy getting stomped frequently in early 1.33 games ... which is annoying when the player wants to try to inherit an intact Burgundy.
I'd speculate that something 'got broken' when you tweaked away some of the AI reluctance to wage war.
For that matter, they are initiating wars while too far in debt to join yours.
- 1
- 1
Also, 3rd item; I've been engaged in some battles, with my subjects armies nearby, and the battle is essentially a stalemate, but would be a win if they divert to join the battle... howsever, they seem stubbornly set on going to their siege targets. Tested with reloads.
Well this was the right decision, I had a fascinating campaign with the beta, and got my achievement without any issues. Thanks to all the developers for the hard work! Everything felt a bit more refreshing, a bit more captivating. And I simply cannot thank you enough for the scaling leader functionality, that has been a dream of mine for a very long time and now I could see it in game. No more having 20-30 stacks with no generals as a 5000 dev behemoth of a country that somehow could not find more than a couple good generals before incapacitating itself "technologically," if that is what mana points stand for. One of the best quality of life changes so far for me. My "findings" while playing the beta are not really much different than what is already said, alas here I go with the most interesting ones.
1) Forts are certainly blown out of proportion, though I try not to use forts (at all) so I may not be the best judge of their placement etc. It was however weird to siege down 4-5 forts placed literally next to each other. It was still alright until lvl8 forts came around, but when they did, oh boy... With offensive ideas, and even some 6 siege pip generals it was a grind to go through around 30 forts that Bengal had, holding around 90 province max. I think the best solution to this would be twofold: make AI more reluctant to put more than one fort per an area unless its dev/importance is not above a certain threshold, and also perhaps introduce new ways of making sieges faster.
2) Some heirs and rulers that become generals lose their "generalship" and must be recruited again from the interface, not a game breaker but I am sure that it can be fixed easily.
3) AI (both diplomatically and also during war) felt a million times saner this time around, it was a joy to interact with it. However, I did see their armies fidgeting quite a lot this time around when they were surrounded by numerically superior armies of mine. This used to happen before too but was rare in the last couple of updates, at least for me. In this one game alone (admittedly not the most scientific experiment) I have seen many smaller nations' armies just fidgeting around in a province, changing their course every day to no end. Again, not a game breaker per se, but I am sure it can be dealt with.
I play the game through my Windows 10 Bootcamp if that makes any difference, which is partially why (given my terrible Windows skills) I could not gather decent photos etc. to support these claims. However other forumites already pointed these out in one way or another and even shared wonderful photos.
Just a side note, new Korea rules. It was always quite enjoyably strong, just as it should be for a country of its loneliness, but now it feels just so much more complete, thank you!
- 4
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.
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.
It's because the slavs that lived in modern day northern macedonia spoke (and still do speak) a dialect of or language close to Bulgarian. I'm curious why Serbian appears to be in southern Albania (unless you did that of course).
- 2
- 1
Oh, boy I had HRE game and thirty year war now lasts waaay longer. Every little HRE minor has highest tier fort now, not that I find it too bad and it kinda makes sense overall, majority of wars are now longer and its is hard to roflstomp even a minor, which is not bad, but Germany is now like a big bunker. I'd suggest still increase fort maintance, while keeping this AI fort logic, so AI still build them just less and not OPMs or give siege ability for all participants in Religeous leage war temporarily. Even whithout big battles sieging so many forts gonna drain all manpower.
And second weird thing I saw, Austria gets PU over Russia gets into war with Spain, and wins it while Russia having 100% liberty desire. Austria conquers Kazan. Austria conquers Uzbek, Austria loses Religeous war emperorship and still keeps it. Randomly after like 15 years it just drops this PU. So AI kinda kept PU for 40 years and randomly dropped it in the end. Some decision making here is just weird.
Third curiosity. Day 1 Saxony gives away Wittenberg to Thuringia then Thuringia becomes rebellious and Saxonyy drops it. Most likely Thuringia got some event which forced to geve away core to minor. But Ai should concider relative sizes of countries when giving away provinces with such events.
And second weird thing I saw, Austria gets PU over Russia gets into war with Spain, and wins it while Russia having 100% liberty desire. Austria conquers Kazan. Austria conquers Uzbek, Austria loses Religeous war emperorship and still keeps it. Randomly after like 15 years it just drops this PU. So AI kinda kept PU for 40 years and randomly dropped it in the end. Some decision making here is just weird.
Third curiosity. Day 1 Saxony gives away Wittenberg to Thuringia then Thuringia becomes rebellious and Saxonyy drops it. Most likely Thuringia got some event which forced to geve away core to minor. But Ai should concider relative sizes of countries when giving away provinces with such events.
Last edited:
- 1
Not so sure this is a new bug, but while I see in the code that countries in Indochina, Burma, and Indonesia are supposed to have special Southeast Asian sprites (I'm guessing that's elephant cavalry?) they appear to be showing up as regular Chinese tech group units.
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?
Is this a bug or intended so, why colonial nations no longer extend overlord's merchant-sending range in 1.33 updates?
- 4
- 2