Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Motivation problems with EU4 at mid game / end game.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 81902 EUIV: Bug Reports 450 EUIV: Suggestions 19150 EUIV: Technical Support 6720 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
I never even make it to the 17th century cause halfway through the 16th I get to that point where I know I've won.

Not to mention, this would happen after about... the first day, if I started as Ottomans lol. It's like... Ok, I'm done? ty! ... next!
 
I just finished my first game of EU4 and it was the first time i played from start date to end date in a P'dox game ever. I had a blast trying to form the Netherlands, competing for trade and keeping the BBB at bay from 1444 to 1820.
In EU3 i would probably be dominating every aspect of the game by 1650 and call it game over.

In the hundreds and hundreds of hours i've waste.. errhm.. invested in these games i've always gotten to a point where i'm too powerful and stop playing but that didn't happen in my first game of EU4. If it wasn't the BBB giving me a hard time it was the damn spanish armada sinking my trade fleet. :p

Maybe it's just me not knowing the mechanics yet though.
 
I feel the same but it goes for everygame actually... Football Manager series, Skyrim, CK2, every kind of game, after reaching a certain point where I can actually do whatever the hell I want, it kinda gets boring and I lose my motivation to play the game any further. At that point, I actually start over and try new/different things.
 
I find the monarch points system arbitrarily and artificially inhibits gameplay to the point it's no longer fun to play after 100 years or so. It feels like the magic points were devised soley with multiplayer in mind, and it doesn't feel natural at all. EU4 is a good game, but it seems to have missed what made EU2 and 3 fun.
 
I never went for World Conquest even when it was much more doable in EU3, once you hit the "everyone on Earth could declare war on me right now and I'd win" point, it's done. I just set myself a bunch of goals at game start and when I meet those I consider the run done.

If you want a generally fun goal though, build up an empire then swap to a smaller nation with the goal of annexing it.
 
This has been one of my concerns with the game and why I'm still waiting to get it (aside from UI/font concerns that mods can solve for me).. Artificial limitations to expansion are only fun to the extent they are based on historical premises and make logical sense rather than there to artificially limit players to historical outcomes. I simply don't have fun in these games if I'm forced to stay at peace for a long time (or fight wars in where I can't expand and the only option is to peace out ASAP for less).

I don't at all doubt Paradox will re-balance things to make it more enjoyable for conquerors, once they've realized they've gone a bit too far on the other side of the optimal point.
 
Last edited:
If you want world conquest play Total War.

Youre also playing nations that are at their peak around this time period. If you want an enjoyable game right to the end, you need to start smaller.

Also colonizing/taking over India/Asia is generally pretty fun late game. Or trying to invade Russia if they become a powerhouse.
 
DaveDash said:
If you want world conquest play Total War.

Youre also playing nations that are at their peak around this time period. If you want an enjoyable game right to the end, you need to start smaller.

Also colonizing/taking over India/Asia is generally pretty fun late game. Or trying to invade Russia if they become a powerhouse.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's actually a point that Paradox makes. I'm not sure if it does it in EUIV, and I'm not going to boot it up just now to check, but in Crusader Kings II there's a reason why the lowest difficulty rating (the slider that shows up when you select a nation to play, not the option) has the description of "Not even worth it." If you pick a mighty country, it's going to be a pleasant stroll in the park unless you're really, really bad at the game.
 
There is some of the magic that EUII & III had missing from IV, agreed. Dont know why...I like the new trade system, but I also liked the previous games trade mechanic as well. I do remember though that EUIII was patched, patched and had several very good expansions released and by the time of Divine Wind, it had matured into quite an interesting title. Time is always on Paradoxs side.
 
MagisterMundi said:
Indeed. That's actually a point that Paradox makes. I'm not sure if it does it in EUIV, and I'm not going to boot it up just now to check, but in Crusader Kings II there's a reason why the lowest difficulty rating (the slider that shows up when you select a nation to play, not the option) has the description of "Not even worth it." If you pick a mighty country, it's going to be a pleasant stroll in the park unless you're really, really bad at the game.
Click to expand...

That's a flaw in CK2 not a feature. It's very easy to make a big empire and then the only challenge becomes micromanagement. And even that can be trivialised with little effort (e.g. retinues). CK2 isn't a deep game by any standards.

Saying to start with a smaller nation is disingenuous, the process is identical and the options and game-play are basically the same. The only thing really cut off for a small nation is the curia (if catholic) but even as a large nation the curia is hit and miss. About the only aspect of the game that seems to change a lot starting small is colonization since you'll get to the party late (if you have an interest in it that is) but even then you could take it as a first idea and buy fleet rights.

Personally I'm not interested in world conquest as it's fiddly process that, quite frankly, bores me to death. But I'm coming to the point where I'm abandoning games since maintaining interest after the first couple centuries becomes difficult. I don't play on fast forward though, maybe that's a part of it, since waiting for decades to do things quickly loses my interest.
 
I'm playing France right now, arguably one of the most powerful nations in the game and I set out with the goal of recreating Napoleon's borders, owning the entire Caribbean (for the achievement), and completely dismantling the Holy Roman Empire. It's 1620 now and I'm nowhere close to those goals. I'm also scared to death of POLAND, which ate Lithuania, Hungary, and Austria, became Poland-Brandenburg-Denmark-Croatia, and now it's been elected Holy Roman Emperor. I've got to fight that somehow. I'm worried if 200 years will be enough.

