• 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.
- Added defines BACK_LINE_MORALE_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER and BACK_LINE_STRENGTH_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER which allows to adjust artillery after recent changes.
Line 1344 and 1345 from the defines.lua from the beta 1.33.1

BACK_LINE_MORALE_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER = 1.0, -- Multiplier for morale damage taken by backrow
BACK_LINE_STRENGTH_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER = 0.0, -- Multiplier for strength damage taken by backrow

I am surprised seeing the back line morale damage set in 1
Gnivom in the DD of January 25 said in a comment: "The main tweak I'm thinking of is introducing a define that scales morale damage taken by backrow and set it to something like 0.2-0.6" but you leave it in 1 instead of 0.2-0.6.
Honestly i think is better leave it in 0. why? because the IA rarely can fill the whole combat width with cannons and it is even more difficult for the IA to reinforce the cannons. This is probably the minor of the problem since the battles against IAs are usually small. I conducted some testing and the main effects of this change can be seen in MP battles where are millions of troops. If you have play MP you know that you have to slowly reinforce the battle to avoid the reserve moral damage, well now you have to also reinforce cannons this will have two effects first countrys with a lot of money will have a big advantage since maintaining a 1 / 1 ratio of cannons is extremely expensive, because this you will be incentive retreating the cannons with no moral from the battle and after some month rejoin (no sense micro). During my experiments i also discovered that quality is going to be exponentially more important, why? imagine if you have a stack where half the damage come from the front line and the other half from the back line then if you have more quality you will deal more damage but now instead of doing that damage to only 1 line it will be against 2 essentially doubling the importance of quality. This is even exaggerated when the enemy doesn't have a 1/1 ratio because after he run out of cannons, you will have full cannons and the enemy will receive full damage when the enemy only deal half so your cannons will be in the battle the doble time (if the back row do half of the damage time will doble if it does more it will grow exponentially or decrease exponentially if it is less) since he does not have cannons, your canons will receive less moral damage so they will be more time.


In conclusion i think this will be harmful to both SP and MP, in SP the IA will not be able to maintain a combat width of cannons or reinforce it. And in MP will add no sense micromanagement. Also there will be this two side effects of making money and quality more important, and manpower and force limit less. I will not give my opinion if this last effects are good or bad changes since is arguable. Also probably all MP mods will probably set this value in 0, so the people more harmed will be the MP vanilla and none group will get a better gameplay from this change.



 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Beta tester report #00212331. Multiplayer. Start from 1444. Version 1.33.1.0. A friend in Poland, I'm in Lithuania. I declared war on Poland and immediately measured myself by giving 7-8 provinces to Poland. Two months later, he quickly repeated a similar war. Selected 4 vassals. Question... Why did I get aggressive, what does it have to do with under 70? At the same time, a coalition of 240,000 soldiers gathered against me in 1450.

Отчет бэта тестера №00212331. Мультиплеер. Старт с 1444 года. Версия 1.33.1.0. Друг на Польше, я на Литве. Я объявил Польше войну и сразу замерился отдав 7-8 провинций Польше. Через два месяца по быстрому повторил аналогичную войну. Выделил из себя 4 вассалов. Вопрос... Почему у меня появилась агрессивка, при чем под 70? При этом на меня собралась коалиция на 240 000 солдат в 1450 году.
 
Castile has now 25% marines force limit starting tradition instead of 5% as before is it bug or intended ? There is no mention about this in changes.
It's intended and in the patch notes:
- Quintupled the value of all ideas which increase the Marine Force Limit (Castile for example can now hire 25% of its force limit as Marines instead of 5%).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Well.. The more I observe games in Far East, the least I am enthusiastic about the changes made. Here is a list of things that doesn't work properly:

- Ming is blobing northward.
- Japan often invades Manchuria.
- Jurchen AI are turning Solons and Nivkhs into vassals but are unable to annex them when they could.
- Jurchen AI are unable to declare easy wars over weak neighbors when they could (even with far better numbers and quality).
- Jurchen prefers to maintain fortresses rather than armies, Korea liked.
- Tributary states are helping Ming too much with its rebels, to the point they prefer to fight these peasants instead to win a war they have just declared (I saw you AI Haixi, declaring with 20k men and 1 mil tech ahead, against 4k Oïrat boys, but still losing because you prefer to fight Ming's rebels!).
- Mandate is skyrocketing after the Ming Dynasty Crisis starts. +5 Mandate events are raining to the point they are able to enact 2 or 3 reforms in a decade or so.
- The early released Shun TAG is far too big, it acts like an impassable dam for the Jurchens. Even worse, they love their threatening neighbor in Korea.
- Dali, Yue and Wu don't fight for their independance because they can't ally each others. Even with external support (they are evaluating their strength individually).
- The new Manchu/Korea event (which I suggested) is badly implemented.
- Tungning still isn't playable, and starts without any institution and far in tech (+ NI?).


