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

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting discussion here, but I will say that for most of Tribe your Voice has power, so Oral Tradition is more important than simple words in a book.

That is know on our days as 'keep you word', if you say to someone that you gonna do something, they will believe in your word. Is like a promise.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
for a game about early medieval politics to imperialism in the later age, the addition of aboriginal tags seems rather odd considering the fact that the interesting nations to play weren't undiscovered ahistorical kingdoms, but centralized and active states that had differing goals and histories, and the tapestry of royal families competing with one another.

Majapahit i can understand because they had a malayan empire. What was the dev time needed to add in this new tag that does not exist in historical record and is only there for the sake of inclusion? 99% of the players are just going to hit the cultural conversion button anyways. it's more mana friendly
 
  • 7Like
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
for a game about early medieval politics to imperialism in the later age, the addition of aboriginal tags seems rather odd considering the fact that the interesting nations to play weren't undiscovered ahistorical kingdoms, but centralized and active states that had differing goals and histories, and the tapestry of royal families competing with one another.

Majapahit i can understand because they had a malayan empire. What was the dev time needed to add in this new tag that does not exist in historical record and is only there for the sake of inclusion? 99% of the players are just going to hit the cultural conversion button anyways. it's more mana friendly
And you are saying that the Aboriginal nations did not have centralised, active systems with competing politics and warfare between the many nations of this region? Just because Euro-centric history is slow on the uptake in terms of recognising many Indigenous nations around the world as anything more than hunter-gatherers that had no impact on history doesn't mean that these nations are "ahistorical kingdoms". 99% of Hungary players are going to hit the cultural conversion button anyway, it's more mana friendly (there is only about twenty Hungarian culture group provinces in the game).
 
  • 11
  • 7
Reactions:
some people talk abnout eu5 as a big solution. why exactly? eu4 is a big sucess. a small minority here is loud and i think right with a lot of what they want but why should PD care exactly? people who do not like the state of eu4 now will absolutly not like eu 5. only thing that gives me hope for eu5 is that, for example, johan is no fan of mission trees with PUs and Cores and stuff as reward.

sure its just my theory.. a game theory ... but a radical change in direction that would be needed to make the people here happy... no i do not see that.
 
  • 9
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
for a game about early medieval politics to imperialism in the later age, the addition of aboriginal tags seems rather odd considering the fact that the interesting nations to play weren't undiscovered ahistorical kingdoms, but centralized and active states that had differing goals and histories, and the tapestry of royal families competing with one another.
I would be more than happy playing other than European tags once in a while if both were fleshed out; different mechanics, different goals, different play styles, providing a different experience. Mesoamerican tags were such an attempt targeted by one of the earlier DLCs, and by then it was great. I actually enjoyed my Incan and Mayan campaigns even though the introduced mechanics were a little bit dull becauae very repetitive. That’s why I didn’t bother trying an Aztec campign, as I was actually waiting for some more tweaking... which never happened.

The federation mechanics of Native American tags too were cool, a solid ground you could build on... but nothing ever happened.

The introduction of trade companies was then the only new noteworthy mechanic to actually expand the game, not just inflate it with immersion by copy pasting all over the place.

None of African tags got the attention it deserves, and even had, e.g. in case of Ethiopia. Instead Ming got a mini-HRE v2.0, while the Shogun still has to deal just with a mini-HRE v1.0, buggy states got inflationary copy pasted, the technology is all messed up due to endless messing around with institutions, and, in general, all those click and get free stuff interactions got inflated too.

So yeah, I would be more than happy to try surviving as an Aboriginal tag if it meant trying out new play styles and mechanics, not just idling like a Siberian OPM or blitz westernising in the Philippines. Even as a coloniser having to fight off attacks of the natives could be fun... but that’s not happening either.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
OT: EU4 has become too big to patch, the development of EU5 is inevitable.

Agree, EU5 will be made. There is too much potential profit for it not to be developed.

