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

«‹›15 »

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Playing this for this first time since EU3. Why are danish rebels in Skane by far the scariest enemy in the earlier game and how do I stop them? All cored and stated and I accept danish culture but they can spawn more men than my force limit with a badass leader, all instantly in one province with good morale. I'm made a mistake somewhere but come on. They have the biggest force of anyone in Scandinavia and they two battles I lost to them drained more in MP for them than any one of me, Denmark, or Norway could field.

E Got them to piss off by boosting stab and granting autonomy cuz I figure at least I get bonuses to reducing it as Sweden but what is a good way to avoid them getting dangerous to begin with? Also did me aiding Norway's independence war vs Denmark make them extra pissed?

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 9, 2018

# ¿ Mar 9, 2018 00:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:31

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Also, it looks like I've got at least 3 more ideas than any AI I've checked. Should I be putting more points into tech instead?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2018 19:52

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

I dunno what the solution is but as a new player, even one familiar with past EUs, having all these features locked behind various, seemingly-unrelated expansions is pretty overwhelming and dumb. Advisor promotion? The mideast expansion. More user-friendly diplomacy? Uhhh, China! The three estates of France? Cossacks!

Also does Random New World just suck? It seemed cool but every time I just get lovely island chains. Usually I sail all the way to the pacific before hitting anything cool and then have to backtrack and hunt down the tiny landmasses. It's basically if you took Indonesia and the Philippines and scattered their constituent islands between Bermuda and Hawaii.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 11, 2018

# ¿ Mar 11, 2018 20:34

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

deathbagel posted:

That's why I just buy all the expansions when they come out. I like supporting Paradox. They make fantastic games.

I don't disagree but I'm sure I'm not the only person who was in the situation of just not being able to play/follow dev diaries for a couple years. At that point it's overwhelming.

Especially because paradox loves making music/unit art/portraits separate tiny DLCS which imo is legit unjustifiable and awful. If nothing else it clogs the gently caress out of the steam store.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2018 22:30

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Also, EU4 seems to have a lot of the same problems that have existed since 2. AI France can simultaneously field tens of thousands of men in Spain, Sweden, and Egypt while somehow failing to take back Normandy. The entire army of Gelre will sail the seas to siege a backwater colony while their capital burns. Ming vacillates from useless to conquering Bohemia by 1500. Exploration and warfare are pure micro tedium. It's just loads of extra features without fixing any core mechanics. Merchants seem better?

Meanwhile, they've added the flaws of CK2: each expansion leans on adding wacky new OP mechanics for someone specific that don't really mesh with the base game. So the only way to have fun and make use of the various gimmicks poo poo is to do a zillion variations of "byzantium, turn coptic, become georgia, become shia, become ottomans, become chinese emperor, become japanese, become a republic, become a nomad horde, become england, become the usa, become the holy roman empire, become prussia, become jainist, congrats now you have +1000 everything, start over because winning is still somehow too tedious" gimmick runs.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 00:28

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Don't get me wrong I like the game, but I really, really wish they'd tackle the critical issues that have existed since, at minimum, EU2 instead of adding 15 new mechanics for mongol hordes or whatever.

Frex France is my favourite nation in this period. I'd love a France game that models some real problems, that makes the reign of Charles VII tough, where there's more than 20 years of "make mans, put mans at england and burgundy" before you become invincible and can do whatever you want. Make it rewarding to actually turn your feudal hellhole into a centralized superpower. Make it challenging to convince masses of frenchmen to turn Louisiana into an english-style settler colony. Give me a reason to play France into the 1700s.

I still love playing France in EU4, there are a lot of fantastic changes, but it is pretty much just watching numbers go up but with a cool map attached.

It's not just France, btw, one of the biggest, weirdest closet elephants in EU is how France, Castile, England, Austria, and friends just spawn as superpowers in the 15th century.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Mar 12, 2018

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 02:53

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Senor Dog posted:

I like the EU series because it ISN'T groggy as gently caress, thanks.

you realize that 99% of strategy gamers, themselves a niche group, are like "yeah EU is so complex"

me included, which is why I play total war mostly and happily bash my mans together.