Few ideas:

- Teach AI Ming to tributarise its neighbors without taking provinces which are not in the Chinese super region.
- Put Manchuria into terra incognita for Japan (except Sakhalin) in the early game.
- Teach AI Jurchen to annex its vassals.
- Teach AI Jurchen not to tributarise TAGs that have a province in the Manchuria region.
- Teach AI Jurchen tu unify Manchuria over everything else. (Why not creating a "Unify Manchuria" CB, just like the Chinese one, and give them a transitory government?)
- Grant Manchu the Unify China CB, or give them a special government as suggested here.
- When Shun is released, trigger an event to give back Liaoning to the Manchu or to the biggest AI Jurchen around.
- Also, when Shun revolts, Ming provinces which are no longer connected to the capital - and are out of North China Region - should be given back to their rightful owners (Mongols, Oïrats, Sarig Yogir, Chagatai, Qara Del, etc...). To prevent bordergore and Shun's powercreep.
- Tributary states should no longer helps their overlords against rebels.
- Positive Mandate events should no longer triggers if Ming is facing a disaster, or a very few only.
- Releasing Dali, Yue and Wu as marches of Ming doesn't make sense now. I guess... They should be free. Or teach them to fight for their independence.
- Tungning should be playable, and start with all the institutions and techs known by Ming.
- Manchu/Korea event should fire if Manchu are big enough (300+ dev, like required to trigger the Unguarded Nomadic Frontier), and if Manchu are no longer a subject. Korea's provinces in Manchuria should also be given back to the new Manchu overlord (It's give-and-take). Korea may see its trust into Chinese Kingdoms and Ming being degraded frankly, and trust into the Manchu increase frankly.
- Chagatai doesn't exist in 1444...................................................................................................................
The rise of Qing itself is a low probability event, while the destruction of Ming Dynasty by rebel forces is a high probability event. Most typically, When Nurhachi attacked Shenyang, he even proposed to divide the land equally. Instead of strengthening Qing dynasty, it is better to strengthen other Chinese tag.
the is "east Chagatai","west Chagatai"It's a Timur vassal. There's no land left.
 
Beta tester report #00212331. Multiplayer. Start from 1444. Version 1.33.1.0. A friend in Poland, I'm in Lithuania. I declared war on Poland and immediately measured myself by giving 7-8 provinces to Poland. Two months later, he quickly repeated a similar war. Selected 4 vassals. Question... Why did I get aggressive, what does it have to do with under 70? At the same time, a coalition of 240,000 soldiers gathered against me in 1450.

Отчет бэта тестера №00212331. Мультиплеер. Старт с 1444 года. Версия 1.33.1.0. Друг на Польше, я на Литве. Я объявил Польше войну и сразу замерился отдав 7-8 провинций Польше. Через два месяца по быстрому повторил аналогичную войну. Выделил из себя 4 вассалов. Вопрос... Почему у меня появилась агрессивка, при чем под 70? При этом на меня собралась коалиция на 240 000 солдат в 1450 году.

You most likely did no CB war, then you broke truce. Both of this actions are crazy AE. Everything as intended.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Two more hillarious screenhosts.
1. Map naming still bugged.
20220214042100_1.jpg

2. Somehow one of my diplomats got stuck, pretty shure it happened when I lost curia control. It show him buildings spies in Aragon, but I cant extract him.
20220214072307_1.jpg
 
Hello, thank you for solving the problem of training the troops in the subject country
Previously, if a save was loaded, it no longer needed to be reloaded in multiplayer, and this was great, but now it is no longer a feature, if it is fixed, it is very good.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really like the espionage idea changes if i understand them correctly. You can fab claims early on which makes the idea group useful from the get go. The siege buff is something i didnt foresee. I think those are solid changes if it still leaves the diplomat idea in the group. Not sure about the siege ability though. Pairing with divine and offensive would get you like 50% siege ability base with + 10 from spy network. With AE reduction pope gets this could turn them into top tier wc country. Kinda nuts. Not sure espionage needed that extra siege ability. Maybe change it and call it something like "Long term agents" or "Local collaborations" and give movement speed bonus based on spy network in that country. Say 10% movement speed for 100% spynetwork. Would encourage to keep high spynetwork and not just spend all on claims asap. Would make losing network from captured spies matter because players can more easily "force" defensive battles this way but it woudlnt interfere with movement pips for river crossings and such. This way you have a choice between trying to reach max spynetwork or using it on claims. Still I like the current changes though and i just wanted to sound some positive feedback to the current choice of espionage idea changes.