But I would rather Tinto spend a little more time improving EU4 before shelving it. PDS uses a business model of issuing new releases almost bare bones with limited content so that they can milk profit with DLC releases throughout the life of the project. I would rather have access to an EU4 in the best shape possible while EU5 is developed and fleshed out than Tinto just shutting down EU4 now.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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 keep reading that argument here and I feel there's very simple solution to that problem: Paradox should make a good game at release. And what's the alternative? We never have EU5 because EU4 will always have more content?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I keep reading that argument here and I feel there's very simple solution to that problem: Paradox should make a good game at release. And what's the alternative? We never have EU5 because EU4 will always have more content?
Read my post above yours
 
Read my post above yours

I get what you're saying. It would be ideal if Paradox would develop EU$ et EU5 side by side, while making sure EU$ is in the best shape possible before closing the books and making EU5 the best game possible at release. I just don't think they will do either of those things, so I'd rather they put EU$ out of its misery. Maybe a fresh start is what we need, but I have lost faith.
 
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
  • African tribes equally technologically advanced as the most innovative Western powers, thanks to a completely broken and unbalanced Institutions system.
I agree with the other points, but this is something I never see happening. I am genuinely puzzled whenever people claim the first nations or africans jump ahead in tech. This does not happen in my games unless I am playing in those regions cause a player has the foresight of knowing to spawn insitutions, while the AI does not.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree with the other points, but this is something I never see happening. I am genuinely puzzled whenever people claim the first nations or africans jump ahead in tech. This does not happen in my games unless I am playing in those regions cause a player has the foresight of knowing to spawn insitutions, while the AI does not.
What is the average year of the end of your campaigns? This is not a rhetorical question; currently the insitutions system ensures the first three of them (not counting Feudalism) slow all nations outside Europe considerably, while the later ones (after the Printing Press) are embraced by everyone on the planet 10-20 years after them appearing, thus comically reversing the presumption that the institutions should act historically, making Europe slightly more advanced in the beginning and giving it a huge boost later, slowing everyone else down very, very much. All in all, my entire point is that if you finish your campaigns after 200 years of gameplay and skip the latter 200, you may have not seen the problem; and if you don't and play until the end, then I would be genuinely surprised if you indeed saw a considerable slowdown in technology of "the rest of the world".
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Institutions after printing press should have their spread value greatly slowed outside their continent of origin.

With exception of native councils instantly jumping to 80% european tech lvl + instantly learning all institutions from a neighbor (what will be hopefully reworked in 1.31), the tech lvl is generally immersive enough before global trade.
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I'm pretty sure the "new game" they're announcing at PDXCON in May will be EU5. If so, they're not going to spend too much time on EU4. They'll release a couple more DLC packs to keep the income stream open as long as possible, but don't hold your breath for anything too major or groundbreaking for EU4 before it gets shelved.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If Aboriginal tags in Australia are now playable states, why have uncolonized territory in the map at all? Certainly the blank provinces in Africa and the Americas on the whole had levels of civilization at parity with or more advanced than those in Australia or Polynesia (barring some Amazon jungle and South Georgia island).

Certainly we should have a threshold for what constitutes a civilization with a TAG in this game and what doesn’t. Otherwise I’ve got news for everyone here: human beings were present on most parts of the world map in 1444...
 
  • 16
  • 2Like
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Then how do we legitimize historical records for illiterate tribes. Tribes on the Gobi Desert and the Steppe for a long time kept track of their history via oral tradition. I'll agree that oral tradition isn't as reliable as say a written document, but when compared with nothing else and a grain of salt, it enough to produce some level of historical understand. With this type of understanding, most Native American TAGs wouldn't have much to go off of because their very exclusive process of oral recording of history. I think that oral tradition should be accepted as reliable historical evidence here, but users should do some work to sift through it for what the facts are, versus actual story. It should also be noted that some oral traditions are no more reliable than written records, which are far more suspectible to bias, destruction and other human errors; whlie oral record is "safer" since it requires one person to memorize the history, less suspectible to bias, and is much harder to have an error occur in "recording".
By looking at what other sources we have as well as how credible an oral story can be
I didn't accuse you of anything, just reminding you of the hurtful connotations associated with using that word instead of Aboriginal (due to the other word being mostly used by publications that spread harmful messages about Aboriginal people and that every organisation now recommends against using it as it has been observed to have negative impacts on Aboriginal people). I am not saying you are invoking Terra Nullius by using any particular words, but the description of them as hunter-gatherers as a whole was only ever factual in the view of Terra Nullius.

