Good job mis-characterizing people's viewpoints and opinions. WC is being used an example of an overarching problem.
1.3.x = least fun to play version of the game. Please make the game more FUN!!
- Thread starter AlricWaskir
- 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.
Good job mis-characterizing people's viewpoints and opinions. WC is being used an example of an overarching problem.
Ahh, there's that patronizing attitude I've come to loathe about this community.
Everyone confuses "challenging" with "unfair." A game can be challenging, but how it achieves it is of vital importance. There needs to be counterplay and strategy. Short term goals need to translate into medium-term goals, and those need to translate into long-term goals. I do not think this happens with EU4. The coalitions are extremely constricting. Basically, you take some land, then wait around for 15-20 years to do ANYTHING else. Let's colonize...Fun...Let's build buildings...Fun... Beyond that, there are too many alliances. In almost every game I play, all my neighbors are allied together. Is this REALLY as designed? Because, if so, what can you do? Very, very little. Oh wait...Colonize...Oh wait...Build... You get what I am saying? You can admit that the game isn't perfect, you do NOT need to defend EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of it. If everything is perfect, then why does Paradox fix 100-200 things EVERY PATCH? They realize it is not perfect and so should most of us.
Bottom line. The methods that Paradox uses to MAKE the game challenging are slightly flawed or incorrect in practice. We have all seen it. A game where ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS are allied to eachother is not fun and is not "challenging." It's just unfair and historically inaccurate. This is my biggest beef. I could talk about the combat system too. I remember ONE BATTLE that lasted 6 months. No joke...Does that make the game "challenging?" No, it's a design flaw or a glitch.
There needs to be significant changes to the coalition system and the alliance system in the game. It is simply too constricting and a hindrance. And I'm also sick of Spain inheriting ALL OF SCANDINAVIA! That is so unrealistic.
Bottom line. The methods that Paradox uses to MAKE the game challenging are slightly flawed or incorrect in practice. We have all seen it. A game where ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS are allied to eachother is not fun and is not "challenging." It's just unfair and historically inaccurate. This is my biggest beef. I could talk about the combat system too. I remember ONE BATTLE that lasted 6 months. No joke...Does that make the game "challenging?" No, it's a design flaw or a glitch.
There needs to be significant changes to the coalition system and the alliance system in the game. It is simply too constricting and a hindrance. And I'm also sick of Spain inheriting ALL OF SCANDINAVIA! That is so unrealistic.
Let me say I agree with some of this. Economy could definitely be filled out - I'd love to see trade zones become dynamic for example, diplomacy might do with a few changes to make it more indepth. And at least if your catholic and HRE you have a bit more to do than just war. But I also don't believe AE or all that are to high, world conquest shouldn't be easy or if you want to be strictly realistic, possible at all. I don't t find EU IV that boring myself, but while your waiting for AE to go down you could do with some more stuff to do.
Unlike you Yokuz I don't agree that the present systems broken. What it needs is more stuff to support it and to do while waiting, not a total revamp that'd take PI ages they could work on expanding the other parts of the game.
Last edited:
It's probably me, but I made up my mind bout EU and it's not my game. The fun other titles have come out strange unexpected turns and every game is something else. EU is just power-power-power-gold-alliances. On the rails, from A to Z, every time. IMO for this game to be more fun is it should get more surprises, and less straightforward power points racing.
I tend to agree with this as well. The alliance part to an extend I can understand though. The logic is there, but sometimes seems far fetched. Take my current Ironman session. I'm the Teutonic Order and am carefully managing my affairs as I gravitate towards the formation of Prussia surrounded by hostile neighbours. I managed to befriend Lithuania and the Emperor (Austria) early on because Brandenburg and Poland hated my guts. Poland fairly early attacked me and I saw Lithuania rush to my aid. That same war saw another enemy of me, Denmark, join on Lithuania's side while Austria eventually joined Poland. All is well that ends well and the war actually ran bad for Poland who lost it. Austria within the span of a year was my ally once again but some years later Lithuania decided to change from 'friendly' to 'hostile' I have no clue why cause I wasn't even expanding (I'm not familiar with the finer workings of the whole attitude system).
Now so far the powerplay at work seemed more or less in balance to me personally. The web of alliances by my neighbours effectively hindered any major expansion on my part though. I vassalised Mazovia and annexed Gotland by the virtue of them being isolated but other than that I'm navigating myself into a position where I can start a war with the right allies supporting me to attain victory and ultimately expansion. In the mean time I could keep myself perfectly busy with internal expansion, I'm pumping my money into buildings and have steadily increased my income so that I am now able to support an 18k stack with cannons (something most of my neighbours don't even use in their armies) and by using light ships I've become one of the main traders in the Baltic, 2nd behind Sweden.
