It is, but if it was tweaked it would be a good system of gauging your personal progress. I just don't think certain factors like 'having a crap-ton of boats' is really conducive towards that end.
1.2.1 has gone a bit overboard with the Ryuku exploit prevention
- Thread starter GeneralZaphod
- 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.
It is, but if it was tweaked it would be a good system of gauging your personal progress. I just don't think certain factors like 'having a crap-ton of boats' is really conducive towards that end.
Because its a freaking game, and because you used to be able to do that in all Paradox games?
Why do some of us have to justify their gaming style toward a few vocal people who think their preferred way of playing must apply to everyone?
I hate this arrogance. Introducing tons of restrictions is not gonna ruin the game for people who wanna play "realistic" and not blob. It's the other way around.
Removed foul language - Seelmeister
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1
On the Coalitions subject, I had hungary and genoa join a coalition against me as the ottomans for completing world's desire and reclaiming two of my cores from a fresh start. Hungary I almost sort of understood because they had -22 AE to me, which seemed annoying low for a country not bordering me who only had a total negative modifer of -30ish. Genoa was two countries away and had... a -16 opinion of me with an absurdly high -11 AE. Those are both locked in a 5 year coalition at me at minimum, and no amount of improve relation will help even after the AE goes away entirely and they have +100 relations. The old system at least was logically consistent and predictable, even if there were 3-4 people who hated you because of your borders, you at least knew it was happening and could improve relations until they left if they went a point too far.
There are not enough possible diplomats in the game to prevent a -16 opinion modifer from happening with many neighboring (and neighboring neighboring) countries at any moment in time and even if there were, that does not change the fact that coalitions form at the drop of a hat by comparison to previous editions, and they stay around longer than they did before.
I suspect the majority of the compaints are that we went from playing a grand strategy 4x game to a game where you cannot expand, exploit or exterminate in the time limit of the game to anything close to world domination. If you do not want to do those 3x's as much I fully support there being a mode for you to make it extremely difficult.
I also don't understand the insistence that WC was/is so easy anyone with any OPM can do it, if you are one of the .04% of players who have completed a WC with any country (including hackers) and you did it with hard bonus AI as a OPM or the inca congratulations, but otherwise I do not see the validity of the complaint. Even if that is entirely true for you, that is more reason to add more difficult modes, not to raise the bar globally.
There are not enough possible diplomats in the game to prevent a -16 opinion modifer from happening with many neighboring (and neighboring neighboring) countries at any moment in time and even if there were, that does not change the fact that coalitions form at the drop of a hat by comparison to previous editions, and they stay around longer than they did before.
I suspect the majority of the compaints are that we went from playing a grand strategy 4x game to a game where you cannot expand, exploit or exterminate in the time limit of the game to anything close to world domination. If you do not want to do those 3x's as much I fully support there being a mode for you to make it extremely difficult.
I also don't understand the insistence that WC was/is so easy anyone with any OPM can do it, if you are one of the .04% of players who have completed a WC with any country (including hackers) and you did it with hard bonus AI as a OPM or the inca congratulations, but otherwise I do not see the validity of the complaint. Even if that is entirely true for you, that is more reason to add more difficult modes, not to raise the bar globally.
I see people are very confused about concepts like difficulty and fun
Before 1.2 game was fun, complex, open ended, easy.
After 1.2 game is boring, linear, few options for player, easy.
1.2 is not difficult, you can beat everyone with everyone as easy as before, only the amount of things you can do are restricted (not difficult) by game mechanics.
Ofc if your goal is to play on speed 5 to 20 provinces by 1821 than ofc 1.2 it's no different than 1.1.3 for you.
P.S. seems 1.2 killed the AAR subforum to, a dozen threads updated in the last 2 days lol
Before 1.2 game was fun, complex, open ended, easy.
After 1.2 game is boring, linear, few options for player, easy.
1.2 is not difficult, you can beat everyone with everyone as easy as before, only the amount of things you can do are restricted (not difficult) by game mechanics.