EU grogs it up and shits out nomadic shia byzantium colonizing south africa

Stuff like exploration shouldn't involve the player manually driving around ships. I'd love to see a system where either, depending on tech, year, and national policy, either an explorer presents an expedition or I hire an expedition, with x goal, and they sail out and do their thing. That'd be less groggy micro and more fun. Same for a million different mechanics where EU requires way too much oversight. While somehow simultaneously having a shitload of mechanics that do almost nothing and can be safely ignored.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Mar 12, 2018

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 04:27

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

deathbagel posted:

EU has a steep learning curve for sure. I remember the first time I picked up EU 3 back in my WoW days and I just couldn't bring myself to devote enough time to figure it out since WoW sucked up most of my free time. Then when EU4 came out I was between jobs and lived with a friend who had played EU since the first one, he convinced me to try it out and I had tons of free time and no other games I was playing so I finally sat down and learned it all.

Over the years, they've made some stuff a lot easier to learn and a lot easier to figure out like the game warning you that you might be triggering coalitions, or the simplified exploration that was mentioned a few posts ago.

A lot of the added mechanics for different areas are great, because when you get bored of playing in Europe with the base mechanics, you can go learn the Horde mechanics or play in Asia and figure out how to deal with the Tributary system or the Shogunate, then travel over to America to learn how to avoid DOOM or figure out how to unite the Incans and defend against the inevitable European invasion. These things all add to the replayability of the game and are the reason that this is the one game in my Steam library with over 1000 hours played.

Added mechanics are cool, I just wish they'd tackle some of the issues that have persisted since EU2, my first pdox game. Agreed with Beamed, assymetry would go a long way.

But like, just taking western Europe: Castile, England, and France are still monstrous superpowers from the start. I'd like mechanics that give them some difficulty to navigate. France should certainly be easy overall but it should have problems. At present, as always, France is basically as powerful as it was in the 18th century, but in 1444.

Even old janky mods managed it- like in AGCEEP if you wanted to start as "France" you actually had to start as the Dauphin�, take event choices to manage the burgundians, and reconquer the entire north of the country from England and from your dumbass crazy dad, all while wrangling your vassals. But even still, 15 years later, in EU4 France is a monster from the start even if they never ever touch any of England's continental holdings.

My main complaint though overall is that Paradox seems to focus exclusively on adding features to x, y, and z instead of updating the base game mechanics.

Rapner posted:

This actually is a DLC, Conquest of Paradise.

Wait, I have that one and I've been manually sailing my explorers around like a buffoon and ignoring the home country. I must be missing something, how do I automate them?

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 12, 2018

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 19:22

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Firebatgyro posted:

I don't see how different countries having different levels of difficulty is a problem. If you are finding France too easy then don't play France, theres like 100 different countries of various power levels in Europe alone.

If you are really craving that forming France experience though, you can pick them, release all the tags like orleans, bourbonaisse, etc, and then release and play as the one of your choice.

Different levels of difficulty isn't the problem tho

I just think it'd be more fun to play one of the "recommended" historical countries in this history game and face actual, fun challenges. A strategy game should present strategy to the great powers and not relegate every tough decision to OPMs

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 20:36

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Please add actual supply lines. Playing Commonwealth every war involves AI ally France chasing austrian/ottoman/muscovite/central asian armies yakety saxxing deep in the interior of eastern Europe, aided by tiny blanket sieging stacks from minors, while I just attack and siege my targets. The AI gets caught by France eventually and then has no chance of raising more troops because I�ll have occupied half their poo poo already. I tried actually defending but gently caress it�s too big and open out there and France has the exact same perfect movement as they do so it�s much easier to let them do it.

Unless it�s an early game 1v1 war there is never anything like a cohesive theatre or theatres. Everywhere on the map is equally fair game and the AI gives 0 fucks for defending its territory which hugely exacerbates the tedium.

16th-century Austria�s reaction to �Poles take Vienna� should not be �let�s march our entire army to Minsk and hit their soft underbelly!�

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 26, 2018

# ¿ Apr 26, 2018 23:17

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

ThisIsNoZaku posted:

So the king would declare war on himself?

The nobles of the country would declare war on the nobles of the other country

Am I the only one who thinks EUs 2 and 3 are better than 4 at this point?

100% fewer mana bars

100% fewer expansions that add features seemingly unrelated to the theme of the expansion

100% fewer costing a thousand dollars to get game w/expansions

And frankly 100% more fun.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2018 19:50

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

It's literally impossible to fail as France.

You can start on 13 July 1789 and still handily dominate.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2019 05:00

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

In the ledger under Military there's a page that will show everyone's total army size and manpower reserve. You can filter it for allies, war enemies, rivals, etc or just by typing the names of specific countries.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2019 20:40

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

SirPhoebos posted:

How do you start a Golden Age? I've seen them mentioned in LPs, but can't find any button in the interface for starting one (even one that's greyed out).