The alliances make it tricky I'd give it that. Pommerania & Brandenburg are all allied to pesky others. Lithuania who has become suddenly amical again is also in league with the Polish still and Austria, though a faithful ally, still remains the emperor. I had a similar experience playing Brandenburg in a previous game, where after the initial expansion the whole region quickly allied up. Caught between Pommerania and the strong Bohemia I was hard pressed to not make the wrong move. The TO right now also offers that challenge. Eventually someone will start a war that creates an opening for me and then I'll have to seize the moment. Did so with Brandenburg when Bohemia finally ran itself into the ground facing Austria, which was my cue to annex Pommerania, as Bohemia who still rushed to their aid was just rendered docile by Austria.
What I do find somewhat problematic in my current session, as regarding the mechanics on the whole, is the expansion of Bohemia which seems to trigger no alarms with any of its neighbours? They've forcefully conquered most of Poland in just 2 wars, the latter being down to Krakow and nobody seems to be that agitated by them. Austria or Hungary who you'd expect to watch this neighbour grow so dangerously large seem content and not alarmed at all
From a game mechanic part this might be working 'as intended', cause as a human you have the disadvantage of just being to smart for a computer and the incredible disadvantage of long term planning. I immediately conjure the geopolitical madness the Austrians and others are getting themselves in by allowing Bohemia to grow like this, cause I'm thinking 50 years ahead, but the PC will never think that far ahead cause that is simply not implementable. They have no way of figuring out that my intentions are in line with theirs. I had no designs on Lithuania whatsoever, we could have existed as friendly neighbours for an entire game yet they turned hostile on me (while having no explicite design on any of my provinces in terms of claims and such). Instead they've now been bested by Muscovy and the Ottomans and I don't intend to ever aid them again. Why was Denmark suddenly hostile to me when I had zero designs on Scandinvia? I hope not because of my high trade power in the Baltic? Their ambitions are for the moment directed at the Baltic states. I could be a perfect ally, why antagonise me? The rivals and enemy of my enemy modifiers are a major step forward in my opinion, yet why Austria has not made Bohemia a rival/enemy yet is beyond me.
It's these things that to a human player don't make sense cause I'm always thinking a few steps ahead. Doesn't necessarily mean mechanics are majorly flawed, but more general it means this is still a game and the complexity of reality is still not to be so easily grasped.
The lack of stuff to do at Peace is a real problem and much of it is related to
1- LAck of events that depend on player choices (for example, not making stability increase a process that would be influenced by the NI choices the player made)
2- Too many events that DON´T depend on player choice (Comets is one of them, but the worse are those that force you to choose Offensive or Defensive and also lose Stab, Babbling Buffons etc etc)
Compare this to CK 2 - stats and traits have a huge impact on the kind of event you get. In EU 4 things are WAY too abstract and random, and way too often solved by clicking a button and then forget about it.
1- LAck of events that depend on player choices (for example, not making stability increase a process that would be influenced by the NI choices the player made)
2- Too many events that DON´T depend on player choice (Comets is one of them, but the worse are those that force you to choose Offensive or Defensive and also lose Stab, Babbling Buffons etc etc)
Compare this to CK 2 - stats and traits have a huge impact on the kind of event you get. In EU 4 things are WAY too abstract and random, and way too often solved by clicking a button and then forget about it.
It is but it would require a whole lot of new content, rebalancing, etc etc stuff stuff etc etc; In essence an enormous amount of work, adding stuff, tweaking stuff, balancing stuff, etc. Not to sound rude but to be blunt, people complaining should just go play CK2 -and if you read the forums apparently they do , cause isn't that the whole difference between the 2 games? Afaik the internal management has never been the strongpoint of EU games, not compared to CK2. Such content at least sounds like at least food for a serious expansion. All in all it as of yet hasn't really bothered me cause a) in SP I just turn the speed up and in b) MP I'm playing with friends continuously making fun over skype.
, cause isn't that the whole difference between the 2 games? Afaik the internal management has never been the strongpoint of EU games, not compared to CK2. Such content at least sounds like at least food for a serious expansion. All in all it as of yet hasn't really bothered me cause a) in SP I just turn the speed up and in b) MP I'm playing with friends continuously making fun over skype.
I will admit I'm not the best player in EU4 still... but the way that I experience the game just doesn't feel fun at all.
To be honest, the game is bloody boring to play, if you don't fight wars (i.e. blobbing). AND, when you fight wars enough, you get AE, and you get the ridiculous coalition wars...
Diplomacy is still weird and doesn't work terribly well at all...
Trade is worse than EU3...
User interface needs betterment badly... (something is needed for AE points management, it's called the diplomacy tab after all, also trade goods mapmode would be very much needed feature, because the quick build feature B/V is already good feature, but it requires synergy with the mapmodes for enjoyable gameplay.)
It's not like a terrible game, but I don't really have so much fun in this game, it feels like a chore playing this game (honestly I liked EU3 DW better). I had my doubts, and waited over the release of this game, but now that I also bought civ5 expansion also, I suspect I will be playing that game more for now atleast.
To be honest, the game is bloody boring to play, if you don't fight wars (i.e. blobbing). AND, when you fight wars enough, you get AE, and you get the ridiculous coalition wars...
Diplomacy is still weird and doesn't work terribly well at all...