Ofc if your goal is to play on speed 5 to 20 provinces by 1821 than ofc 1.2 it's no different than 1.1.3 for you.
P.S. seems 1.2 killed the AAR subforum to, a dozen threads updated in the last 2 days lol
Last edited:
- 1
I dont give a darn about the arbitrary "score", so any rebalancing or changing of core game mechanics done simply to fiddle with the scoring system is bad for gameplay.
EU4 is a sandbox game. Damaging the sandbox-possibilities just so that some people can feel that they have "won" EU4 is bad for the whole game.
EU4 is a sandbox game. Damaging the sandbox-possibilities just so that some people can feel that they have "won" EU4 is bad for the whole game.
- 1
To be honest, playing as OPMs in 1.1x was an exercise in frustration - the diplomatic game was so terribly out of whack that as, say, Frankfurt, you were going to be DoWed in the first 10 years by Hesse - or Mainz picking up the scraps. In 1.2 I managed to keep good relations with the neighbours (apart from Mainz who rivaled me, but meh, their loss) and concentrate on diplomacy and trade. I don't know how it plays for bigger countries, yet, but it has made possible to play as cheeseless minors.
It still feels like the core disappearance should at least depend on the culture. As long as Galicia remains Galician and Brittany remains Breton, that is. Using the game-speak to refer to the real life, Cornwall and many of the Occitan minors (Toulouse, Provence...) did lose their cores as of 21st century (minimal to no national identity apart from UK/France) but Galicia or Brittany cores do seem to be still there. Not to mention those like Catalunya or Quebec, after a long time under Spanish/British rules.
And while it's cheezy, dissolving countries into minors did happen historically against the Austro-Hungarian empire (where they didn't share AH's primary culture, Austrian), while the German minors did lose their cores (Cultural union).
I don't mind culturally assimilated cores disappearing. I actually used it for my advantage (partially culture-converting Greece so the Byantium cores disappear in those provinces, and then releasing the remaining Byzantium to return cores back to them from the Ottomans...) But as long as the culture didn't change, it just feels strange that the cores vanish.
And yeah, it is unbalanced, and it's a pain to recover Iberian territory as Granada because of that very reason. (Well, in this case I know it's meant to be hard) But this cheeze was probably the only thing a player could use to smack down France because France itself is very unbalanced. Destroy their whole army, siege everything and crank up their WE to max, and they recover as if nothing happened. I don't think people will be upset about this change as long as there is a viable way to curve down some of the largest blobs in the late game.
I personally have no idea how to do this, but there should be a way to at least weaken one of your rivals enough even if the game wants to respect their territorial integrity.
.png){kind=avatar}
There's a relatively big group of people on the forum who can't tell the difference between difficulty, chance, and fun. They tend to roll them all into "difficult" or "challenging" and use them interchangeably. I haven't had a chance to touch 1.2 much yet except for early Byzantium strategizing, but it can't be any worse than dealing with that bunch.
So... not introducing tons of restrictions is going to ruin the game for people who want to play "unrealistic" and blob? I see.
And precedent is the best determinant for good gameplay?
Mind you, I think both styles should be possible in the game. It just seems suitable that if you want to do something very implausible you should work harder to achieve it in the game by thinking strategically, instead of getting a free WC with the "free" PUs.
- 1
It does. The primary nation of a specific culture will never lose a core in a province with that culture. As long as a province Brittany has a core in has Breton culture it will never lose the core. Same with Galicia, Scotland, and so on... If you spend the time/effort to change the culture then they can. Now, whether culture change is too easy is an entirely different argument to have but allowing cores to lapse in provinces of different culture makes perfect sense to me.
If I'm not mistaken, that happened at the end of WW I, well outside the EU time frame and you could easily argue those provinces were never culturally assimilated so the primary state of each culture (Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, etc.) would still have its cores.
I think that's reasonable, assuming by "work harder" you don't mean "endure tedium" or "wait longer," but "think harder."
(Note: I think the PU fixing was a good idea, having done an Austria WC using it, but the people posting derp-derp-difficulty all the time are pretty insufferable.)