It needs one of the DLCs

No I don't have it and don't know which it even comes in. The spanish colonization pack, round 3?

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 20:42

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Are there any gameplay overhaul mods people like these days? Something like M and T but... less so

# ¿ Nov 24, 2019 08:28

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Is revolutionary Burgundy still just Belgium?

# ¿ Dec 4, 2019 16:18

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

I�m picturing guillotines that only remove the hands

# ¿ Dec 4, 2019 16:59

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

trapped mouse posted:

have you guys ever noticed that blobbing

feels good?

no i think this game kinda sucks now

# ¿ Dec 9, 2019 03:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

I really enjoy EU4 streamer JustBlazin. He�s just super-soft spoken and positive about everything and plays good tracks instead of the game�s audio. I fall asleep to him sometimes.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2019 07:22

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Wow, a paradox forums post that is... good? I like a lot of these ideas. Handling the "colonized" nations of EU is difficult since you need to strike a balance between them being suitably vulnerable, being playable and fun, and being strong enough that a powerful player might actually care about them instead of making them a punching bag.

quote:

Speaking as someone who studied the transatlantic slave trade�s impact on West Africa for university coursework, this is a great thread with some great suggestions. Given my background I of course couldn�t resist adding my two cents.

Apologies for not quoting people (props especially to @Lightwell, @Ishmael_Dandolo, and @Regaccio for your research) and hiding some of this in spoiler boxes to condense it a bit � I�m a bit of a noob on these forums and not entirely sure how. Apologies if I make any mistakes also, it�s been a while since I looked at this stuff. Final caveat from outset that a lot of the source material for the interior of Africa (the coast often has decent European data) is pretty poor.

1. I would say that regarding the development of Africa in 1444 the key dynamics are that much of West Africa was politically very well organised (especially along the Gambia River and on the coasts from modern day Ghana to Benin). Ibn Battuta reported feeling extremely secure as he travelled through West Africa in the 14th (I think?) century. Trade networks and manufactures were similarly quite sophisticated contrary to how one might stereotype, and as many have pointed out this allowed some rulers such as Mansa Musa to become fabulously wealthy. However as correctly pointed out above Africa was technologically a little bit backward relative to Europe, and, crucially, political economy centred more on people than land, which was extremely abundant and thus not very valuable due to low population density. Groups would often simply move about with slash and burn agriculture.

Hence, I agree with provinces being relatively well developed at the start of the game. Development cost should be high though, since land and resources were so much less scarce and in demand than manpower there was little incentive to develop them and the economy became increasingly focused on slave raiding instead. Crucially, I would suggest that there may be scope for buttons tied to African government forms which do fun things with manpower. Looting (i.e. being on the offensive in wars becomes crucial) could increase your national manpower whilst draining the manpower of your neighbour from the start of the game, to model the fact that the slave trade existed from the outset, and that slaves were used as soldiers. Later on an option to exchange your own manpower pool (now including foreign slaves) for cash (the frequency of this interaction being available being determined by the number of colonies existing and being created in certain colonial regions where slave economies predominated) and/or military points (to simulate the purchase of Guns in a �Gun-slave cycle� observed by Warren Whatley) by trading with Europeans, who would of course make some cash or trade power from the interaction. This could be supplemented with the use of the tributary system and perhaps adding manpower to war reparations payments (which is essentially what some strong states such as Ashanti and Dahomey did which allowed them to benefit from the trade without suffering the negative consequences themselves. By the way, the only state which cannibalised its own population for the slave trade � I forget the name, the Akim or the Aqvuambo, they were predecessors to Ashanti � collapsed in relatively short order so it would be important to maintain your manpower by foreign raids). Here, the amount of money gained from directly demanding Gold or monarch points is less than the amount from taking the manpower and selling it on to the Europeans, or tribute could simply be locked to manpower. The monarch point gain from directly selling slaves and hiring advisors with the proceeds could be compensated by massively nerfing institution spread in Africa (which is fair � developments on the coast took a long time to travel inland). This would also add some tragic urgency to the need to keep funnelling slaves out to keep up technologically with neighbours (possibly Ais should cheat here since they might struggle to cope with the new mechanic) and Europeans, which would add an engagingly realistic and different gameplay experience to blobbing�

2. Slaves weren't just taken in formal wars, informal raiding by both states and non-state actors was also a thing. With that in mind there could perhaps be loads of events similar to the Cossack cross border raids, and perhaps even a CB which allows looting before timing out a year or so later say (this would be brutal for nations with long indefensible borders - the war might be over by the time the army arrives), followed by a shorter truce than normal. On the other hand I recognise this could be very annoying so would need some thought to balance.

3. Whoever suggested a 2:1 ratio in development being transferred over to America is certainly onto something when they comment that the slave trade wasn�t 100% efficient. Slaves in America usually had a less than 1:1 birthrate (due to the brutal conditions and the massively skewed M:F ratio) meaning the population would decline without new imports; around 15% of slaves died on the voyage (citation: The Transatlantic Slave Trade Database - would highly recommend giving it a google as the database and maps are absolutely incredible for anyone interested), whilst an unknown number died on the dangerous (see Mungo Park: Travels in the Interior of Africa where he hitchhikes with a slave caravan) land route from their location of capture to the coast, or even just from exposure sitting around on the coast waiting for a slave ship to show up. On the topic of the database, three other things worth noting are that 1) the slave trade expanded massively as time went on (in the 18th century especially); 2) was by far greater in west than east Africa, and 3) and fluctuated significantly, especially being disrupted by European wars between the relevant naval powers. How these facts could be modelled would need some thought.

4. Believe it or not, I would actually caution against Africa�s development suffering *too* much from the slave trade. Many of the impacts were localised and medium (rather than long) term or, and some apex predator kingdoms (such as Ashanti and Dahomey as mentioned above) were beneficiaries without really suffering the negative consequences. Additionally, if John Thornton�s work on the Congo and Angola is anything to go by, demographic impacts especially may well have been mitigated by the ridiculous birth rate (8%) engendered by polygamy and a 2:1 ratio of females to males left behind by male biased exports. I�d characterise the trade as majorly disruptive rather than absolutely razing Africa to the ground as Central Asia tends to be in game by Steppe nomads with the razing mechanic. I�d suggest that rather than the permanent impact of development loss, the devastation rate should be jacked up massively and recovery slower, and that development loss/transfers to powerful African states/American colonies instead occur more infrequently through events � perhaps most notably associated with the full annexation of a nation. Slave revolts would also make a natural event chain or disaster. Alternatively, since my tributary suggestion above would incentivise keeping a lot of small minors on the map (conducive to a lot of development going on) development loss many not be unreasonable.

5. Finally, with regard to the end of the trade, it�s worth noting that it carried on significantly after the British abolished it (notably supplying Brazil and the antebellum Southern USA into the 1860s), and even longer within Africa itself. British colonial governors were talking about it into the late 19th and even early 20th century, including one notorious case where one turned a blind eye in order to receive the cooperation of local elites. Perhaps then if the buttons and manpower interaction is implemented this long tail could be modelled by the interaction being less frequently available as more countries abolish, until eventually a reversion to the arrival situation of not being able to sell the manpower.

Sorry for the essay, like I say I couldn�t resist. I hope that helps or is at very least of interest to the evident and admirable historical curiosity I can see above.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2019 17:23

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

I wish that the AI would focus a lot more on fighting battles than on sieging each other down, and also that they could recognize a doomed war and give in to initial demands instead of fighting on until they're facerolled like every war is WW1.

Stealing some of CK's CB mechanics might be a good idea. Have a list of demands the attackers start with that are the default "victorious" peace treaty. The AI's willingness to fight should be tied to how harsh these are. Unlike CK, exceeding them should be possible but costly.

This could also make interacting with allies more fun- like I should be able to say "I'll join your offensive war but I get X" or "I'll give you Y if you join mine." When provinces aren't on the line, you could dangle things like a greater share of the payout or a promise for support when the non-benefitting nation goes for a third-party province down the line.

e: of course diplomacy with an AI always suffers because they're an AI, I think having peace terms laid out at the start would help them make judgement calls.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jan 1, 2020

# ¿ Jan 1, 2020 04:24

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Making war tougher and internal affairs more in-depth and fun, and then making refusing decent peace deals painful internally, would help even on the AI peace deal side.

But that's an EU5 thing really, and I know some people really like EU being Blob Game so who knows.

Also the AI sometimes fights on in hellwars even when it has nothing on the line which is really bad for it. You'll see an AI get ripped apart in a hellwar over an OPM rather than peacing out for a pittance and letting the OPM war leader get annexed. You'll see the Kalmar Union end in 1461 after tens of thousands of french troops occupy Stockholm and Copenhagen to finally end the milanese conquest of Parma.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 1, 2020

# ¿ Jan 1, 2020 18:50

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Can you change country colours without breaking ironman yet? I kinda wanna try for some cheevos.

(blue scotland and blue prussia paradox you cowards)

e: also I just remembered base EU3 when Austria was loving red. Is everyone in Sweden colourblind? Why paradox?
e2: I'm going to play exclusively with a garish yellow Sweden until I get answers

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 5, 2020

# ¿ Jan 5, 2020 20:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Looking at Brazil on that map brings up another problem with portraying the first nations better: there's places like the Amazon where we know there were a lot of people there but they were so thoroughly extirpated by disease that we have next-to-no idea what was going on with them.

IIRC a lot of the modern amazonian tribes as we picture them- nomadic hunter-gatherers with extremely low populations- are the post-apocalyptic remnants of amazonians themselves as well as other peoples that fled into the jungle to keep away from the europeans.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2020 05:05

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Also there should really be some kind of mechanic for running a country with a defensive, attrition focused defense- think places like Scotland or the Maghreb. They were materially inferior to their enemies but also they weren't exactly trivial to steamroll like they are in EU4. England shouldn't be able to just casually walk in and take half of Scotland in the middle of the War of the Roses.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2020 04:13

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Family Values posted:

Now it's time to discover how scutage is almost like cheating.

GG on France for getting its vassal swarm back next patch

# ¿ Jan 10, 2020 02:12

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

People say the warhammer tw ai refuses to fight but it has nothing on EU4. You can literally be sieging their capital while they laser-target any and all forts far from the front.

Honestly if I played as Russia or someone in Siberia I'd strongly consider having just one fort in the siberian interior and watching the AI re-enact Napol�on 1812: Yakutsk Death March Edition over and over.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2020 17:16

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

In order to balance the game, there shall now just be your capital and TCs.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2020 23:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

PittTheElder posted:

It could be that they're adding some benefit to holding land as a territory (maybe just the ability to stick it in a TC I guess?), so you'd want to make an actual decision whether to hold it as a state or territory/TC.

Currently territories are the main ones that are the odd group out imo. TCs could use more work yeah but the geographic limits are decent, especially if they make it less weird to deal with as a non-european.

But territories, there's just no reason to have them and not TC them. If I'm at the state limit I'm going to just avoid taking land that I can't stick into a vassal, CN, or TC unless I really need it for some reason.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 00:35

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

If I attack Austria as the Commonwealth will there battles in Silesia and the Carpathians or will the fifteenth siege of Vienna quietly conclude as millions of austrians walk in and out of sieging Vilna?

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 22:38

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

So the Spain dlc patch made colonial nations not convert.

So if you don't want nahuatl and mayan Mexico until 1821 in a Spain game, you have to buy the Islam dlc, that allows you to convert vassal territory.

Cordoba's revenge or terrible dlc policy? You decide.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 17, 2020

# ¿ Jan 17, 2020 20:27

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

PittTheElder posted:

Yeah I think if you hand them subsidies they'll usually do it.

I'll try that. It doesn't hurt my game but man it is bizarre that the conquistador bulldozer goes full kumbaya after hitting five provinces.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2020 20:52

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Also I'm pretty loving disappointed that there is not incoming change for conditional access or the general AI propensity for pisscoward suicide sieges.

Current game: Austria supports Sweden vs. Denmark.

War results: Denmark takes most of Sweden. Austria takes most of Denmark. Denmark takes most of Austria. Austria murders danes in Austria while Sweden retakes homeland for the win. Austria had no hope of ever moving into Copenhagen or Sweden proper and turning the tide, and Sweden was war leader, but ved Gud... those forts...

e: also warscore and war goals need a complete relook.

I'd honestly rather get an EU5 cuz CK2 is in a way better state than this dumpster fire. EU4 works as a more interesting version of Risk in MP and nothing else.

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jan 18, 2020

# ¿ Jan 18, 2020 04:09

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

who can forget the famous venetian siege of dublin that decided the hundred years war, even as 100k austrians and french sat starving in the alps to war for venice while the entire english army ignored france and invaded scotland and lithuania.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2020 08:41

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

I�m intrigued about this �subscription model� for EU4. There�s still a hilarious amount of DLC I don�t have, plus content packs and music.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2020 23:24

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Family Values posted:

Yeah but once you form Golden Horde (or Mongol Empire) you have to do the Great Khan achievement. It's the law.

What do they mean 'We are approaching this in a data-driven way, somewhat related to what we did in CK2 a few years back'?