Trade is worse than EU3...
User interface needs betterment badly... (something is needed for AE points management, it's called the diplomacy tab after all, also trade goods mapmode would be very much needed feature, because the quick build feature B/V is already good feature, but it requires synergy with the mapmodes for enjoyable gameplay.)
It's not like a terrible game, but I don't really have so much fun in this game, it feels like a chore playing this game (honestly I liked EU3 DW better). I had my doubts, and waited over the release of this game, but now that I also bought civ5 expansion also, I suspect I will be playing that game more for now atleast.
Why do you blob? I never blob. I can imagine that if your goal is to blob you'll find the game distasteful as it is meant to prevent exactly that?
Is there any reason why blobbing is bad? I believed that this game (or paradox games in general) are about doing what player wants to do without artificial restrictions.
Correct. Its like they removed the EU3 out of EU, and EU4 is a whole different game. Not bad in itself only EU3 is way more fun.
It is but it would require a whole lot of new content, rebalancing, etc etc stuff stuff etc etc; In essence an enormous amount of work, adding stuff, tweaking stuff, balancing stuff, etc. Not to sound rude but to be blunt, people complaining should just go play CK2 -and if you read the forums apparently they do
Internal management should be in here - and more than in CK2 - because THIS was the age of the birth of the Nation-State, the centralization of power, the waxing of monarch absolutism and its waning; of the Scientific Revolution, of the rise of the bourgeoisie and the slow decline of aristocracy. Without these, EU4 is like CK2 without religion.
No no no and again no. The PU mechanics work perfectly. It's not really hard at all to get a PU. All you've got to do is claim some thrones and hope for the best. Most importantly it's just outright dumb with the old Claim throne --> invade, mechanics. They made it way too easy to get a PU and the AI didn't exploit it.
Speaking of the AI, they have to do the exact same thing as the player to get a PU. The exception to this might be on hard difficulty but then it's just doning what it was designed for.
Last edited:
Awful lot unregistered game posters on this thread. That's bit saddening. Register your games it's easy . Unless you're some kind of nautical nonsense.
. Unless you're some kind of nautical nonsense.
No, not 'bad'. A choice, silly to me, fun to you - subjective. However if you want to blob, and most complaints are generally 'I can't blob/mechanics are anti-blob/etc etc' this game has artificial restrictions. I'd advise anyone to have read at least all the Dev Diaries (cause I have) which kind of explains the vision of PI, for the life of me, I can't remember them ever saying 'it's to blob without artificial restrictions'...
No it shouldn't cause it is a game and the choices are those of PI, not what we want -though it doesn't hurt to ask, and internal management afaik has never been a strongpoint of the EU series. I agree that it would be massively interesting, enhancing and fun. But should because THIS was the the age of the birth of the nation-state - which is wrong btw, that is the 19th century. It would certainly be nice to have it, but ultimately it is the developers choice, something as complex as what we're talking about isn't just some minor patch issue, it is almost a rework of most of the game not to say the entire game.
Last edited:
"hope for the best." is about the worst strategy that can exist in a strategy game. There is a middle ground between random chance of utter failure or complete victory and the ability to claim all of europe at once. The simplest solution I've come up with is to make it so you can only claim a throne by force if you do not have a PU or a restoration of PU CB. You can make it even more rare than that, but that seems like a comfortable first step.
Once you understand and have mastered all the systems of the game, what exactly is there to do except expand?
I know you don't have an answer, because expansion is the only consistent goal in the game, regardless of whether you start small and attempt to survive (which almost always requires growth) or start large. Trade is shallow, colonization is just another form of expansion, diplomacy is meaningless unless it is used for expansion or to prevent enemy expansion. If you're not expanding, then all you're doing is watching the clock tick down and playing choose your own adventure with random events, which is certainly not the reason any of us play grand strategy games.
If you're not expanding, you're not actually playing the game, and if you're not playing the game, what in the hell did we buy it for? When you can point out a strategic challenge in the game that doesn't revolve around expansion, maybe we can talk about how blobbing isn't supposed to be how the game is played, but for now, expansion and border growth is the only way to make the game challenging, and the current systems transform it from a challenge into either a spreadsheet management game of AE values or a rotating coalition slog, with event roulette bolted on the side.
This. The concept of "challenge" seems to be completely lost on modern game developers and modern gamers. A challenging game forces the player to use his brain in order to come up with the best solution for whatever problem he has. Want to conquer Italy? Fine, deal with the superior armies of the League of Venice first. Oh, you managed to beat them? Enjoy your new blob (and your new rebels!
). What we have instead is "fight a friggin World War and then take one, TWO provinces max, then wait 15 years or else Ottomans and Ming will hide under your bed and murder you".If you enjoy dealing with illogical and unfair constraints then I have some news for you: you are NOT a "hardcore gamer", you are just a masochistic kid. And when you call others "Sissy WC whiners" you make that abundantly clear.
Every idea group you take brings a set of events with it, and quite a few events have their MttH affected by your choice of ideas.