Europa Universalis 4: Emperor - It's like Stellaris, but in history

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis 4: Emperor - It's like Stellaris, but in history

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Jay Rust posted:

I�m trying the Mamluks for the first time ever. So their government guarantees a randomized, low-legitimacy ruler each time? How do I get out of it?

Isn't the choice between low-legitimacy rulers with majority culture support, and high-legitimacy rulers with little-to-no cultural support?

# ¿ Nov 16, 2017 21:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:12

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Fintilgin posted:

Hard to go wrong with the period. I still think they should probably just reboot the title of that too. Rome 2 could get confused with another major game, Europa Universalis Rome is just... bad.

Since they already used March of the Eagles, Daqin is the only option left.

Pharnakes posted:

I envisage a classical antiquity paradox game as some kind of hybrid between EU and CK systems. Done properly it could be superb, but EU:R and Sengoku, well...

CK and Victoria, clearly. Gladiators would be a pop type.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2017 22:28

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RabidWeasel posted:

I'm not really a fan of how the Islamic schools mechanic works. Having your school based on your starting nation is fine, but the 'invite school' option might as well just be blanked out unless you have vassals or you're in the earlier part of the game when you can actually have allies that stick around for a while. And there's far too many schools which can get wiped off the map before you even get a chance to use them.

Seems like maybe the schools could be tied to provinces as well? So like, you have Muslim religious centers for the various schools, which as long as they are not converted, remain a source of that type of scholar even if the country that controls it isn't of that school - and of course you get the option of inviting a scholar from these schools if you control their religious center yourself. Some schools might have more than one center, and perhaps if a religious center is converted there should be a chance that the school relocates to another Muslim province - either the capital of a nation of that school, or if not available, a random province in a nation which currently has a scholar of that school.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 06:58

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sephyr posted:

So Timurids apparently went from being a weird horde without a steppe to a proper kingdom with tons of unhappy subjects. the Denmark of asia minor, you could say.

Christian IV of Denmark should have been our Babur.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 19:18

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

White Coke posted:

Wouldn't that mean he'd have lost Denmark to a weird theocracy?

A small price to pay for a united Scandinavia.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 20:17

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

MrBling posted:

All drilling seems to do for me is kill my generals. I think I've had 1 stat upgrade vs at least 6 dead generals.

Still gonna keep on drilling though.

"You sure this is what he meant by drilling?"
/

# ¿ Nov 19, 2017 21:18

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Gravity Cant Apple posted:

Oh, then it sounds like Mamluks without the DLC suck balls. With the DLC they are super powerful.

So Paradox is dipping explicitly into the "Make existing content worse" way of marketing DLC now?

# ¿ Nov 20, 2017 17:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Poil posted:

No worries, thanks anyway.

Have you checked the documents/Paradox Interactive folder? A few files seem to end up there.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2017 21:40

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RabidWeasel posted:

Man the recent AI changes have made a huge difference, feels like every time I start a new game I have a huge angry jerks alliance of virtually all my neighbours that I didn't manage to pull into my own alliance. gently caress off and fight amongst yourselves, assholes

In some ways, I think the huge angry jerk alliance might have actually been a good thing in my most recent Inca game. Sure, you had the unholy alliance of England, Portugal and Spain trying to subjugate me, but at least that meant that Spain/England had to take turns declaring war and were declaring wars at inopportune times for the other, rather than just tag-teaming me into oblivion.

Actually, speaking of that game, am I supposed to be able to free colonial nations by allying them and waiting for their overlord to declare on me? :v:

Because that's what my very first war against Europeans resulted in, in that Inca game.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2018 14:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

MrBling posted:

France, you're drunk. Go home.

