Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

So that's why France keeps getting so big.... I thought it was because i turned off lucky nations.

So....I am convinced that they destroyed EU4's balance. How do I fix it? Is there a mod or a commonly shared preference to a previous version? And if so for the previous version, how do I change to that version and lock it so it cannot update?

[somebody]

So that's why France keeps getting so big.... I thought it was because i turned off lucky nations.

So....I am convinced that they destroyed EU4's balance. How do I fix it? Is there a mod or a commonly shared preference to a previous version? And if so for the previous version, how do I change to that version and lock it so it cannot update?

I've heard good things about Veritas et Fortitudo. To revert versions go to Properties->Beta->Whatever version number you want. To stop updates go to Properties->Updates->Do not automatically update

[Tarran]

So....I am convinced that they destroyed EU4's balance. How do I fix it?

EU4's balance has been being swayed violently for many versions, though now they're doing it even more.

As for fixing... it depends on what you want to fix, and what your opinions are on what is "fixed". Of course, some things can't be modded, but thankfully the devs did not fail a notable portion of the community 100% and left ways to edit some if not most significant values.

Is there a mod or a commonly shared preference to a previous version?

Mods tend to split people between mods. It's the nature of things. So "commonly shared" depends on what kind of people you ask.

There are two especially large mods that I know of: MEIOU&Taxes, and VeF, though only because they have their own sub-forums. I've only played M&T, but I'd imagine the devs on both are at least mildly more receptive to people who actually talk to them than Paradox. So you could try either. Though you have to remember, considering they're mods, they probably have new mechanics that might be slightly confusing and might not be documented. Of course, there's a reason questions exist, and even on this forum I'm sure you can get fairly quick response, so you shouldn't have to worry too much.

As for commonly shared preferences for older versions... I've read 1.3 had a (relatively) good AE balance (larger nations get more), but of course, it's a very old version. I've played a lot of 1.4 even when 1.5 was out, though AE is effectively null there. I've never played 1.5 much, but it's at least relatively new and it's before the cluster that was 1.6. Really, you'd probably get a good sense from testing and old patch notes which is best for you.

[pedrito]

I'm probably the only person who likes most of the changes in all of the patches...

But I haven't played 1.7 yet.
Now, from out here, the change in truce duration does sound reasonable to me. For as long as I remember, only the first war has ever been difficult against an AI enemy, after you win one crushing victory it only comes down to 'rinse-and-repeat-every-5-years'. Because the AI never recovers enough from the damage done in a 100% siege. The manpower takes 10 years to recover, the endless loans they take destroy their economy for an even longer time.
So a priori I think it's a good change. I need to try it though to see how it really plays out.

The other patch notes sound great...

   

- Capped tolerance towards heretics and heathens at +3.

Tolerance now useless for no perceivable reason

Explain useless. If base is -2, and you have modifiers that put you up to +1, that's not useless at all. Base tolerance for heretics and heathens is always negative, so your modifiers are indeed useful. They only cap it at +3 so that you can't get ridiculous amounts of positive tolerance for heretics and heathens.

[Detharon]

I think I'll return to EU3, which I really enjoyed.

I loved playing as dutch minors, it was not very hard, but still challenging. I could mostly focus on trading, but usually I had to fight Burgundy, or France, depending on current geopolitical situation; it was not uncommon to see Burgundy conquering French provinces and becoming a real threat in western Europe.

If my country was relatively small, I've had better techs than France / Burgundy and I was ahead of everyone else (because I'm a rich trader!) and pretty often very high military tradition, so most of the time my army performed much better compared to theirs. It resulted in interesting wars, where I was the underdog, but with few vassals, better army, and some mercenaries, I could crush much stronger France. With war exhaustion high enough, it was possible to see France getting torn apart by freshly independent French minors. If that wasn't enough, I could always spawn some rebels by myself too! Fun.

The same scenario in EU4. France always wins over Burgundy. Always. And they do it pretty fast, so I have to hurry up and grab precious Dutch provinces before French get them. It's not wise to vassalize due to ridiculous AE penalties and artificial diplomatic relations limit, it's just easier to take territory or annex. My army is weaker than French, or on par with theirs, due to the fact that they can afford better advisers, whilst in the early game I'm too poor to hire any. French never run out of manpower, neither they have to deal with any rebels, even after long and bloody wars with Austria. I can't destabilize their country with funded rebels either. The only viable strategy for Dutch is to... ally France. At this point I can literally do whatever I want. Boring.

