1.3.x = least fun to play version of the game. Please make the game more FUN!!

[gaius valerius]

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.

Rather presumptuous cause in fact I do have an answer.

To use France as an example my playstyle is set within a historical frame. My goals by 1820 are the Netherlands, the left bank of the Rhine, parts of Italy (Milan or the Anjouan heritage), a colonisation effort in N-America (preferably Canada and parts of the 13 colonies), islands in the Caribbean, a strong position in India and Indonesia and in between strongpoints along the other coasts in Africa, Asia, etc but never large swaps of land.

If I'm Castile my goal by 1820 is form Spain, strive towards the recreation of the empire of Charles V or Philip II, have strongpoints in northern Africa (Presidios as they are known in history), beat the Ottomans at sea with a gigantic galleyfleet, colonise Middle and Southern America, Brazil if I can beat Portugal to it, establish myself in India, Indonesia and the Philippines.

If I'm Japan (or a Daimyo) my goal by 1820 is to unite the islands, colonise towards SE Asia, conquer Korea, Manchuria and parts of coastal China and SE Asia.

If I'm the Ottomans my goal by 1820 is the Balkan, Egypt, N-Africa through alliances, the Arabian peninsula, the Caucasian and Mesopotamia, I'll challenge everyone in the Mediterannean with a massive galley fleet, keep Russia, Austria and my Persian neighbours in check, strive for naval dominance in the Indian Ocean as well. Shit and Malta, I want Malta.

If I'm Venice. I don't play Venice cause I can't set a goal hahaha They've already achieved what I'd want to do with them by 1444

I specifically preserve my foes like England and I'll allow them to colonise parts of the world if only to add to the challenge and to be able to wage global wars in Europe and the colonies.

I can go on and on. I'm enjoying it enormously so far. I'm playing the game as I'm not expanding for I'm planning my next move, colonising, replenishing my revenue, building, cementing alliances, preparing fleets and armies, etc. I sort of roleplay a historical setting you might say, but I don't recreate history to the date to the very province cause that would be silly. That's what I bought it for.

Not WC.

 

[Mann42]

Rather presumptuous cause in fact I do have an answer.

To use France as an example my playstyle is set within a historical frame. My goals by 1820 are the Netherlands, the left bank of the Rhine, parts of Italy (Milan or the Anjouan heritage), a colonisation effort in N-America (preferably Canada and parts of the 13 colonies), islands in the Caribbean, a strong position in India and Indonesia and in between strongpoints along the other coasts in Africa, Asia, etc but never large swaps of land.

If I'm Castile my goal by 1820 is form Spain, strive towards the recreation of the empire of Charles V or Philip II, have strongpoints in northern Africa (Presidios as they are known in history), beat the Ottomans at sea with a gigantic galleyfleet, colonise Middle and Southern America, Brazil if I can beat Portugal to it, establish myself in India, Indonesia and the Philippines.

If I'm Japan (or a Daimyo) my goal by 1820 is to unite the islands, colonise towards SE Asia, conquer Korea, Manchuria and parts of coastal China and SE Asia.

If I'm the Ottomans my goal by 1820 is the Balkan, Egypt, N-Africa through alliances, the Arabian peninsula, the Caucasian and Mesopotamia, I'll challenge everyone in the Mediterannean with a massive galley fleet, keep Russia, Austria and my Persian neighbours in check, strive for naval dominance in the Indian Ocean as well. Shit and Malta, I want Malta.

If I'm Venice. I don't play Venice cause I can't set a goal hahaha They've already achieved what I'd want to do with them by 1444

I can go on and on. I'm enjoying it enormously so far. I'm playing the game as I'm not expanding for I'm planning my next move. I sort of roleplay a historical setting you might say, but I don't recreate history to the date to the very province cause that would be silly. That's what I bought it for.

Not WC.

I specifically preserve my foes like England and I'll allow them to colonise parts of the world if only to add to the challenge and to be able to wage global wars in Europe and the colonies.

So, all your examples of non-expansion playstyles involve expansion, and over goals that you can easily accomplish within 150 years if you know how to play the game?

Do you just run down the clock or is this your first grand strategy game?

I didn't say "World Conquest", I responded to your statement that you don't 'blob'. Technically, by the forum definition, all of your examples are a blob, because they represent large scale territory ownership that are ahistorical.

So if your 'answer' as to what you do other than blob is to explain that you do blob, but you intentionally limit the amount which you blob to a personal goal as opposed to the time constraints of the game (or are simply not familiar enough with the game systems to accomplish your goals before the 1820 endpoint), then I'm just going to have to disagree with your entire conceit that I should have to stop expanding after 100 years and create house rules on limiting expansion, or endure ill-conceived and arbitrary tedium inflicted by the developer, when it is the primary goal and gameplay system of the game.

 

[unmerged(798670)]

stuff

All of those goals were possible in 1.1, including keeping rivals powerful.

 

[gaius valerius]

So, all your examples of non-expansion playstyles involve expansion, and over goals that you can easily accomplish within 150 years if you know how to play the game?