Speaking of drunks in the New World, as the Inca, the first European army to arrive in the Andes was, somehow, an Ottoman one. Though in this case they did go home, and that was the last I ever saw of the Ottomans.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2018 14:53

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

It's clearly too late for EU4, but it really would be nice if EU5 had a more integrated internal management system. Like, estates, vassals, and autonomy are not exactly entirely separate things, but they sure feel like it in EU4.

appropriatemetaphor posted:

Maybe just roll it in with states, and say like if you make a state then no estate can control it.

Then as your empire grows ever larger and you surpass your state cap, the estates start to grow out of control and you have to deal with all those currently easily avoidable crises or some new related mechanic. The nobles could bust out a vassal state you control, perhaps a march. The burgers I dunno, maybe it all ends in spinning out various vassal types.

From a pure realism perspective, you could probably legitimately limit the state cap to 1 for most states at the beginning of the game. If how much you got out of the rest of your provinces was 100% dependent on how loyal and influential your estates were, then they'd actually feel like proper factions. Maybe also make it so their loyalty would increase when you were fighting a defensive war, and decrease during an offensive one - depending on what kind of war you're fighting at least. That'd make the biggest countries less consistently dominating early on, and make conquests a riskier proposition because your enemy will rally to the flag while your own factions start getting annoyed with your attempts at conquest.

That would be the early game of course, eventually you should be able to more and more consistently get the factions to align with your goals. Or at least some of them*, meaning the largest countries could more consistently draw on their full potential, shifting the balance of power towards them as happened historically. Late-game, the state cap could really start to go up, signifying the creation of modern state bureaucracies and letting the player run amok with their glorious new empire-forging power.

*Which factions you favor could really be a big deal here in terms of defining your country, with some obviously being more compatible with certain government types than others.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 22:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RabidWeasel posted:

Assuming that they're going to roll some existing features such as unique government types and parliaments and gently caress knows what else into this new system it should be a good bit of 'polish' as well as adding some new stuff.

I wonder how this is gonna work out, given that they have a habit of not doing cross-DLC integration. I'm pretty sure this isn't gonna be the DLC that integrates estates, even though they really should be a core aspect defining your government. Like, whatever government types are available to you should basically depend on the pull of each faction, each dragging you closer to their preferred system - the nobles toward elective monarchies, the burghers toward a parliamentary system or merchant republics, and so on. Something like this:

Where the darker bits require less maintenance to stay in/are more stable than the brighter bits, and with the monarchist faction in the center to skew the system towards the historical standard of monarchic rule. What reforms are available to you would depend on where you sat in the above, with you being able to implement new laws in the section you're in or any neighboring color at a higher cost. The grey bit would of course be a highly flexible position, but the reforms here could also be less exciting - parliamentary compromise type laws that offer a little of everything, but don't push you strongly toward a certain kind of play style.

Conversely, the reforms in the colored circles would be something that had a lot of influence on how your government operated, but they'd also be a source of instability if you ended up in another color. So like, maybe you've got the Hereditary Rule reform from the dark purple circle. This is perfectly fine as long as you're inside either purple circle, but it has the potential to become a real issue if you enter one of the other colors - basically, the greater the mismatch the faster the faction currently ascendant would revolt and attempt to undo it. Unhappy monarchist factions would rise up as pretenders in a monarchy, as clearly the current monarch isn't a proper one.

I think the above could be a pretty easily understandable system for defining your government, and it'd allow a lot of variety in government types without strictly defining any given one, by making it possible to mix and match various laws. For the major laws, I'm thinking stuff like:

Elective, short terms: No automatic succession, 5 years of rule
Elective, long terms: No automatic succession, 10 years of rule
Elective for Life: Base law, no automatic dynastic succession, rules till death.
Semi-Elective: Like elective for your current government, but the ruler can tip the scales towards their own heir, based on the level of Monarchist influence.
Hereditary: Automatic inheritance for heirs.

