After Leviathan, this game needs a huge revamp/balancing update.

[TheSleep3r]

EUIV has one glaring issue, that is only rarely mentioned: the developers focus on adding new features while completely ignoring the ones made in the past. What we have because of that, despite a new expansion coming out this month:

• The entire world fully colonized in 1700.
• African tribes equally technologically advanced as the most innovative Western powers, thanks to a completely broken and unbalanced Institutions system.
• A whole lot of possibilities and options that exist only technically. Providing a loan to another country is broken? Better make the whole feature practically unusable instead of fixing it. Apply this mentality to many more of those features.
• Events that could be much better balanced (balanced not in a 'for multiplayer' way, but balanced for authenticity). Some events, like Iberian Wedding, almost always result in unified Spain; others, like "We need a Jagiellon!", have 25% (one in fourth) chances to implode the entire Central Europe. Throw in some snacks like Succession in the Crimean Khanate to realize many major events need better AI factors. I could compare this issue to Hearts of Iron IV's National Focuses, some of which are still never picked in ahistorical mode many years after release.
• Not only minor features are broken. The government reform system, which replaced the simple but working government type system, allows rulers to utter 'I am the state' in the year 1600. This doesn't mean the system is fundamentally broken, even if flawed; this simply means that the developer team is spewing out features just for the sake of their existence, completely ignoring how they work ingame - possibly revealing how deeply the famous Paradox DLC policy has rot in. Many more features are similarly broken, like China's Mandate or the Council of Trent, which either lie to the player, work badly, or don't work at all.
• The AI, artificial "intelligence". I don't expect it to be ever fixed, or even made slightly more competent. Probably will have to rely on mods.

One big update focused exclusively on fixing bugs and improving balance and the game becomes infinitely better. I am really trying not to be grumpy and pessimistic because I really love this game, but unless the developers realize their mistakes, it will only get worse. I can bet 20$ the 'over 500 bugs fixed' in the upcoming expansion will not matter much in the grand scale of things.

 

[Pandrea]

Are you crazy bro? Who cares about council of Trent when you can have a swarm of aborigines TAGs westernized by 1600?

 

[TheSleep3r]

Are you crazy bro? Who cares about council of Trent when you can have a swarm of aborigines TAG westernized by 1600?

Isn't that exactly my point as well?

 

[Aussiehawker]

Adding Aboriginal tags is incredibly dumb. These are hunter-gatherer tribes that had no coherent organised armies, and never fought any straight battles against the British, just skirmishes.

Eu4 should be removing tags from America, Africa and Siberia. Yet they keep adding more tags in areas that had nowhere near state leadership, so people can Play even more absurdly ahistorical games.

 

[Battlex]

A final update to add more historical mechanics that you could turn off and on would be grand but alas

 

[Lars_Schneller]

EUIV has one glaring issue, that is only rarely mentioned: the developers focus on adding new features while completely ignoring the ones made in the past. What we have because of that, despite a new expansion coming out this month:

• The entire world fully colonized in 1700.
• African tribes equally technologically advanced as the most innovative Western powers, thanks to a completely broken and unbalanced Institutions system.
• A whole lot of possibilities and options that exist only technically. Providing a loan to another country is broken? Better make the whole feature practically unusable instead of fixing it. Apply this mentality to many more of those features.
• Events that could be much better balanced (balanced not in a 'for multiplayer' way, but balanced for authenticity). Some events, like Iberian Wedding, almost always result in unified Spain; others, like "We need a Jagiellon!", have 25% (one in fourth) chances to implode the entire Central Europe. Throw in some snacks like Succession in the Crimean Khanate to realize many major events need better AI factors. I could compare this issue to Hearts of Iron IV's National Focuses, some of which are still never picked in ahistorical mode many years after release.
• Not only minor features are broken. The government reform system, which replaced the simple but working government type system, allows rulers to utter 'I am the state' in the year 1600. This doesn't mean the system is fundamentally broken, even if flawed; this simply means that the developer team is spewing out features just for the sake of their existence, completely ignoring how they work ingame - possibly revealing how deeply the famous Paradox DLC policy has rot in. Many more features are similarly broken, like China's Mandate or the Council of Trent, which either lie to the player, work badly, or don't work at all.
• The AI, artificial "intelligence". I don't expect it to be ever fixed, or even made slightly more competent. Probably will have to rely on mods.