With the new truce mechanics it will be even harder to conquer blob countries like France or Turkey, because they'll have a lot of time to recover from a single devastating war. Unlike EU3, in EU4 bigger = better, sadly. This game has lost a lot of depth.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Patch 1.7 is live. Hilariously I noticed the historical truces (like Granda/Castile) are still just 5 years.

EDIT: Declared war on Urbino without a CB. That alone was enough to get me a coalition with almost all of Italy and Germany, AE has not been changed. GG Paradox.

[Rakonas]

- Capped tolerance towards heretics and heathens at +3.

Tolerance now useless for no perceivable reason

Explain useless. If base is -2, and you have modifiers that put you up to +1, that's not useless at all. Base tolerance for heretics and heathens is always negative, so your modifiers are indeed useful. They only cap it at +3 so that you can't get ridiculous amounts of positive tolerance for heretics and heathens.

It's not difficult to get tolerance up to positive with a bunch of countries. Now it's just completely useless for those countries to try to be tolerant on top of that because there's a cap at +3, so Ottomans, USA, Republics, etc. have no benefit from trying to be extra tolerant because Paradox doesn't want freedom of religion to be a thing even while they're adding a tolerance idea group.

Also, apparently

If the AI wasn't deranged about Length of War, relative strength of alliances and still holding your capital, you wouldn't have to destroy them to take anything. In most of Europe, a 30 basetax province cession is nothing. So why will France or whomever else fight to the death over it? Just lighten up the WS minimum and they'd give up without being on the brink of death.

I don't give a fuck about the AI in this issue..  Its a matter of problem for the players vs players..

1) there was no incentive to fight a war for less than 100% warscore gains.
2) there is no incentive to ever give up early in a war, since losses are not recovered quick enough.

Johan confirmed for delusionally thinking EU4 should be a multiplayer focused game.

[Teneb]

All these changes make me want to learn to mod EU4 and make a mod solely for rebalancing the game without adding content.

[EnigmaticHat]

But increasing the length of truces should add MORE incentive for human players to go for 100% warscore, since it'll be longer until they get another chance.  Also they'll have more time to deal with the OE and required coring the truce makes before they need to fight again.  So that doesn't work either way.

Also is Johan a dev?  Because otherwise not sure why we're talking about him here (I assume he's from the Paradox forums).

[LordSlowpoke]

he's the scrubbest scrub to ever scrub and said to be the one who pushed forward cancelling everything(tm) in favor of hoi4

and yeah he's the manager/lead programmer/whatever of the development studio

[Tarran]

Rakonas, you have a link?

Also yes, Johan, who I believe also has the profile of Balor, is a pretty important person for EU4 at the very least (Studio Manager). That quote from Rakonas isn't the only time Johan has acted erratically. So to see how he's acting is making me sad and worried for the future of various Paradox games that I have interest in.

Hoi4?

Hearts of Iron 4.

[Culise]

he's the scrubbest scrub to ever scrub and said to be the one who pushed forward cancelling everything(tm) in favor of hoi4

Wait, what?  When did this happen?  As far as I knew, they have a handful of dev teams for each of their games in active development - one on HoI4, one on Runemaster, one on EU4, and one on CK2.  I know that there were at least active teams for the latter two as of a couple weeks ago - Gars had to ask Doomdark on the EU4 team to fix a serious republican succession bug that was blocking progress in the Crisis in the Confederation mod (which I've been following for a while because space opera + CK2 drama = high entertainment) because he moved from the CK2 to the EU4 team, and the code was a bit of a mess for the CK2 lead to put the necessary time into for a single mod. 

[Bastus]

Isn't +3 tolerance enoguh to give you 100% religous unity? Or am I mistaken something?

To the whole I am going back to EU 3 affair. I already did it with 1.6. Not because I hated what happened to the game, though some things irritated me a lot, I just missed the sliders and the way tech works. I always found it quite funny that you could just rush away tech wise in one (or if you had the money) all categories and screw the AI over massively.

[Karlito]

Johan confirmed for delusionally thinking EU4 should be a multiplayer focused game.

This has been apparent from the beginning. PDS has built the game around their large office LAN games, which is completely different from how basically everyone else plays he game.

EU4's big problem continues to be a lack of anything interesting to do besides declare war on people.

[Sheb]

I really don't get the point of that +3 limitation. Were some people abusing tolerance?