Which would allow both historical variety and accuracy, like Denmark technically still being elective at the start of the game, allow countries to reform into internal troubles like the Commonwealth, or even weird semi-historical possibilities like a pope trying to make the position hereditary.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2018 15:10

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Fister Roboto posted:

hell yeah it can be like those anime power level webs

Paradox developers need to broaden their horizons, so they don't become reactionary in their game design. Anime sounds like a good idea, so long as it's not historically based.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2018 21:00

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Don't think they could've sold this new game better to me, given that the very first things shown were like my core complaints about EU4 - annoying enough for me to make and publish a mod for one of them, while endlessly complaining about the other.

Definitely hoping that the new sea lane thing means they've at least half-way solved the issue with the projection not just being a visual distortion, since over-seas distances were definitely the bigger issue there.

Aside from that, I just hope population growth is highly dynamic and varied, as some countries basically didn't grow during the entire period, while others had their population increase five-fold or more.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2024 18:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

I would expect 1356 to be the earliest date, just because the HRE had such a central position in Europe, and it would nicely sidestep the Black Death.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2024 20:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Wafflecopper posted:

It�s obviously EU5 at least in spirit, but I wonder if they�ll go with a less Eurocentric name for it this time? EU4 has already been moving away from the focus on Europe over its lifespan, as other areas are fleshed out and mechanics reworked to make competing with European powers easier, to the point where the name is kind of misleading, not to mention awkward

Gaius Marius posted:

They really need to cut out the Napoleonic period into its own game again. There's just too much change to model it the same way you can 1400.

Yuiiut posted:

March of the Eagles II spanning 1750 to 1823 would be interesting, especially given you'd have the Revolution around the midpoint on historical timing.

The Europa Universalis name would make a lot more sense for that period too. Still, if we're talking about a more war-focused game, then you might as well give it the full 1736-1836 time span, given that the War of Austrian Succession is basically a prequel to the Seven Years War, which itself fits very neatly into what I would assume would be the focus of the game: Europe becoming ascendant and the fight over which European country would be the dominant force going into the 19th century.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2024 06:59

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sybot posted:

EU3 sliders are back, in incremental form!

Finally Paradox is ready to move past its current dark ages and enter a gaming Renaissance.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2024 18:09

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

OctaviusBeaver posted:

They would have to really hate money to not name it Europa Universalis.

Eurasia Universalis

# ¿ Mar 23, 2024 09:02

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

KOGAHAZAN!! posted:

Y'know, if there's literally anything whatsoever you can do to mitigate the effects of the Black Death then the opening play for basically every old-world start is going to be to go all-in on that, because if you manage to get through that better off than your neighbours then you're going to have a massive advantage in resources.

And if there's any significant RNG in how hard you get hit "rolled a bad Black Death" is going to be a major cause of restarts.

Non-serious answer: Poland largely avoided the Black Death but get destroyed by its neighbors eventually, so a country like that should get a "Waiting for the other shoe to drop" country modifier that ensures the wrath of God will eventually find it.

More serious answer: Didn't the Black Death result in a curtailment of the power of the nobility, due to the lack of downtrodden subjects? The loss of subjects might be offset somewhat by faster social development, making it a bit less of a clear binary. Not that this entirely solves the issue, but it is a way to make the crisis somewhat of an opportunity too.

Aside from that, I would hope that they have a hidden "Expected/maximum population" modifier in the background that helps drive population growth, which would also ensure that a location that gets hit hard by something like the Black Death is able to bounce back properly. Like, if you look at the population graph for Europe, the Black Death creates a huge hole, but when the population does start to bounce back it seemingly does so towards an expected population that never experienced the Black Death, resulting in a skyrocketing population.

A deterministic model like that frankly sounds like the ideal way to model population growth, since you can basically just assign values to the end goal rather than growth, which would be much less likely to cause unfun permanent slumps or absurd levels of population growth due to unforeseen snowball effects. Like, even if you somehow managed to do some poo poo that increases your expected population in 1450 compared to real life, that advantage just lets you pull ahead to a new higher population before returning you to regular population growth, instead of resulting in what could be a compounding 200 year advantage. (Depending on the end date.)