One big update focused exclusively on fixing bugs and improving balance and the game becomes infinitely better. I am really trying not to be grumpy and pessimistic because I really love this game, but unless the developers realize their mistakes, it will only get worse. I can bet 20$ the 'over 500 bugs fixed' in the upcoming expansion will not matter much in the grand scale of things.

I have mostly given up hopes for EU4 - the game is fundamentally broken and can't simulate the era at all. I am waiting for EU5...

Although I was waiting for Vic3 for three years now, now that it's likely I am a bit disontent. Vic2, CK3, HOI4, even Imperator (well, for "civilized world") have some immersion. EU4 has very little, and less the later you go. I would be content if they made EU5 - but radically different from EU4.

 

[cristofolmc]

Yes sure they will do that 7 or 8 years into development, 400 DLCs and EU5 in the makings, and for free! Haha, sure thing.

What this game needs is to stop wasting resources and grabbing people's money and put it into making a good EU5.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

I would just like to remind people that in Australia the word some used by some people in their posts on this thread to describe the Indigenous nations are not too dissimilar to the use of the n-word in American culture to describe people of African descent. On an additional note the myth of all First Nations people being hunter-gatherers is just that, a myth. It was based largely in the Terra Nullius doctrine used to justify the cruel treatment and genocide of these people.

Now that historians are not barred from researching deeper into these topics there has been increasing evidence to find that they were mostly an agricultural society that built buildings and tools out of various materials (stone and wood) and sailed out into the ocean to trade with some nearby nations (including the Indonesian islands). They also had democracy and republics long before the Classical Greeks came along; governmental systems in some cases nearly indistinguishable from that of a single-chamber parliamentary system. They did engage with wars with the British (unless we are now considering armies smaller than 5000 in size as "skirmishing armies" which means we would need to remove most HRE nations) and they also traded with the Ming on at least four occasions between 1500 and 1650.

There were certainly still nations that were mostly hunter-gather societies that were forced to roam around due to the lack of resources available deep inside the interior desert of Australia, but these nations aren't in the scope of the upcoming EU4 update.

Essentially what I am saying is that you can be upset about some game features being bugged, or lacking updates, but this shouldn't be used as a continual excuse to pretend that these people had no impact on history in this time-period or that it is ahistorical that they are included in the game. And also what I am saying is to stop using that word to define these people.

 

[RaccoonCity]

EU4 starts to be a meme. It's time for EU5.

 

[Sapa Inca]

Eu4 should be removing tags from America, Africa and Siberia. Yet they keep adding more tags in areas that had nowhere near state leadership, so people can Play even more absurdly ahistorical games.

The vast majority of African tags present in game were organized kingdoms or centralizad tribes, this complaint doesnt make sense for current representation of Africa.

 

[Me_]

I'd rather the game just ended. EU5, please.

 

[Steel_atlas]

I would just like to remind people that in Australia the word some used by some people in their posts on this thread to describe the Indigenous nations are not too dissimilar to the use of the n-word in American culture to describe people of African descent. On an additional note the myth of all First Nations people being hunter-gatherers is just that, a myth. It was based largely in the Terra Nullius doctrine used to justify the cruel treatment and genocide of these people.

Now that historians are not barred from researching deeper into these topics there has been increasing evidence to find that they were mostly an agricultural society that built buildings and tools out of various materials (stone and wood) and sailed out into the ocean to trade with some nearby nations (including the Indonesian islands). They also had democracy and republics long before the Classical Greeks came along; governmental systems in some cases nearly indistinguishable from that of a single-chamber parliamentary system. They did engage with wars with the British (unless we are now considering armies smaller than 5000 in size as "skirmishing armies" which means we would need to remove most HRE nations) and they also traded with the Ming on at least four occasions between 1500 and 1650.