Do you just run down the clock or is this your first grand strategy game?

I didn't say "World Conquest", I responded to your statement that you don't 'blob'. Technically, by the forum definition, all of your examples are a blob, because they represent large scale territory ownership that are ahistorical.

So if your 'answer' as to what you do other than blob is to explain that you do blob, but you intentionally limit the amount which you blob to a personal goal as opposed to the time constraints of the game (or are simply not familiar enough with the game systems to accomplish your goals before the 1820 endpoint), then I'm just going to have to disagree with your entire conceit that I should have to stop expanding after 100 years and create house rules on limiting expansion, or endure ill-conceived and arbitrary tedium inflicted by the developer, when it is the primary goal and gameplay system of the game.

I think it's rather obvious I limit myself through houserules... You think I'm seriously the only one who does that? I am not saying you should play like that, I've multiple times stated 'this is how I play so it's very fine if you disagree with self-imposed limitations or a sense of historical roleplaying and just want to conquer the world as Ryuku'. Did I ever say you're a fool to attempt that? Nope; So your arrogance aside I don't really see the point. A lot of people were complaining that the game hinders you to expand really fast (gamey tactics excluded) with AE, coalitions - and in some instance AE is indeed imbalanced but 1.4 at least should adress that - but these limitations were intended by PI.

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

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'...

AE, and coalitions shouldn't be the restrictions for me to go to war. Money, manpower, points to core, and their allies should be what stops me for blobbing. Not "Well look at that. Took 2 provinces now have 5 countries in a coalition against me. I guess Ill just wait and send my dipo to kiss their ass."

If PI doesn't want me to blob then give me something else to do.

 

[WeissRaben]

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.

...indeed. I don't know why I wrote "NATION-state" - indeed, I meant "modern state", which implied all that followed. And of course, that "should" is a conditional for a good reason: it still falls on PI's shoulders to decide for or against it. This decision, though, doesn't change the fact that these factors were what made the era: centralization, then absolutism, then despotism - enlightened or otherwise - all the way to the liberal revolutions of the late 18th century up to the 19th. Can they cut it out of the game? Of course. Does it make sense, in the context of the period represented, to exclude it? Not really.

 

[gaius valerius]

AE, and coalitions shouldn't be the restrictions for me to go to war. Money, manpower, points to core, and their allies should be what stops me for blobbing. Not "Well look at that. Took 2 provinces now have 5 countries in a coalition against me. I guess Ill just wait and send my dipo to kiss their ass."

If PI doesn't want me to blob then give me something else to do.

Exactly

...indeed. I don't know why I wrote "NATION-state" - indeed, I meant "modern state", which implied all that followed. And of course, that "should" is a conditional for a good reason: it still falls on PI's shoulders to decide for or against it. This decision, though, doesn't change the fact that these factors were what made the era: centralization, then absolutism, then despotism - enlightened or otherwise - all the way to the liberal revolutions of the late 18th century up to the 19th. Can they cut it out of the game? Of course. Does it make sense, in the context of the period represented, to exclude it? Not really.

If we could have the game we wanted but instead we have to do with the game we've got, perhaps I'm to accepting haha. I wonder what became of those modders who were going to make a new game based on the EU3 engine... those Dev Diaries sure looked promising. Did that die a silent death?

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

Exactly

Looks like we agree. I tip my hat to you good sir!


Good day!

 

[WeissRaben]

Exactly



If we could have the game we wanted but instead we have to do with the game we've got, perhaps I'm to accepting haha. I wonder what became of those modders who were going to make a new game based on the EU3 engine... those Dev Diaries sure looked promising. Did that die a silent death?

Not exactly silent.

The name "Magna Mundi" is now taboo, and threads talking of it are to be burnt and salted liberally.

 

[gaius valerius]

Not exactly silent.

The name "Magna Mundi" is now taboo, and threads talking of it are to be burnt and salted liberally.

Damn I've missed out on something entirely

 

[unmerged(463193)]

Exactly



If we could have the game we wanted but instead we have to do with the game we've got, perhaps I'm to accepting haha. I wonder what became of those modders who were going to make a new game based on the EU3 engine... those Dev Diaries sure looked promising. Did that die a silent death?

yup. magna mundi is dead.

 

[PrinceCola]

The point of the game is to make it challenging for the entire duration. No matter how big you get you still can't just slap everyone across the face all the time without it ending up costing more than you bargained for, either in terms of losing wars or having to fight massive wars for little to no gain.

About PU's etc, it is much like everything else in the game. It depends on luck but you can influence it, it is more about finding opportinuties and seizing them. Personally I'm having tons of fun and every game I play is different. Sometimes I achieve my overall goals and sometimes I don't. No matter how big I get I always have to be mindful of not upsetting too many people and maintaining my alliances. I love it. Rather than being a paintbrush that paints the whole map my color I actually feel like I am someone ruling a nation.

Not everyone likes a challenge tho. I want to play EU4 but i do not enjoy challenge at all. I just like playing

 

[Beagá]

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.