# ¿ Mar 24, 2024 06:10

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sri.Theo posted:

It�s the same for wars as well. Iraq, and then Afghanistan had the highest birth rates in the world for a long time. Some sort of revanchist effect would be plausible to model.

The neat thing about just making a system where it scales population growth relative to carrying capacity is that you don't have to model anything specifically, it will just happen automatically, no matter the reason for gap.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2024 13:30

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

If Carrying Capacity is used to help regions trend toward a specific population point, how would it work for places with major cities that had to import food? I ask because EU4�s time period is a period when, for example, the Polish Grain trade was at its height.

Let imports inflate the carrying capacity. Like, there's a base level, then add/subtract exports.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2024 13:50

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Raenir Salazar posted:

It would also be nice if instead of moving from province to province there was something for sub province-wise for movement or an entirely different map. It's weird for there to be attrition the way its modeled in EU4 while also having an army occupying an entire province and presumably looting it.

Attrition isn't just people starving, but also disease outbreaks. Presumably a huge army sitting down somewhere, even with adequate supply, would result in sanitary and disease spread issues greater than those for a smaller army.

As for the sub-province movement, I feel like that's basically locations + the more detailed impassable terrain. Like, if you're fighting in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus, you're maneuvering around in mountains, trying to trap the enemy or not be trapped yourself, just the same as if they added another even smaller subdivision of provinces with an even more detailed map of impassable terrain. Sure, you could get more fidelity by going more detailed, having sections of rivers and marshes* also be impassable, creating even more locations where chokepoints exist, but you have to weigh that against the player having to possibly manage multiple armies. As long as a region like eastern Anatolia is detailed enough that you do get the sense of it offering a different sort of opportunity for maneuver than the open steppes, I don't think there's much gained for going more granular.

*I do hope they go all-in on different sorts of terrain in terms of creating impassable terrain, and where not impassable then perhaps still a barrier to swift movement.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 07:49

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Wafflecopper posted:

total war did this and it was a mistake

Reported for implying that the ideal EU game is not one that fully integrates every Total War feature.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 09:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

I just realized the game will be trash, for one obvious reason: The icon for commoners has a sword in it, the very symbol of wealth and power. Make it a spear, and perhaps the game still stands a chance.

Red Bones posted:

Does there need to be a stability value when the game is already simulating the stability of a country via its internal politics and economy?

I feel like stability is a sensible variable, as a sort of general vibe check on the country, basically a unified value for how accepting of the status quo the population is and believes itself to be. So like, a faction might be pissed off, but it might not feel comfortable trying to rock the boat because it does not have much hope of actually changing the status quo. Conversely, a moderately dissatisfied faction might start poo poo in a country where everything is in flux anyway. Actually, I kind of feel like stability should have no effect on its own, but just effect the power of the variable associated with the estates (larger benefits when stable, smaller when unstable, and the reverse for negative modifiers).

The above is sort of an example of what I feel like is the most important aspect of keeping the game accessible. A lot of variables isn't necessarily an issue in itself, only when they fail to cohere in a fashion that's easy to grasp to the level required. That was a major criticism of EU4 DLC, where various variables seemed to model essentially the same thing, and where variables that should interact didn't. You don't need to know the specific meaning of literally every variable, as long as the game is set up in such a way that consequences seem to flow naturally from your decisions, where things that you'd assume would empower or disempower an estate actually does, rather than half your decisions affecting something called Nobility Contentment which for some reason has nothing to do with Nobility Satisfaction which has nothing to do with Nobility Loyalty.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 14:30

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Red Bones posted:

This is what I'm saying though - why add an extra abstract stability modifier? It's also simulating something that's already being simulated.

If this game already systemically models, "are the four main estates upset?" "Is my economy operating at a loss?" "Do I have enough food?", "how many provinces have unrest?", its already simulating the stability of a country.