I don't think I'd pay a monthly subscription unless it was cheaper than buying the DLC directly (I assume consistent revenue would be a fair tradeoff for a discount but I'm not a bean counter)

I have no idea what they mean, obviously, but I tend to play EU in spurts of embarrassing numbers of hours and then not touch it for ages, which makes the current DLC policy extraordinarily frustrating. If I could drop a reasonable fee for a month or two and get the full package, then cancel, then come back in a bit, I'd be far more likely to pay more than 0 dollars for content than the current system where there's about 120 bucks worth of EU I don't own staring me down on the steam store and half of the DLCs just have mechanics people complain about.

Also god I hate wars and AI in this system, like I will keep saying- tonight's frustration:

AI Castile was slow as gently caress to take Gibraltar for some reason despite taking the rest of Granada. One-province Granada made friends with Ottomans. 10+ year hispano-ottoman hellwar over Granada is ongoing, and I happily moved into Naples as Milan and allied Castile literally months before. I have no desire to keep playing. Neither side can end it. It is a war over literally one poo poo province. But by god the mediterranean will all die for it.

There needs to be supply mechanics, there needs to be smarter war goals and priorities, and hell, there needs to be a "fait accompli" peace mechanic, like by now the Ottomans should realize "we can thrash fleets from here to Lisbon, then get thrashed, then thrash again. Millions can die in Italy, North Africa, and for some reason Brandenburg because this is EU4 and we have conditional military access, but we cannot under any circumstances remove Castile's army from Gibraltar."

Also both Castile and Ottomans have strong as gently caress rivals at peace who just hand out mil access like candy and refuse to pounce. Why are Austria, Poland, and France just watching instead of steamrolling their enemies? Why is this game so good and so dumb?

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 22, 2020

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 02:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Fister Roboto posted:

Seriously just get rid of military access entirely. If a country can't reach the war target then it has no business being in the war in the first place. Or at the very least you should only be able to get access with countries that you directly neighbor.

I feel like there should be some sort of supply range feature that increases with tech. It makes sense to walk over one HRE province to fight with mil access. It makes less sense for Spain to walk around the Black Sea into Libya, but they absolutely will.

Also maybe make access painful on your lands so you only give it if you really like or are scared of the receiver, or really hate their enemy. No more Ottomans marching overland from Edirne to Moscow in 1470 because the poles and Lithuanians just don�t care either way and there is absolutely no logistical concern. Imagine Vienna being a difficult siege eh

Some kind of supply mechanic would also help Wars actually get decided in battles in reasonable areas instead of the usual AI strat of avoidance sieging

Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 22, 2020

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 04:39

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Family Values posted:

I mean, the Ottomans did conduct operations all over Europe. They had an alliance with France (Franco-Ottoman Alliance) and they conducted joint wars in Savoy, Italy, and central Europe. The Ottomans also were involved in the Thirty Years War.

Yeah but none of that is at all how they or anyone else operates in EU4. It took more than an entire campaigning season to move a worthwhile army from Serbia to Vienna and that was a risky move.

You can enjoy EU being a pure map painter but you can�t really cite history to justify what countries get up to in EU4. The franco-ottoman alliance, I promise, did not involve tens of thousands of ottomans at the walls of french enemies� capitals, ever, nor did any massed french army ever cross overland to Isfahan to help their allies. Even though the poles and russians were at odds, not even once did the entire ottoman military march across the Commonwealth to siege Moscow.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 06:29

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Military access having a downside would help a lot.

Also as always the ai considering geography, or even better geography actually mattering and the ai noticing it, would help a lot

Please no more AIs swarming the opposite side of the world while you siege and fight on your border and then walk into a peer capital

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 07:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:31

Edgar Allen Ho: Apr 3, 2017; by sebmojo

Family Values posted:

The AI doesn�t use diplo relation slots for military access, so they don�t pay the diplo points for having access through every country in the world like a player would. Not only is it lovely that the AI gets to cheat, it also causes the AI to behave weirdly since you can�t ever really have a �front�, they�ll happily walk all the way around to your rear through like a dozen countries.

Using a relation slot is weird anyways, but I don�t know what would be better/more fun.

Something has gotta be better than a player France having occupied all of central europe and standing five stacks around Vienna while the siege ticks down without having fought a single battle against Austria, while somehow half of the austrian army is starving in Caen and the other half is carpet sieging Qu�bec

# ¿ Jan 22, 2020 08:18

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

«‹›15 »