There is evidence of Aboriginal ships across the Indonesian islands (presumably sailed by the Aboriginal people as the Indonesian people had their own distinct ships); hardly ocean-faring on the scale of the Polynesians, but sufficient to engage in bi-directional trading and fishing. As you mention they had fish-farms (in multiple areas) and additional to that they had a large degree of full organised farms (many early explorers mention coming across great swathes of crops lined perfectly up and down in rows, growing one of a variety of native fruit or veggie).

How would you go about separating Tribal Democracy from Greek Democracy (I cannot find any sort of universal definition to separate the two)? Many Aboriginal nations had voting systems, and representatives they sent to parliaments and forums to write up laws, budgets and alliances among many other actions commonly associated with any democracy.

It is true that after the first few battles with Britain they had to forego with organised battles (their rapidly declining population from disease and the sheer scale of guns and cannons that the British could make use of contributed to this) but this is hardly any different to any nation that was confronted with a European power, it doesn't mean these nations were incapable of proper standing armies (which many Aboriginal nations did have).

If the validity of adding a new tag to the game is based off "can a doomstack wipe them off the map" then there is really little point to any tag outside of Europe or Asia. What the Aboriginal tags represent is a deep history and culture; the worth of adding tags to the game shouldn't just be based off what relative worth they add to playing a Great Power in EU4.

Some of the sources I mentioned earlier in this thread provide some nice reading on how we have only seen the top of the iceberg in terms of Aboriginal society and the innovations they have made.
Tribal assemblies are very different to athenian democracy or to the roman Republic which are in turn very different to modern democracies.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What is the average year of the end of your campaigns? This is not a rhetorical question; currently the insitutions system ensures the first three of them (not counting Feudalism) slow all nations outside Europe considerably, while the later ones (after the Printing Press) are embraced by everyone on the planet 10-20 years after them appearing, thus comically reversing the presumption that the institutions should act historically, making Europe slightly more advanced in the beginning and giving it a huge boost later, slowing everyone else down very, very much. All in all, my entire point is that if you finish your campaigns after 200 years of gameplay and skip the latter 200, you may have not seen the problem; and if you don't and play until the end, then I would be genuinely surprised if you indeed saw a considerable slowdown in technology of "the rest of the world".
The actual "issue" is that the AI prioritizes techning up heavily. African nations tend to lag only slightly behind Europeans technologically, this is true.

What everyone is ignoring is that the AI accomplishes this by totally ignoring idea groups. Spain will be on tech 30/30/30 with full ideas unlocked. The African nation will be on tech 26/27/30 contemporaneously while only having half of it's ideas filled out, or less. The institution is taxing non Europeans, it's just that the AI prioritizes taking tech over ideas, which irritates people. The end result is basically the same, a European major would roll any nation in Africa because they'll have 4 military idea groups filled and the African nation will have 1.5 filled out.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The actual "issue" is that the AI prioritizes techning up heavily. African nations tend to lag only slightly behind Europeans technologically, this is true.

What everyone is ignoring is that the AI accomplishes this by totally ignoring idea groups. Spain will be on tech 30/30/30 with full ideas unlocked. The African nation will be on tech 26/27/30 contemporaneously while only having half of it's ideas filled out, or less. The institution is taxing non Europeans, it's just that the AI prioritizes taking tech over ideas, which irritates people. The end result is basically the same, a European major would roll any nation in Africa because they'll have 4 military idea groups filled and the African nation will have 1.5 filled out.
Tech groups are far more noticeable compared to idea groups tho. If you are so many pips behind it doesn't matter what your ideas are. National ideas power creep also makes it quite hard to conquer as easily as Europeans did late game. Although India should be both diplomacy and conquest, not just conquest
 
Tech groups are far more noticeable compared to idea groups tho. If you are so many pips behind it doesn't matter what your ideas are. National ideas power creep also makes it quite hard to conquer as easily as Europeans did late game. Although India should be both diplomacy and conquest, not just conquest
It's actually totally the opposite, though. Pips are marginal while having military idea groups is everything.

In addition, there was never a point in the game where the AI ever made conquests of considerable degree in Asia. National idea power creep has very little to do with the AI being somewhat passive, even against extremely technologically inferior nations. I've been playing since 2014 and never before have I seen a European make headway in South Asia.

Additionally, the one area they do make considerable gains in (Africa), it's actually to an an unhistoric degree.

People are fingering the wrong issue for why Europeans do not expand in Asia much. They never did very much, even before institutions leveled the technological playing field (on a trivial level, as I stated).
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.