In your example, it would make more sense (and be more intuitive for the player) if the estate unhappiness just magnified directly off other variables like food shortages or economic troubles, rather than going through an abstract "stability" value.

I don't think how happy or not an estate is is direct measure of stability. As long as they have an interest in maintaining the status quo, even if just for now, stability could be fine despite their grumblings. Like, the Nobility and Clergy could decide to grudgingly support the crown, because they fear what the Commoners and Burghers could get up to.

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I dislike Stability as A Thing because I frequently find myself at high manpower (never max because too many wars, but I invest *heavily* in manpower from really early in the game), good income, no loans, happy estates, and no unrest. Yet... my stability is -1 because :reasons: like... a comet flew by and a (happy) noble pitched a fit about some old right his grandfather had that my ruler's grandfather took away.

If they make stability actually dependent on your country's current status w/r/t are people pissy? Are you in debt? Is there a big rebellion brewing?

I mean, in the version I suggested, the comet flying by would not do much because the estates were happy and things were generally under control. Perhaps they would become unhappy over time if you didn't manage to get things under control, but it'd be more like starting a countdown than things turning to poo poo the moment a disaster struck - unless of course you had managed to gently caress up your society, and everyone was just itching to throw down when the comet passed by, and now the peasants are rising up and the nobles are like "guess this is it" and everything just snowballs from there.

Hell, another reason why stability and estate happiness might not be directly connected is that it's arguably also a measure of how much things are changing, even if everyone agrees for the moment the change is good/fine. Like, if you do a lot of reforms that the estates like, your stability should still drop a bit as people work out what the new reality means for them. That's fine though as long as you manage to get things running smooth again, before you blow through their goodwill and the reactionary types decide that things should definitely be rolled back.

manero posted:

Screenshots: I like this newer, cleaner, easier to read EUV.

There are posts on the PDX forums of people complaining about how it looks like it's too flat, looks like a website, etc, but I always thought EU4 suffered from too much "ink" - the UI was alright, but there are way too many ornamental things, and it wasn't always clear what was a clickable button, or what was just an icon.

They should give every religion its own UI, stained glass for Christendom, geometric designs for Islam, and so on.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Mar 28, 2024

# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 17:14

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sri.Theo posted:

Aren�t comets predictable? Someone get Neil Degrasse Tyson in here to model when comets would be visible in different places.

As the "comets" are limited to specific countries, they are likely actually meteors, and thus not reoccurring and predictable in the same fashion as comets.

Anyway, to spice them up a bit, there should be a chance for them to be a Tunguska-like event that can randomly take out an army or a city.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 21:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Elias_Maluco posted:

I suppose the point is: Imperator is the sequel

I don't see no two. It is clearly a reimagining.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2024 14:04

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I just realized the game will be trash, for one obvious reason: The icon for commoners has a sword in it, the very symbol of wealth and power. Make it a spear, and perhaps the game still stands a chance.

Johan posted:

Hey, before jumping into todays topic, I would like to show something very fresh out of the oven, based on your feedback last week. This is why we are doing these Tinto Talks, to make Project Caesar your game as much as ours...

WTF Johan

That said, the proximity system is exactly what I'd want to see, making smaller and compact states relatively more powerful/making snowballing slower.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2024 14:24

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Poil posted:

It should have been a scythe and a mallet.

I'm just anti-sword, so I'll join the pro-scythe and mallet rebels.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2024 16:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

PittTheElder posted:

Honestly the power move would have been to make Catalonia absurdly dense and then make all of Sweden like three provinces

This would just make Sweden more powerful.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2024 17:48

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sybot posted:

Tinto Talks #8

More economy, including loans, taxes, food and interestingly a simplified Vicky-esque RGO system.

I've been hoping someone would talk to Johan about this, but I can't keep silent any longer! The word is economic, not economical.

