It's probably too late for me to mention this, but the GUI graphics comes across as quite dated. The dull bronze like borders reminds me of EU2/EU3. This is in opposition to CK2 where the GUI is sexy as hell. IcanhasCK2 sexy GUI? 
Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 17 – Honey, don’t you want to talk about it?
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
So if france designates austria a rival, and the ottomans do.
Can we -actually- get a franco-ottoman axis going?
Can we -actually- get a franco-ottoman axis going?
It's probably too late for me to mention this, but the GUI graphics comes across as quite dated. The dull bronze like borders reminds me of EU2/EU3. This is in opposition to CK2 where the GUI is sexy as hell. IcanhasCK2 sexy GUI?
Wow really? I really like the EUIV GUI, more so than CKII. I guess it's dependent on taste.
Edit - I notice that Venice is doing well, taking Rome and such. Any chance we could get a list which country is human controlled? Give an idea how the AI handles expansion
With a game start of 1444 (or even later), 1471 is 27 years of gameplay. In these 27 years:
- Great Britain has formed
- France Absorbed Brittany, Provence, Bourbonnais, and Savoy, as well as reclaiming Gascony from the English (9 provinces+Savoy) and probably some more I missed
- Spain has formed
- Muscovy grew triple its size
- Venice took out the middle of Italy, including the Papal State
I have a feeling this is going to help the AI a great deal, helping him to know who he should hate, work against, and try to weaken in every way.
No more England very intrested in killing Novgorod almost every game hopefully. Or Castille more interested in the Balkans then forming Spain.
This one I like. This game really need an AI that forms Russia. Nothing ruins off the balance of everything in the game more then a chaotic russian steppes land open to God and everyone..... And never are the games better then when Muscowy AI is doing good.
Yeah I see the rebalancing stuff that might be needed imo, but that is why the game isn't being released today
Oh I like this perticular change, it'll be a challenge to establish my buffer zone inside the HRE and then expand into a colonial empire
Austria, Venice, France, Burgundy, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Muskowy, Denmark, Sweden, Bohemia, Ottomans, Mamluks. I'm probably forgetting someone.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.189
- 79.768
Austria
England
Castille
Portugal
France
Burgundy
Muscowy
Bohemia
Poland
Mamelukes
Ottoman Empire
Venice
Denmark
Sweden
Teutonic Order
Viyanagar
Lithuania
IIRC
yeah, its much much slower than an eu3 start
Chaotic Russian steppes open to everyone is kind of what it was though. Russia never forming is well within the interests of the nations that border the region - Lithuania doesn't want its large Rus lands threatened by a central Russian state, Sweden prefers a weak and non-hostile neighbour to the east for security and to control trade to and from the Russias without threat, the Golden Horde wants to maintain its overlordship over Russia and keep the tributary state in action - even the Teutonic Order wants to remain where it is, not face invasion from the east by a massive state bent on outright annexing its territory.
The intervention by foreign powers in the Time of Troubles revolved around those aims with the addition of Poland seeing opportunities too due to its by then new connection with Lithuania. And historically, Russia eventually either completely kicked out of its areas of interest or entirely absorbed every enemy it had when it historically formed as the Tsardom, justifying their fears.
Fact is that being decentralised and even worse a region being made up not only of fractured states but competing fractured states is a large vulnerability to foreign powers and the game should simulate that.
Last edited:
I hope at last eastern units will become better. It is not like we never had good infantry, we did, it is more about the fact we did have vast territories, that were barely fortified(and not mountainious type mostly), MEANING that infantry would be pretty useless in those terrains. Polish infantry was quite strong, often coming from nobles(because not all nobles were able to support a horse, and even if they were, they did not allways had to be cavalry type - they could just use horses to travel only - like if they were infantry regiments officers), and their servant. Ukrainian revolts were mostly using infantry, because they were not the wealthy ones, only they got cavalry when they allied with tatars. Russian infantry, was greatly trained, i say at some times, just better than polish, aspecialy late time, but not allways of course. Russia in comparison to poland was more infantry type, when they conquered tatars, they used them as mercenaries. Russia also was one of the countries that quite early used (propably field) artilery on bigger scale(was one of the reasons for muscovite victories over tatars). And they did used it in XV century(second half mostly, thou).
Austria
England
Castille
Portugal
France
Burgundy
Muscowy
Bohemia
Poland
Mamelukes
Ottoman Empire
Venice
Denmark
Sweden
Teutonic Order
Viyanagar
Lithuania
IIRC
yeah, its much much slower than an eu3 start
Will the effects of diplomacy the singleplayer game has, like infamy and it's effects on relations had in EU3, have more impact between the human players in multiplayer this time arround? Will it for instance be harder to create alliances between human players that have bad relations to eachother? In EU3 the concepts of infamy and it's effects on relations could be ignored almost completely if the major players where all humans anyways.
My hope is that we will see the diplomacy mechanisms of the game also effect multiplayer-games and the inter-human relations more. An example is the possibilities for alliances, upkeep costs for deals etc. being effected by relation points also between the human players (not only Human vs AI and AI vs AI).
Hope this was understandable, but I have a feeling you have thought along these lines when making some of the new diplomacy mechanisms. Upkeep costs for certain diplo-agreements comes to my mind, especially alliances, and perhaps higher upkeep costs if relations are getting worse. That would be a mechanism that at the same time also makes the relation point situation also an issue between human players, and that would be a very good thing for MP, reducing need for all kind of house rules.
Last edited:
I just noticed that Saxony is defined as a Duchy, don't know if I've missed something previously, but does this mean that there can also be counties?
It's probably too late for me to mention this, but the GUI graphics comes across as quite dated. The dull bronze like borders reminds me of EU2/EU3. This is in opposition to CK2 where the GUI is sexy as hell. IcanhasCK2 sexy GUI?
Matter of taste. I find the EU4 UI to be more delicious.
I think it just means that it is a vassal monarchy (after all, in EU3 vassal monarchies were called Duchies)
Hm, the Duke of Saxony is Albrecht I 'der Beherzte'. Has the nicknames system from CK2 been carried over?
Also, is it just me, or is the map really blue looking? I guess it's winter, so...blue?
I'm guessing they're Annex Vassal, Royal Marriage, Cancel Vassalisation, and Claim Throne, which are pretty similar to options available in EU3, just grouped together. I'm a bit more interested in what's under the under tabs.
Also, is it just me, or is the map really blue looking? I guess it's winter, so...blue?
Austria
England
Castille
Portugal
France
Burgundy
Muscowy
Bohemia
Poland
Mamelukes
Ottoman Empire
Venice
Denmark
Sweden
Teutonic Order
Viyanagar
Lithuania
IIRC
yeah, its much much slower than an eu3 start
It's impossible to form GB and Spain in 27 years because you need the cores ( 50 years ).
The major problem in multi is the heavy starting blobbing. I see that it's always a problem in EU4.