There were certainly still nations that were mostly hunter-gather societies that were forced to roam around due to the lack of resources available deep inside the interior desert of Australia, but these nations aren't in the scope of the upcoming EU4 update.

Essentially what I am saying is that you can be upset about some game features being bugged, or lacking updates, but this shouldn't be used as a continual excuse to pretend that these people had no impact on history in this time-period or that it is ahistorical that they are included in the game. And also what I am saying is to stop using that word to define these people.

Source for democracy before Greeks please.

 

[Steel_atlas]

The vast majority of African tags present in game were organized kingdoms or centralizad tribes, this complaint doesnt make sense for current representation of Africa.

Honestly Africa needs an update more then NA or SEA.

One of the reasons the Europeans never replicate their TCs in India and SEA is the scramble for Africa happens several hundred years early.

 

[Meglok]

EU4 starts to be a meme. It's time for EU5.

I'd rather the game just ended. EU5, please.

For everyone wanting EU5 now, please tell me a single PDS game in the past 10 years that was worth a darn in it's initial release? It always takes at least 2 years and multiple patches for their games to be something besides a buggy monstrosity. Latest example being Stellaris and Imperator, both of which had to have major overalls after release to be playable.

I would much rather Johan invest the time now to fix what is fixable in EU4 than wait the next 2-4 years for EU5 to be released and actually playable.

 

[Battlex]

The vast majority of African tags present in game were organized kingdoms or centralizad tribes, this complaint doesnt make sense for current representation of Africa.

Many of the tags are things which we don't have evidence for until far later, this is also why the US natives are getting replaced due to being far later tags

 

[Me_]

For everyone wanting EU5 now, please tell me a single PDS game in the past 10 years that was worth a darn in it's initial release? It always takes at least 2 years and multiple patches for their games to be something besides a buggy monstrosity. Latest example being Stellaris and Imperator, both of which had to have major overalls after release to be playable.

I would much rather Johan invest the time now to fix what is fixable in EU4 than wait the next 2-4 years for EU5 to be released and actually playable.

I loved CK2 on release. EU4 on release was also great, having inherited almost all of EU3's features whle also bringing in a breath of fresh air.

I'm sorry if you don't enjoy Paradox games.

 

[Steel_atlas]

For everyone wanting EU5 now, please tell me a single PDS game in the past 10 years that was worth a darn in it's initial release? It always takes at least 2 years and multiple patches for their games to be something besides a buggy monstrosity. Latest example being Stellaris and Imperator, both of which had to have major overalls after release to be playable.

I would much rather Johan invest the time now to fix what is fixable in EU4 than wait the next 2-4 years for EU5 to be released and actually playable.

Yeah if Eu5 is to Eu4 what CK3 was to CK2 I wont be buying it.

And honestly I would be suprised historical accuracy is becoming less and less important.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

1. Bruce Pascoe, Dark Emu, Magabala Books, Broome, WA, 2013.
2. Robert A. Dahl, ‘Democracy’, <www.brittanica.com>, accessed 2 May 2015.
3. Fred Myers, ‘Emotions and the Self: A Theory of Personhood and Political Order among Pintupi Aborigines’, Ethos, vol. 7, no. 4 (2009), p. 368.
4. J. Bulmer, quoted in Henry Reynolds, The Other Side of the Frontier, Penguin, Melbourne, 1984 (1981), p. 151.
5. W.E.H. Stanner, The Dreaming and Other Essays, Black Inc, Melbourne, 2011, p. 66.
6. Dianne Bell, Daughters of the Dreaming, Spinifex Press, Melbourne, 1982, p. 182.
7. Aunty Mary Graham, public talk, ‘Conversation about Country’ with Melissa Lucashenko, Federal Town Hall, Federal, NSW, February 2015.
8. Stanner, The Dreaming, p. 72.
9. R. Wild and P. Anderson, Little Children Are Sacred, report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, 2007, accessed 1 June 2015.
10. David Runciman, ‘The Trouble with Democracy’, Guardian (UK), 21 November 2013.
11. Larissa Behrendt, 'Aboriginal Australia and Democracy: Old Traditions, New Challenges', 2011