Anyway, the economic systems seems pretty good. Wouldn't have expected the loans system to fire up the imagination, but the way it's tied into the estates sounds promising.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 16:02

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Frionnel posted:

Yeah, it's what i'm getting too. Obviously Control is an abstraction, so if you question too much it falls apart. The weird unintuitive bit is what happens when you conquer a province. I'll adapt an example i saw in the comments:

Imagine Riga is an OPM. Because control is 100% in the capital, Riga's estates can capture all of the province's possible wealth.

Now imagine that Riga was diplo annexed by the Teutonic Order. Because the province is now subject to the Teutonic Order's Control, and Control loses effectiveness with distance from the capital, Riga's Control now sits at 50%. Because uncontrolled wealth is lost to the economy, this means that the province has become 50% poorer overnight.

You can justify this with a simple head canon, like you did: in real life what would happen is that the remaining wealth would stay at the hands of local elites that aren't assimilated to the state's administration. But it's unintuitive and weird, because the global market has lost the wealth too.

I don't think it's really that unintuitive and weird. With no outside pressure, the peasantry would just produce what they need in their own community, and their production would be almost entirely divorced from the larger national/global economy. It's only when you introduce further non-productive layers of hierarchy on top that you put pressure on the peasantry to produce more, and to make it available to "the economy". The province of Riga in your example didn't become 50% poorer over night, its peasants merely took advantage of the new administration being unfamiliar with the region and kept that poo poo for themselves.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 18:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Frionnel posted:

I think it's more that the locals would still be buying food, importing/exporting goods, moving the economy in some way that affects the market. In this case it seems they don't.

I fully concede that this doesn't matter much and i'll roll with it when playing the game.

Who are these locals? 80-90% of people were farmers or support functions, neither of which would need much interaction with the broader economy to function. Probably even higher percentages in a lot of low-control locations. And it's not like 50% (or 13% or whatever low number you can tumble down it) is no interaction at all, it just means trade is happening more locally.

cheetah7071 posted:

Well, more like the local leaders soaked up the wealth rather than kicking any upstream. The peasants likely aren't seeing any of it either way

If control decreases the estates' ability to extract wealth, then it is the peasants keeping the wealth. Which is historically appropriate AFAIK.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 19:23

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Conceptually, I like the idea of needing resources, not just money, to make your state function. Like, access to good lumber for ships should be pretty important for any state that wants to build a significant navy.

That said, this does sound like it could be a bit too micro heavy for my tastes, though only time will tell. Hoping it will be possible to sorta auto-pilot some of that poo poo, even if you're not being super optimal, so you can scale how much attention you pay to it depending on your preferred style of play/the size of your country.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 17:40

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Red Bones posted:

But I'm not sure what a good solution would be. Maybe just a clean enough UI to clearly signpost which goods you have a tiny shortage of that you can handle via automatic trades, and which goods are worth like, invading France to secure a regular supply of.

Since there's no mana, they can move goods up into the main bar alongside ducats.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 04:43

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

cheetah7071 posted:

They said 70-something goods. Presumably some of them are luxuries rather than strategically important, though. You aren't building a fortress out of spice.

Johan I think explicitly said somewhere that there'll be a notification if you're low on the inputs to your buildings

Yeah, I meant moving the strategic goods unto the bar.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:12

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Yuiiut posted:

I'm hopeful that it'd be possible to mod the input system to represent resource consumption for maintenance and upkeep as well - it shouldn't be the case that a road network built in 1390 remains useful in 1760 without ongoing expenses, and would hopefully allow for actual backsliding rather than just stagnation.

Yeah, that would be cool. I do like the idea that development is something you have to maintain, rather than something you simply achieve, so there's definitely something here. The only thing I'm scared of it is it being like Vicky 3, or even Vicky 3-lite, which seems too much to me. Would rather that be simplified a bit and then put some mechanical focus on a simplified dynastic system that's integrated into the larger subject system.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis 4: Emperor - It's like Stellaris, but in history