Open Beta Patch v1.27a (18 june 2025)

[IamMax]

As a point of information: my turn processing times (at around turn 300 on a small Siwu) in 1.03 were somewhere between 20-25 minutes. Having installed 1.03 beta 5 that's down to 11 or so. So hey: progress!

[KingHalford]

Vic, those Minor Stratagems you've added, Unification and Annex, I can tell you without even using them that their PP cost is way too low. They should be closer to 80-100.

Here's my reasoning: this is a wargame, and if taking Minors at the start is a matter of just saving a couple of turns of PP and playing a card, then you're essentially removing any incentive to engage in the game's strongest feature: combat.

Whilst I like the idea of being able to use diplomacy to remove the "Minor Roadblocks" the cost should be very high, else we've got the potential to see players steam across the map. Experience tells me that when this happens, players will complain that it's a bad game because it's too easy.

One of the guys on our discord has already shown us how he's easily taken large amounts of territory and thinks it's overpowered.

[Malevolence]

As I've demurred from starting a new game since launch, I guess I'm going to miss out on Anschluss before the nerf. [:@]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

Experience tells me that when this happens, players will complain that it's a bad game because it's too easy.

I suspect this is a myth perpetuated by tubers and streamers in general. The quoted evidence tends to be viewer comments rather than players. The majority of subscribers are potential purchasers, not purchasers.

Someone who comments, "yeah this game sucks" may have no skin the game. They might never have purchased the game in the first place. The "easy" part justifies their feelings in general.

I've heard the spitting brit has the developers of mount and blade bannerlord running in circles.

I'm crushing the AI's balls with a wrench so far, but normal difficultly and procgen all play a part. The PRNG plays a big role in this game too. It's still very enjoyable.

[ramnblam]

I think it will take a little bit of balancing to achieve the desired result. You want players to be experience a spectrum of potential minor/major regime relations, from the friendliest cuddly bears to the most obnoxious aggressive warmonger, the stratagems should be there to give the player a way to influence and maneuver politically without being a binary "OH positive relations play the x card". The character skill rolls already come into play here which is good but I think being able to not cheese any one area of the game to make the rest trivial is really important.

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

I think it will take a little bit of balancing to achieve the desired result. You want players to be experience a spectrum of potential minor/major regime relations, from the friendliest cuddly bears to the most obnoxious aggressive warmonger, the stratagems should be there to give the player a way to influence and maneuver politically without being a binary "OH positive relations play the x card". The character skill rolls already come into play here which is good but I think being able to not cheese any one area of the game to make the rest trivial is really important.

My worry here is that if you get a very strong diplomat then 30 PP is rather trivial to obtain, especially if you play for this strategy from the start. I like the cards (although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?) I can just see the potential for abuse, particularly in multiplayer.

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

As I've demurred from starting a new game since launch, I guess I'm going to miss out on Anschluss before the nerf. [:@]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

Experience tells me that when this happens, players will complain that it's a bad game because it's too easy.

I suspect this is a myth perpetuated by tubers and streamers in general. The quoted evidence tends to be viewer comments rather than players. The majority of subscribers are potential purchasers, not purchasers.

Someone who comments, "yeah this game sucks" may have no skin the game. They might never have purchased the game in the first place. The "easy" part justifies their feelings in general.

I've heard the spitting brit has the developers of mount and blade bannerlord running in circles.

I'm crushing the AI's balls with a wrench so far, but normal difficultly and procgen all play a part. The PRNG plays a big role in this game too. It's still very enjoyable.

Was just an observation based on my own experience and talking to a whole lot of people about gaming over the past years. I've not been streaming long enough to have any say on your speculation here.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

Vic, those Minor Stratagems you've added, Unification and Annex, I can tell you without even using them that their PP cost is way too low. They should be closer to 80-100.

Here's my reasoning: this is a wargame, and if taking Minors at the start is a matter of just saving a couple of turns of PP and playing a card, then you're essentially removing any incentive to engage in the game's strongest feature: combat.

Whilst I like the idea of being able to use diplomacy to remove the "Minor Roadblocks" the cost should be very high, else we've got the potential to see players steam across the map. Experience tells me that when this happens, players will complain that it's a bad game because it's too easy.

One of the guys on our discord has already shown us how he's easily taken large amounts of territory and thinks it's overpowered.

They are specifically intended as a alternative to using warfare. Even getting Minors into that kind of relationship is a hard thing.

It is a bit wierd that annexation is the more expensive one, given that it is harder and on failure you will declare war. Unless the goal is maybe to declare war without causing your word score to drop?

[ramnblam]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

I think it will take a little bit of balancing to achieve the desired result. You want players to be experience a spectrum of potential minor/major regime relations, from the friendliest cuddly bears to the most obnoxious aggressive warmonger, the stratagems should be there to give the player a way to influence and maneuver politically without being a binary "OH positive relations play the x card". The character skill rolls already come into play here which is good but I think being able to not cheese any one area of the game to make the rest trivial is really important.

My worry here is that if you get a very strong diplomat then 30 PP is rather trivial to obtain, especially if you play for this strategy from the start. I like the cards (although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?) I can just see the potential for abuse, particularly in multiplayer.

Mate I'm not trying to be an arsehole, but my comment was explicitly I want options available to the player in regards to the RNG they come up against but it shouldn't be something that is potentially reliably or practicably cheesed. Sorry if If I've misread you.

[jimwinsor]

I’m in the same boat as Malevolence in that I’m stuck on an earlier version for the time being. This new patch has only been out a day, give it a bit more time to be tested, IMO.

I’ve had games, pre-patch, where where I’ve managed to annex 3 or more minors just using the Protectorate card. There was one game I did on stream that chatters labeled my “Hapsburg Run.”

Of course the downside of this is a state of war, probably with a major. But in many cases, the AI major was in no position for a war with me and quickly offered peace. So my point being, bloodless annexations of minors were already a thing, pre-patch, if you played your cards right.

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: KingHalford
Here's my reasoning: this is a wargame, and if taking Minors at the start is a matter of just saving a couple of turns of PP and playing a card, then you're essentially removing any incentive to engage in the game's strongest feature: combat.

It's not quite as easy as you put it. First, you're gonna need a foreign affairs council. You need a good diplomat or some shadow diplomat stratagems. You need to make the regime a protectorate, then a vassal to reduce difficulty. Hopefully with critical successes to improve your relation with them. If you fail those and reduce your relation, you're gonna make the unification harder, and I think you can't really increase your relation with them, unless you have that one political faction that gifits you relation boosting stratagems. It also depends a lot on the tradition value from the minor, which as far as I can tell, can be a +200 modifier for the difficulty at max tradition.

When you do succeed though, you're immediately getting access to their city with ecstatic population happiness and all their militia units, which both are really powerful effects.

I would actually say that the "annexation" card is currently underpowered, because who would ever want to play that when there's a risk of losing everything you worked for diplomatically and dropping right down to a war status?

It doesn't really make sense for unification to have -50 difficulty, when it has no negative downside for failing it. The -50 difficulty should maybe be moved over to annexation.

I'm okay with increasing PP costs, since the game feels like it needs more PP drains in general.

There's currently no effect for critical successes/failures with these cards. The annexation war declaration should probably be moved to critical failure since a normal failure could be seen as the minor faction challenging your threat and it still being your choice if you really want to declare war or not. Normal failure should still be a big drop in relation between you and them though.
Maybe the ecstatic population happiness after unifying should be an effect of a critical unification success. Normal unification success should be 50% happiness or something like that.

although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?

The game is parts roleplaying game, so having two different options for unification/annexation, one for intimidating with threats and the other for being diplomatic, is good I think.
The cards could be made more different from each other for sure though.

One of the guys on our discord has already shown us how he's easily taken large amounts of territory and thinks it's overpowered.

That was me. It's very powerful and it does need some tweaking, but I don't share the worry of it potentially being game ruining.

[Vic]

Bump.

Fixed some scripting calculations glitches caused with speeding them up in v1.05 (mostly related to some Stratagems giving weird 0 results)

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

best wishes,
Vic

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

Never say that you asume a bug fixed. You know they feel challenged by that. [:D]

They might even give a variant of the "he tasks me" speech. Not sure, I do not speak computer bug.

[GodwinW]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Bump.

Fixed some scripting calculations glitches caused with speeding them up in v1.05 (mostly related to some Stratagems giving weird 0 results)

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

best wishes,
Vic

Nice!!

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

Never say that you asume a bug fixed. You know they feel challenged by that. [:D]

They might even give a variant of the "he tasks me" speech. Not sure, I do not speak computer bug.

Well... i said before that i fixed, when i didnt so well better not to claim full victory immediately...

[Soar_Slitherine]

ORIGINAL: Destragon
I would actually say that the "annexation" card is currently underpowered, because who would ever want to play that when there's a risk of losing everything you worked for diplomatically and dropping right down to a war status?

Does it still hit you with the usual penalties for declaring war? If yes, I agree. If not, failing is not as big of a penalty, since you'll get the zone anyway in the end if you planned things properly, whereas if Unification fails you just wasted PP for no effect.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

Never say that you asume a bug fixed. You know they feel challenged by that. [:D]

They might even give a variant of the "he tasks me" speech. Not sure, I do not speak computer bug.

Well... i said before that i fixed, when i didnt so well better not to claim full victory immediately...

I think "I hope I fixed it for now" is the highest level of confidence that will not wake those sleeping dogs.

I can not remember if that was actually in Murphys Computer laws, but I think it definetly should be.

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine
Does it still hit you with the usual penalties for declaring war? If yes, I agree. If not, failing is not as big of a penalty, since you'll get the zone anyway in the end if you planned things properly, whereas if Unification fails you just wasted PP for no effect.

I just tried it, looks like it doesn't actually work in beta 5. I failed the annexation roll and it told me that there would be war, but no war was actually declared. The relation was still the same and I was even still the protector of the regime.

I guess it's true that you could play annexation with the intention to fail it, so that you get a war on a regime while bypassing the negative happiness effect, but I dunno. You still need to first make them a protectorate and get the foreign affairs council. If you don't mind conquering them with force, then I guess you might as well just declare war in the first place.

[ydmatrix2]

For the open beta branch, I'd be happy to have an auto-save *at the start* of a turn - it will be easier to check/reproduce/report some issues. Otherwise it requires to start from the end of the previous turn (and I don't know how deterministic the end-turn results are).

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

ORIGINAL: KingHalford
Here's my reasoning: this is a wargame, and if taking Minors at the start is a matter of just saving a couple of turns of PP and playing a card, then you're essentially removing any incentive to engage in the game's strongest feature: combat.

It's not quite as easy as you put it. First, you're gonna need a foreign affairs council. You need a good diplomat or some shadow diplomat stratagems. You need to make the regime a protectorate, then a vassal to reduce difficulty. Hopefully with critical successes to improve your relation with them. If you fail those and reduce your relation, you're gonna make the unification harder, and I think you can't really increase your relation with them, unless you have that one political faction that gifits you relation boosting stratagems. It also depends a lot on the tradition value from the minor, which as far as I can tell, can be a +200 modifier for the difficulty at max tradition.

When you do succeed though, you're immediately getting access to their city with ecstatic population happiness and all their militia units, which both are really powerful effects.

I would actually say that the "annexation" card is currently underpowered, because who would ever want to play that when there's a risk of losing everything you worked for diplomatically and dropping right down to a war status?

It doesn't really make sense for unification to have -50 difficulty, when it has no negative downside for failing it. The -50 difficulty should maybe be moved over to annexation.

I'm okay with increasing PP costs, since the game feels like it needs more PP drains in general.

There's currently no effect for critical successes/failures with these cards. The annexation war declaration should probably be moved to critical failure since a normal failure could be seen as the minor faction challenging your threat and it still being your choice if you really want to declare war or not. Normal failure should still be a big drop in relation between you and them though.
Maybe the ecstatic population happiness after unifying should be an effect of a critical unification success. Normal unification success should be 50% happiness or something like that.

although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?

The game is parts roleplaying game, so having two different options for unification/annexation, one for intimidating with threats and the other for being diplomatic, is good I think.
The cards could be made more different from each other for sure though.

One of the guys on our discord has already shown us how he's easily taken large amounts of territory and thinks it's overpowered.

That was me. It's very powerful and it does need some tweaking, but I don't share the worry of it potentially being game ruining.

This all sounds very reasonable, I entirely agree. Thanks for clarifying that D.

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

I think it will take a little bit of balancing to achieve the desired result. You want players to be experience a spectrum of potential minor/major regime relations, from the friendliest cuddly bears to the most obnoxious aggressive warmonger, the stratagems should be there to give the player a way to influence and maneuver politically without being a binary "OH positive relations play the x card". The character skill rolls already come into play here which is good but I think being able to not cheese any one area of the game to make the rest trivial is really important.

My worry here is that if you get a very strong diplomat then 30 PP is rather trivial to obtain, especially if you play for this strategy from the start. I like the cards (although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?) I can just see the potential for abuse, particularly in multiplayer.

Mate I'm not trying to be an arsehole, but my comment was explicitly I want options available to the player in regards to the RNG they come up against but it shouldn't be something that is potentially reliably or practicably cheesed. Sorry if If I've misread you.

I didn't think you were being man