To avoid having to list you too many sources that say relatively the same information I will mention that the first two links have further references to corroborating sources at the bottom of the respective documents. There is no one that can historically say beyond a definitive doubt (yet) that the democracy in Australia was formed prior to the Greeks (as even though the Government no longer bans researching these sort of topics, it is still extremely difficult to get funding for research as Terra Nullius was still being taught in schools till 1990's), but as we are sure that democracy existed prior to European arrival and these nations had existed for somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 years prior to this occasion it would be hard to imagine that the Greeks invented democracy first (which we already know is the case as there were plenty of 100% confirmed cases of democracy prior to Greece but that is outside the point I am trying to make).

So no, I can't say 100% beyond a doubt that democracy was invented in Australia prior to the Greeks, it is far more plausible that this is the case (and hopefully in decades to come research funding will become more available for these topics, if it isn't too late yet).

@Steel_atlas

 

[Steel_atlas]

1. Bruce Pascoe, Dark Emu, Magabala Books, Broome, WA, 2013.
2. Robert A. Dahl, ‘Democracy’, <www.brittanica.com>, accessed 2 May 2015.
3. Fred Myers, ‘Emotions and the Self: A Theory of Personhood and Political Order among Pintupi Aborigines’, Ethos, vol. 7, no. 4 (2009), p. 368.
4. J. Bulmer, quoted in Henry Reynolds, The Other Side of the Frontier, Penguin, Melbourne, 1984 (1981), p. 151.
5. W.E.H. Stanner, The Dreaming and Other Essays, Black Inc, Melbourne, 2011, p. 66.
6. Dianne Bell, Daughters of the Dreaming, Spinifex Press, Melbourne, 1982, p. 182.
7. Aunty Mary Graham, public talk, ‘Conversation about Country’ with Melissa Lucashenko, Federal Town Hall, Federal, NSW, February 2015.
8. Stanner, The Dreaming, p. 72.
9. R. Wild and P. Anderson, Little Children Are Sacred, report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, 2007, accessed 1 June 2015.
10. David Runciman, ‘The Trouble with Democracy’, Guardian (UK), 21 November 2013.
11. Larissa Behrendt, 'Aboriginal Australia and Democracy: Old Traditions, New Challenges', 2011

To avoid having to list you too many sources that say relatively the same information I will mention that the first two links have further references to corroborating sources at the bottom of the respective documents. There is no one that can historically say beyond a definitive doubt (yet) that the democracy in Australia was formed prior to the Greeks (as even though the Government no longer bans researching these sort of topics, it is still extremely difficult to get funding for research as Terra Nullius was still being taught in schools till 1990's), but as we are sure that democracy existed prior to European arrival and these nations had existed for somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 years prior to this occasion it would be hard to imagine that the Greeks invented democracy first (which we already know is the case as there were plenty of 100% confirmed cases of democracy prior to Greece but that is outside the point I am trying to make).

So no, I can't say 100% beyond a doubt that democracy was invented in Australia prior to the Greeks, it is far more plausible that this is the case (and hopefully in decades to come research funding will become more available for these topics, if it isn't too late yet).

@Steel_atlas

They had extensive written records of those times?

Or is this accepting modern oral tradition as historical fact?

 

[Sapa Inca]

Many of the tags are things which we don't have evidence for until far later, this is also why the US natives are getting replaced due to being far later tags

That is not true for the majority of the tags.
There are some anachronistic or unconfirmed tags in Africa, mainly in Central Africa and Madagascar and there are some tags named wrong by the developers.
But the vast majority of tags in West and East Africa and some Central Africa tags have confirmed existance during second half of XV century.

A good book for research about this topic is "The Cambridge History of Africa Vol 3" this is a old book and research in the epoch already had a lot of information about the historical situation in the continent during early modern age, peoples that have access to more modern books about the topic probably known even more details.

I don't known why peoples are disliking my last post if I only bring to the thread factual information about a topic that the majority probably never researched in specialized sources.