Also i heavily think that the claims bordering claims ability you get from age bonus should actually be the espionage idea finisher. Current finisher is utter trash and doesnt feel awesome at all when finishing.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Mostly cool changes!
Although, will the ridiculously strong trio idea set of Quantity - Economic - Quality be addressed in the new patch? It has been a plague in multiplayer games ever since the innovative policy nerf (20% ICA -> 10% ICA)
 
The parliament changes are mostly for modders than for the game itself. Before the change, the nobles estate would always vanish if you have the parliament trait active. With this change, however, it is now possible that you can mod a parliament mechanic to a government without forcing the nobles out of your country.
The functionality of the 5th reform has not been changed though. If you enact you still remove the nobility estate from your country and gain all their crownland as intended.
I neve quite understood the idea of parliament killing the Nobility. The explanation was (ages ago) that the parliament is supposed to be how the Nobles influence the government once the parliament is created.

But it makes zero sense. Why does creating the parliament makes the monarch seize all of the Nobles' land and rob them of all their privileges? It feels just wrong to make creating the parliament, the single most absolutist action that can be done in the game. And the Parliament has laughably little actual influence compared to the Nobility. The way it actually works, it's a puppet diet of a totalitarian king/president.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't understand the purpose of AI unconditionally surrendering at 100% warscore. Has a justification been given for this?
 
Mostly cool changes!
Although, will the ridiculously strong trio idea set of Quantity - Economic - Quality be addressed in the new patch? It has been a plague in multiplayer games ever since the innovative policy nerf (20% ICA -> 10% ICA)
Trio you posted is mostly viable for most boring 8-15 player only Europe only majors game. Game where Englands sells its cores to France etc. They dominate MP only because a) most players are not experienced enough b) this is on avg good choice which does not make it best for every country and every scenario. I've been to lost of MP games where I pick defencive+administrative and make 3-5 players ragequit, then after like 100 years I'm beeng destroyed by quality-eco player, so statistically quality-eco lost 4 of 5 times and yet only one to remain in game, does it make them overpowered ? Sad truce about MP is that you never want to participate MP wars at all in order to be last player who have'nt ragequited from game. So yes if you are shure that noone gonna attack you and you have all time in the world you pick max discipline ideas,form Prussia and then say to other players "bow to your new liege", in real world in more chaotic MP only unviable ideas are still diplo, influ and probably humanist as for the rest even naval do have some scenarios where they are of some use. Countries with cossacs estate take great advantage from noble ideas, eastern countries like manchu still prime candidates to pick innovative, all colonisers(I dont know why people even play them in MP) pick explo-expa, rich trade countries England, Venice, Denmark can use tonns of mercs with administrative, you should probably know that in MP wins player who bancrupts last. So you dont really have to win all battles you just have to sustain better.
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand the purpose of AI unconditionally surrendering at 100% warscore. Has a justification been given for this?
This has been annoying to navigate as I'm playing a Sirhind -> Delhi -> Punjab -> Rajputana -> Bharat run right now and have waged a few wars for the purposes of being able to annex and core provinces I need that are physically separated from my heartlands. But I don't hate it, as it adds an interesting time element to trying to finish up all my wars quickly before I'm swamped by war exhaustion.

One thing I might consider is reducing the rate at which war exhaustion increases with a call for peace, given players will be dealing with a lot more calls to peace now that this change has been made, and the difference between ending a war with 2.2 WE and 5+ WE can be as basic as getting a couple of bad dice rolls on sieges. RNG is always going to be a big part of the game, but I spent a little too long cursing at my screen yesterday at "defenders desert" siege ticks at 57% while taking a colossal amount of WE every month because I'd already sieged down their other war allies.
 
I see; the current 100% changes can be easily circumvented by occupying every province but 1 and periodically shuffling units to interrupt enemy unit building. I don't see how this change affects anyone except making existing strategies more tedious to carry out (as I said, instead of 100%ing, simply leave one province unoccupied).

e: To me, this is a change similar to forcing newly elected HRE emperors to automatically join the HRE, which got rightfully reverted. It probably aims to patch some strategy/trick that the developers do not like, but it doesn't really, and it only hurts "casual" gameplay. I would hope for an _actual_ fix for whatever they do not like instead of this one which only makes things more tedious for people.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I see; the current 100% changes can be easily circumvented by occupying every province but 1 and periodically shuffling units to interrupt enemy unit building. I don't see how this change affects anyone except making existing strategies more tedious to carry out (as I said, instead of 100%ing, simply leave one province unoccupied).

I suspect that if this tactic becomes fashionable, then unconditional surrender will be adjusted again to account for it. @James Capstick is already in the process of closing off other loopholes.
 
  • 3
Reactions: