|
Speaking as someone who came to these games from the Total War games, which are significantly simpler while still being grand strategy, the idea that just because the paradox games aren't ultragrog, nato-counter, counting individual boots on soldiers level complex they are simple is extremely loving skewed. Literally the only game I can remember that was even approximating simple was Stellaris and even then you had levels of complexity that have since entered and complicated poo poo and I can't really tell because at that point I'd played both CK2 and EUIV I know lots of people that aren't dumb but when met with the mainstream paradox titles go "Bwuh" because there's a huge amount of poo poo to pay attention to and plenty of poo poo that doesn't give immediate feedback. (Like Trade or techs and ideagroups)
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Groogy posted:Well I can see where he is coming from, the westernization mechanic had a lot more flavor to it. It was horrendous and horrible but it maybe felt better in the narrative? Or some such. there's never going to be a satisfactory answer to representing the changes that occurred in the Americas after contact. the idea that indigenous people didn't have the "feudalism" institution, or that meso and south america weren't highly developed, populous regions, comparable to Europe or Asia, are silly, but that would require reversing institutional growth and having the smallpox and plague events decimate your development. Institutions make a great deal of sense in Eurasia, and I like the fact that some of them can pop up anywhere giving a good alt-history flavour, but unless you guys decide to revisit the effects of contact with Europe on the Americas in terms of events or missions or whatever, which I understand you may not want to do, it's gonna be a bit weak. I don't think "westernization" is much better; I think the religious reforms are a good mechanic and make the early game interesting and fun enough. There's also still real tension when the Europeans show up because you don't know how bad you're going to get wrecked before you can mash the reform button.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
The best part will be how angry everyone will be when they gut and reboot some of these mechanics for EU5. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:The best part will be how angry everyone will be when they gut and reboot some of these mechanics for EU5. Nah it’s gonna be mostly the same as EU4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Nah it’s gonna be mostly the same as EU4. I love Paradox, but they showed us the heady heights of sheer laziness when they copy-pasted the events from EU3 to the release version of EU4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
I feel like I'm the only person who looked at this dev diary and got excited as the One Piece pirate rap played in my head. There does need to be some better ways to deal with coastal raiding, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
I like pirates being added, and will devo buy the pack, but still want more stuff is south east asia, micronesia, australia, new zealand, etc next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Groogy posted:You forgot the targetting system as well for combat and how regiments act individually on the battlefield and are not this number versus this number. So can I ask why there's this really involved system that players are explicitly discouraged from engaging? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I feel like there's this fundamental contradiction in EU4's development where improving how you interact with combat (or interact with it at all) is deliberately deprioritized, but tons of effort goes in to exactly what you described. I don't necessarily know what system would be better, but there's nothing defensible about pausing the game a day before combat begins, reorganizing your army so infantry takes up the front line, making cavalry and then artillery come 1 and 2 days later. But this is, again, what the game wants you to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
I thought you want a full backline of arty from the start, with infantry reinforcements being drip-fed in to replace losses on the front line?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:I like the idea of EU4 with more peacetime stuff as well, but I know I'd get annoyed with as soon as I had to pay attention to that poo poo when at war. Instead, they should make a game set in the 1800s and early 1900s that features industrialization and colonization and great power politics that I can play in my 2nd monitor whenever my blob is at peace. Hence why we removed the minimum province requirement of estates. Now instead when at peace instead of pausing I let the game run slowly as I am working out the maths of where do I wanna put this Rajput etc. "Hmm right here would be a good fort so let's build one up and plonk down the estate". Instead of the "HEY.... HEEEEEY I KNOW YOU GOT PROBLEMS MATE BUT I AM ABOUT TO GIVE YOU MORE!" Mr. Fowl posted:I feel like I'm the only person who looked at this dev diary and got excited as the One Piece pirate rap played in my head. Yeah we'll have a look at privateering and costal raiding as soon as we can. Which means I need to use it against Johan/Jake once in multiplayer first. j/k Beamed posted:I don't necessarily know what system would be better, but there's nothing defensible about pausing the game a day before combat begins, reorganizing your army so infantry takes up the front line, making cavalry and then artillery come 1 and 2 days later. But this is, again, what the game wants you to do. That's not the optimal way of doing things. The positioning of regiments work so you want to have a base army and 20 cannons in that mixed with infantry. Then maybe also have a siege stack of only artillery. None of this is like things the system promotes, it's just people think they are more clever than the combat code. If you have 1 million of infantry and 1 cannon. That cannon will be given a spot on the backrow. Not having Artillery on day one of combat is really idiotic though because you are missing out on the first initial gigantic burst of fire damage they can do while they are defended by full strength infantry frontline. Groogy fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Nov 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
So I'm currently experiencing an issue where developing my provinces doesn't unlock new building slots. Rather, the "level of development until new slot" number is set at the current level of development, and continues to climb uselessly as development improves. I've replicated this both with and without mods enabled, as well as on a fresh install. edit: scratch that, I just had to validate files. PBJ fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yeah we'll have a look at privateering and costal raiding as soon as we can. Which means I need to use it against Johan/Jake once in multiplayer first. j/k Honestly, I feel like the abstracted privateers in trade nodes is a great way of doing piracy already, and countries like Morrocco or pirate states should just get a significantly larger boost to privateer efficiency and remove the current raiding mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Groogy posted:That's not the optimal way of doing things. The positioning of regiments work so you want to have a base army and 20 cannons in that mixed with infantry. Then maybe also have a siege stack of only artillery. None of this is like things the system promotes, it's just people think they are more clever than the combat code. If you have 1 million of infantry and 1 cannon. That cannon will be given a spot on the backrow. Not having Artillery on day one of combat is really idiotic though because you are missing out on the first initial gigantic burst of fire damage they can do while they are defended by full strength infantry frontline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Shroud posted:I love Paradox, but they showed us the heady heights of sheer laziness when they copy-pasted the events from EU3 to the release version of EU4. eu4 never pretended to be anything more than eu3 with a better engine, and part of the reason it was so good at launch was because it was still able to use most of eu3's content
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Well, I don't know if this is a long-running bug or not, but this is often not the case. Try reinforcing an army composed how you describe, and if their front line breaks, your cannons are moved to the front even if you have reserves. That's before considering the "army is invincible if a single cannon has morale still" bug that has been around since EU3. And of course, the fact you're supposed to cycle troops in and out of a battle. I think you're thinking of the thing where if you want to use more than four cavalry in a fight, you have to send them in ahead of the infantry. The default behavior when you outflank the enemy is that four cav get put on the side while any more than that do literally nothing for the entire battle. And then since your infantry is taking all of the damage, you quickly fall below the inf/cav ratio and end up taking more casualties and risk your front line collapsing. At that point the extra cav might actually do something useful, but by then the battle is pretty much decided. Or maybe you're not thinking of that, but that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about stupid problems with the combat system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
I don't love the idea of coming in and trumpeting about M&T after Phi's little bout of insanity there, but I think they really do have some good ideas. Having estates control all your territory with assorted privileges, and then making you compete with them for control of the state is loving brilliant. Communication efficiency driving autonomy also seems pretty good. Dei Gratia remains great as it has been since EU3. The biggest problem with it by far (after the random crashes I guess) is that all the data you need to handle that stuff is just bolted on top through province modifiers and hidden events and poo poo. If it was actually part of the engine and exposed in the regular UI (and documented anywhere) it'd be much easier to understand. But then you get into the franchise overlap that Paradox has tried to avoid forever: bringing estate interactions forward from CK2, and proto-POPs back from V2. I think it would make the game vastly better, but I'm no marketing division. Beamed posted:the "army is invincible if a single cannon has morale still" bug that has been around since EU3. And of course, the fact you're supposed to cycle troops in and out of a battle. But this poo poo is also ridiculous, and if there was a good fix for that I'd call it good enough for EU5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 19:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Groogy posted:Hence why we removed the minimum province requirement of estates. Now instead when at peace instead of pausing I let the game run slowly as I am working out the maths of where do I wanna put this Rajput etc. "Hmm right here would be a good fort so let's build one up and plonk down the estate". Instead of the "HEY.... HEEEEEY I KNOW YOU GOT PROBLEMS MATE BUT I AM ABOUT TO GIVE YOU MORE!" I want estates to work like this, but they really don't. Taking one province away from them tanks their loyalty so much that you have to give them like 4 or 5 provinces to compensate. So I never do that. If the tradeoff for revoking/granting provinces was closer I'd spend more time trying to move things around to optimize them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think you're thinking of the thing where if you want to use more than four cavalry in a fight, you have to send them in ahead of the infantry. The default behavior when you outflank the enemy is that four cav get put on the side while any more than that do literally nothing for the entire battle. And then since your infantry is taking all of the damage, you quickly fall below the inf/cav ratio and end up taking more casualties and risk your front line collapsing. At that point the extra cav might actually do something useful, but by then the battle is pretty much decided. I thought they were thinking of the part where your reserves take morale damage, so it's best to send troops in in batches so they hit the front lines with max morale. Or maybe they're not thinking of that, but that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about stupid problems with the combat system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:But then you get into the franchise overlap that Paradox has tried to avoid forever: bringing estate interactions forward from CK2, and proto-POPs back from V2. I think it would make the game vastly better, but I'm no marketing division. this is the pitch for imperator: rome, so they're working on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I thought they were thinking of the part where your reserves take morale damage, so it's best to send troops in in batches so they hit the front lines with max morale. A better solution I think is just to make battles resolve much faster, making it unfeasible to pull that stupid Noria poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:eu4 never pretended to be anything more than eu3 with a better engine, and part of the reason it was so good at launch was because it was still able to use most of eu3's content That explains so much about why it had relatively more content than CK2/Stellaris/HOI4 at launch. I really am pumped for Imperator, but I think I may hold off buying it given that it'll likely be equally as light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Yeah, EU3->EU4, while it definitely had a vastly improved trade system, I recall was mostly under the hood improvements. In contrast, it's seen a huge amount of evolutionary development; EU4 at release is almost unrecognizable compared to the game it is today.aardvaard posted:this is the pitch for imperator: rome, so they're working on it Well that does sound rad. I haven't been really following since it seemed like early days, and I didn't want to start the hype train too early.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
The monarch points system was completely new for EU4, and it had the new national ideas system too, so it still felt pretty different from EU3 in a lot of ways. I remember it being a big improvement right off the bat and thinking that I'm never going back to Divine Wind again (and I didn't).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah it wasn't the kind of huge leap forward that ck2 was from ck1, but eu4 was a huge improvement over eu3 in a lot of areas
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The monarch points system was completely new for EU4, and it had the new national ideas system too, so it still felt pretty different from EU3 in a lot of ways. I remember it being a big improvement right off the bat and thinking that I'm never going back to Divine Wind again (and I didn't). oh absolutely, trade/revamped idea system/monarch points right out of the gate made the game flow much better than eu3 where gold was the uni-resource however paradox had no need to redo a huge swathe of map work, historical research, event creation, etc., they simply had to adapt it within the augmented ruleset
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
What if they just gave EU4 MoTE's combat system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think you're thinking of the thing where if you want to use more than four cavalry in a fight, you have to send them in ahead of the infantry. The default behavior when you outflank the enemy is that four cav get put on the side while any more than that do literally nothing for the entire battle. And then since your infantry is taking all of the damage, you quickly fall below the inf/cav ratio and end up taking more casualties and risk your front line collapsing. At that point the extra cav might actually do something useful, but by then the battle is pretty much decided. PittTheElder posted:I don't love the idea of coming in and trumpeting about M&T after Phi's little bout of insanity there, but I think they really do have some good ideas. Having estates control all your territory with assorted privileges, and then making you compete with them for control of the state is loving brilliant. Communication efficiency driving autonomy also seems pretty good. Dei Gratia remains great as it has been since EU3. PittTheElder posted:I don't think you can get rid of that, because then you just go back to the old problem of massive battles that take two years to resolve. I mean, what's the reason for phases being 3 days, anyway? Seems arbitrary - if you get bad rolls, you retreat after the 1st day, or it's still too early to retreat. Why not bring it down to 1 day/phase, and still retreat after 4 phases? Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The monarch points system was completely new for EU4, and it had the new national ideas system too, so it still felt pretty different from EU3 in a lot of ways. I remember it being a big improvement right off the bat and thinking that I'm never going back to Divine Wind again (and I didn't). To be fair, I don't think anyone prefers EU3 to EU4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Beamed posted:To be fair, I don't think anyone prefers EU3 to EU4. I've met a die hard EU3 fan who hasn't even really given EU4 a shot. It's sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
You forget the best improvement of EU3 to EU4. No magistrates Also god I was just reminded by this how buildings used to work and it cost mana. I do miss unique buildings though
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
Have a hilarious bug as Sweden where Poland/Lithuania don’t have any modifiers for supporting my wars. Like Poland hates denmark but they won’t join my wars and it’s steadily at 0 for accepting with no modifiers for or against. It sucked to begin with but nowadays i just use prepare for war and they get a magical +20 and will support me in any war probably even against their own allies. (I need 20 favours to start a war but hey those are easy to come by if you just help them out occasionally) My own personal hit squad really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
Well my recent attempt at the Big Blue Blob achievement didn't work out but it's going pretty well in other respects. Had conquered most of Ireland and Scotland and was feeding Aragon to my vassal Catalonia, when I got sidetracked in 1476 by suddently getting a free PU over Castile. Well, not "free", I had to fight Burgundy for it; but that was a pure bonus since it immediately resulted in the Burgundian Inheritance where all the land I didn't get went to... The Palatinate. And then the dude in charge of the Palatinate got a heart attack from the sudden shock of increased responsibility, and I got to fight Austria for a PU over that crown as well. Won that but got a huge coalition on my butt; was able to start a war against a third party pulling in the coalition via an alliance, and signing them off with separate peaces (had to buy off both England and Poland with some territorial concessions; but retained northern Scotland so England is still doomed in the slightly longer run, their naval superiority won't help them). Then a little bit after that I got my dynasty on the throne of Bohemia and they went heirless, with predictable results... then with two electors in my pocket it was only a matter of a bit of preparation before I could arrange more wars to vassalize two more of them. Now it's 1555 and I just got elected, I've got a bunch of provinces to add for imperial authority and am 90% of the way through integrating Castile for even more of it, and have England and Ireland open for conquest... the league wars aren't likely to happen, there's a lot of Reformed princes but actual Protestantism spawned in Scotland and has barely made it to the continent at all, I'll squash it hard and fast. Everyone will bend the knee or die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
I haven't been keeping up with the dev diaries so this totally caught me off guard, but I am loving stoked for pirate republic Granada, eventually becoming the Iberian pirate empire that forever raids the coasts of France and Italy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
About EU4 complexity. It's not so much a complexity issue, it's just that the game looks like an airplane control panel with a million buttons to click on which you might never noticed. I introduced four people to EU this month, two of them bailed out because it's hard as christ to have to explain every single mechanic to someone without sounding like a lunatic. Another was knee deep in debt because it took him 200 years to realize that he could accept cultures and turn 60% of his conquered land into actually taxable and manpower worthy provinces. There's no indication that this can even be made, you have to trudge through a screen which you barely use and maybe hopefuly notice it. This is an amazing game, but it needs a EU5 sooner or later. DLC just adds more on top of this and we need something that envelops all the new mechanics into a fully working and fluid structure. Thank you for joining my TED talk. Dreylad posted:the idea that indigenous people didn't have the "feudalism" institution, or that meso and south america weren't highly developed, populous regions, comparable to Europe or Asia, are silly, but that would require reversing institutional growth and having the smallpox and plague events decimate your development. Ins People here complained about smallpox being a thing and how american tribes should have a way of finding a cure for a disease they had literally never been exposed to before the euros came into the land, so that's where you find the hard obstacle for these mechanics. a lot of people want every single nation in the game to be super viable, in parity with France and able to do world conquests. It's silly. It's one thing for africans, asians and arabs to be straight up inferior to the european soldier when at tech parity, but the aztecs should be hosed and the survival against colonialism should be hard as balls. There's nothing unfair about that idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
The thing is the game doesn’t actually model that at all. Natives don’t get crippled by epidemic disease such that they cannot resist Euros. They just suck too much to resist them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Honestly diseases and populations aren’t really a thing in EU. Though I don’t know why you would care if the Aztecs are viable. This is a game not a simulator. It literally never goes on the rails so I don’t know why the Aztecs have to be on the rails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
I think it lost a lot of variety when they got rid of tech groups. It used to be fun to play somewhere in Africa, knowing that Castille would be an end game boss. Now it is trivially easy to maintain tech parity so every late game blob plays the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Hi I'm trying to get the Frozen Assets achievement for Novgorod and I just wanted to say that merchant and veche republics really loving suck. +1 merchant in exchange for no estates and a soft limit of 20 stated provinces. How is it even remotely worth staying in this government form?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Honestly diseases and populations aren’t really a thing in EU. Because right now by 1550 you're a powerhouse with virtually any nation in the game due to how easy it is to manage points and development as well as gaming the AI while back in the day trying to do something with the Aztecs or Mali was fun as hell due to how tough and uncertain it could be. Granted, it was hard because the developers considered mezo americans and africans to be mentally children against enlightened euros so it was a good challenge due to completely incorrect reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Should they disable seeding institutions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Though I don’t know why you would care if the Aztecs are viable. This is a game not a simulator. It literally never goes on the rails so I don’t know why the Aztecs have to be on the rails. They're not, but there's a lot of us who would prefer if it was more simulationist. Like I really wish Portugal would actually push south into Africa and India; they had been trying to break into West African trade for decades before the game begins, India is the obvious goal once determined to be possible. But in the game it's basically impossible for the Portuguese adventures in the Indian Ocean to happen, so instead they get like 4 colonists and go settle Eastern North America or something. Similarly the Spanish conquest of Mexico can't really happen as it did either; inevitably some European power has to land 20k troops in the new world. Stuff like that is real dumb. Fister Roboto posted:Hi I'm trying to get the Frozen Assets achievement for Novgorod and I just wanted to say that merchant and veche republics really loving suck. +1 merchant in exchange for no estates and a soft limit of 20 stated provinces. How is it even remotely worth staying in this government form? Yeah they're awful. Pretty much any government that disables Estates I stay the hell away from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 21:21
|
|