What kind of goals are you guys setting to get bored in the 1500s? Unless you're playing Portugal or Spain you can't even start colonizing yet until the mid/late-1500s and then you can have fun colonial and trade wars.

I remember I used to be that way in Victoria II. The Scramble for Africa was the end of the game for me. After colonization I would just fast forward to the end because the rest of the game was so boring. Why should I bother doing anything else? I had the land I wanted now. Then one day I realized I was missing HALF THE GAME. And now the Great War era is my very favorite part. I can't wait until the colonial empires are established so that we can tearing them down.
 
Must admit I've not fought any colonial wars, the whole process of colonising is pretty dull and eats up idea groups. So far I've played land powers or med. sea powers. My last game I gave up after PU'ing Europe as Brandenburg. Think I had 15 provinces at the end and controlled France, Poland/Lithuania, Denmark/Sweden/Norway, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Portugal and some mega-vassals where the Ottomans used to be. Since Muscovy had collapsed there was no Russia or I'd have gone after that. Gave up in 1570.

Maybe I should try colonizing, but it certainly seems a slow and pretty boring process from what I can see.
 
Maybe don't try and PU all of Europe?

Sounds like you're exploiting game mechanics that probably are in need of a patch and getting bored.

Well, I am personally having a blast reforming the Roman empire as Byzantine, and I doubt I'll be able to do it by games end. Whereas CK2 I never really got past the 1300's due to late game boredom.

Colonising is far from boring, since generally you have to compete with Spain/Portugal/France and GB (if it gets its act together). Colonising far away can be a strategic challenge since you are limited by force limits to how many transports you can effectively have in your navy, yet a lot of the best provinces in Asia are very aggressive and difficult to colonise.
 
One of the demotivating aspects for me is how boring it is fighting the wars. Honestly, you should be able to set your wars on autopilot and only intervene sometimes--the closest thing to doing that now is attaching your stack to an ally but then sometimes they breakbecause of travel speed. Wars are not fun, you just click from province to province. You should a) Be able to select an enemy army and have your army pursue that one until it is destroyed/your army is destroyed b) be able to set stacks on one of three behaviors --- besiege, seek and destroy or defend and then maybe those commands should be linkable to a specific area of the map so that you can say, assign an army to seek and destroy all the enemy armies in a series of provinces. Right now you have to micro all this and it is extremely tedious. I have not played multiplayer yet but I imagine that it makes fighting against 3-4 human opponents at once totally impossible. It seems doable--after all you can set a stack to pursue all rebels--why not enemy armies ---and have that command be limited to a specific area?

Second war deal--you should be able to set commands for your allies like having your vassals join your main army and follow it until you release them.

I'm no coder but I'm not sure why any of this isn't possible/hasn't been done. As is, fighting wars is mostly extremely laborious because of all the goddamn clicking. And small AI armies should be eliminated/should know to run and regroup if you have a large stack within 4 provinces of them. How hard would it be to design an AI that groups up into huge armies and goes after your capital / largest stack? --as far as I know this is basically how wars were waged in this period.

Throw in the province destruction on conquest and wars become extremely tedious and lame.
 
DaveDash said:
Maybe don't try and PU all of Europe?

Sounds like you're exploiting game mechanics that probably are in need of a patch and getting bored.

Well, I am personally having a blast reforming the Roman empire as Byzantine, and I doubt I'll be able to do it by games end. Whereas CK2 I never really got past the 1300's due to late game boredom.

Colonising is far from boring, since generally you have to compete with Spain/Portugal/France and GB (if it gets its act together). Colonising far away can be a strategic challenge since you are limited by force limits to how many transports you can effectively have in your navy, yet a lot of the best provinces in Asia are very aggressive and difficult to colonise.
Click to expand...

I don't think pressing Claim Throne then going to war is exploiting game mechanics, seems the intended use :)

I agree 100% that EU4 is a lot more interesting than ck2, it's a much more dynamic game with the AI actually doing things and being a threat. But I do feel the late game seems to be about fast forwarding a lot, something that really breaks immersion for me.

I'll have to give another go at colonising, tried as England and found myself staring as the dates flew by. Seemed to consist of waiting for tech, waiting for ideas, a little exploring then waiting for colony to build. Very passive. Probably me doing it wrong.
 
Pryderi said:
I don't think pressing Claim Throne then going to war is exploiting game mechanics, seems the intended use :)

I agree 100% that EU4 is a lot more interesting than ck2, it's a much more dynamic game with the AI actually doing things and being a threat. But I do feel the late game seems to be about fast forwarding a lot, something that really breaks immersion for me.

I'll have to give another go at colonising, tried as England and found myself staring as the dates flew by. Seemed to consist of waiting for tech, waiting for ideas, a little exploring then waiting for colony to build. Very passive. Probably me doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

It takes a while to get things up and running, but once that happens it becomes a very competitive environment. It is very rewarding late game as well, colonising (and global conflicts surrounding them) is basically the EU4 end game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back