Last edited:
That's different. Apart from being from way out the timeframe, having wrong-culture provinces still gives the chance of nationalist rebels putting the cores of unaccepted cultures back. If we want to bend WWI to EU4 rules, high war exhaustion drove revolt risk up, rebels popped up and put back cores when needed and they declared independence. It's a shaky comparison, but you can't expect better from having one century between the end of EU4 and WWI. One century with the Age of Nationalism in it, too.
Last edited:
Strategy? With the new patch is all about luck.
Poor roll in a battle? Have fun rebuilding for next decade. Lucky nations always getting a new heir from their own dynasty despite having a RM with you for a century? Sucks to be you. AI hating you because you are mass conquering warmonger? Hire advisor and wait for the next decade or something, it's not that AI has to worry about AE whet IT conquers stuff left and right. You rolled 0-0-0 king that was alive for nearly a century? And we should care because?
Yeah... all you need is a good strategy... it's not all about RNG, nope, not at all, absolutely not.
- 1
Really, are we saying that 1.1x was deeper? First of all, almost everything you cited was in 1.1x as well - Lucky Nations, AE, 0-0-0 kings. Moreover, the patch made the AI from a rabid dog to something you can talk to. I really, really can't see how the game became flatter and more biased against the player.
I like most of the changes, now BF is toned down in the last update I can stay relatively peaceful with friendly neighbours and not be forced to war constantly. However, I can't gauge the rest of the long-term changes as every game I have now CTDs after 50 years or so, which hasn't been patched yet.
As for your wife, surely she should be your porn, if not you are doing something wrong...
Seriously, this is really overdone now. The OE and warscore system just make your best reward for winning a war is to claim no land but something else. and hope the truce end soon so you can fight on same land again. (so you can always win).
There is no point that you needed to conquer the entire Russia to gain 4-5 provinces.
or you just take the same 4 province again and again to break Russia.
I believe that the Rikku AAR is actually point out one things. The game is over-punished in some area. (out of scale), so once you are punished, just let the punishment happen again (which actually does nothing after the initial hit) .
-5 Stability for breaking truce ? ( so, -5 again when you are at -2 <= a virtual gain of 3 stability punishment)
40% warscore for taking a province <= better not take it, just to fight on same ground again, going straight forward don't work.
Seriously the country celling should lower to 200%....
and country size 5 or below should always full annex if 100% occupied.
It makes sense that the provinces rebel after it is conquered, but it just doesn't make sense that after you kill everybody, some paradox comes out said you can only get at most 1/4 of it. then you can do it 1/4 and 1/4 again and again.
regardless of how big you start at or after.
There is no point that you needed to conquer the entire Russia to gain 4-5 provinces.
or you just take the same 4 province again and again to break Russia.
I believe that the Rikku AAR is actually point out one things. The game is over-punished in some area. (out of scale), so once you are punished, just let the punishment happen again (which actually does nothing after the initial hit) .
-5 Stability for breaking truce ? ( so, -5 again when you are at -2 <= a virtual gain of 3 stability punishment)
40% warscore for taking a province <= better not take it, just to fight on same ground again, going straight forward don't work.
Seriously the country celling should lower to 200%....
and country size 5 or below should always full annex if 100% occupied.
It makes sense that the provinces rebel after it is conquered, but it just doesn't make sense that after you kill everybody, some paradox comes out said you can only get at most 1/4 of it. then you can do it 1/4 and 1/4 again and again.
regardless of how big you start at or after.
Well said, and the kind of person who asks you those types of questions isn't worth your time.
Last edited by a moderator:
EU3 is a sandbox game, EU4 is a glorified history simulator
Play which one you like best, I know I am :rofl:
Play which one you like best, I know I am :rofl:
Let me spell it out for you.
Making expansion very slow and/or hard is fun for people who want to build high instead of wide (aka build up small nation instead of expanding), but ruins the game for those wanting to build wide instead of high.
Making expansion easier (not nerfing revo CB/holy war CB) makes it fun for expansionists, and does NOT ruin the game for people wanting to build high.
This viewpoint is for single player, obviously.