Not denying they exist, just that they aren´t enough, or often are random BS, like Babbling Buffons.

Babling Buffons should happen with EVERY nation, and then modifed according to NI (so Diplomacy would give less chance of the event, while Religious NI would mean a much higher chance of a special kind of event that would affect relations with heretics and heathens). Etc etc

My main issue really is with the way Stability, and by extension Religion impact on Stability, is handled. It´s a complete waste of gameplay mechanic. The extremely simplistic social and population model comes next.

For example, the main reason to stay 100% catholic should be avoiding the instability the Reform brings and its potential for civil war, not "Trololol me cardinals are genius and research chemistry in the church, -1% research cost". "Oh but there is the malus for Religious Unity" - sure, but it´s FAR from being good enough/well implemented.

 

[Anthropoid]

AE, and coalitions shouldn't be the restrictions for me to go to war. Money, manpower, points to core, and their allies should be what stops me for blobbing. Not "Well look at that. Took 2 provinces now have 5 countries in a coalition against me. I guess Ill just wait and send my dipo to kiss their ass."

I disagree with this part, though I do believe there is room for coalitions, AE, etc. to be adjusted.

It is unrealistic and unsatisfying that a player can behave like a conquering madman and NOT provoke a solidary response on the part of the entities being represented as the "AI nations" in the game. These are after all supposed to be _other sovereigns_. They will be aware of the players actions, communicating amongst themselves and acting in their self-interest. History shows that these basic dimensions of human nature, nah ANIMAL nature, lead to retaliatory and protective social groups that are more-or-less represented as coalitions.

IMO, coalitions (or something along those lines) must stay in the game, else it will become just like every other dull, hum drum "grand strategy" game: an exercise in calculating the ratios of attack/defense strength and then acting accordingly resulting in the experience of "paint spill simulator on an Earth map."

The math or some basic dynamics might need adjusting. But taking the risk of coalitions away as a "restriction" on warmongering would be an absolutely terrible move by PI.

If PI doesn't want me to blob then give me something else to do.

I agree. More to do during the lulls to let the AE drop back down would be fantastic.

Not only that, but adjusting how AE works so that it doesn't feel quite so much like a "kitchen timer" would be good.

 

[LiberiusX]

stuff

Very well put and I agree totally. Paint the map my color and/or WC interests me not one bit. My current historical France game is one of the most fun I've ever had.

@Mann42: There is an alternative to expansion known as survival. Start as any country and finish the game with the ownership same provinces. Survival breathes new life into the diplomacy game as diplomacy is used to ride the tide of shifting alliances, not to expand, but to ensure you are on the right side of a war before it starts.

In partial reply to Gaius Valerius, survival is hella fun as one of the Italian states, including Venice.

 

[gaius valerius]

In partial reply to Gaius Valerius, survival is hella fun as one of the Italian states, including Venice.

Might try that out

 

[WeissRaben]

Very well put and I agree totally. Paint the map my color and/or WC interests me not one bit. My current historical France game is one of the most fun I've ever had.

@Mann42: There is an alternative to expansion known as survival. Start as any country and finish the game with the ownership same provinces. Survival breathes new life into the diplomacy game as diplomacy is used to ride the tide of shifting alliances, not to expand, but to ensure you are on the right side of a war before it starts.

In partial reply to Gaius Valerius, survival is hella fun as one of the Italian states, including Venice.

Did that. It's EVEN more boring, because if you aren't threatened directly you aren't doing anything. I really, REALLY would like to play survival - if only there was anything to do after stabilizing the diplomatic situation. Get an alliance in shape, one RM or two, and you are ready to fast forward to 80 years later. Then shift one alliance, give transit rights, 75 years more.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I liked the game most before 1.2. I didn't use PU exploits or anything, I've never tried to conquer the world. I suppose I liked the mobility that those early patches allowed, nowadays you can't go to the toilet without half the planet declaring war on you. Every time something starts to get fun it's nerfed immediately.

I want to like EU4 but there's too many annoyances and design choices that suck out the fun for me. I'm not the masochist type of a player who loves watching the paint dry as an OPM and then come bragging in the forums how badass hardcore fan I am. I'm glad that at least CK2 is heading in the right direction. Good challenge without being repressively punishing. You can be a small realm and still have a lot of fun. The tide turns by the hour and the game world feels more alive.

I'm sorry if I offend the feelings of some folks here but that's how I feel about this game. It's just not fun anymore.

Part of me wants to play good ol' EU2 with MyMap-AGCEEP rather than EU4. That was the best EU experience I've ever had.

 

[Mann42]

Very well put and I agree totally. Paint the map my color and/or WC interests me not one bit. My current historical France game is one of the most fun I've ever had.

@Mann42: There is an alternative to expansion known as survival. Start as any country and finish the game with the ownership same provinces. Survival breathes new life into the diplomacy game as diplomacy is used to ride the tide of shifting alliances, not to expand, but to ensure you are on the right side of a war before it starts.

In partial reply to Gaius Valerius, survival is hella fun as one of the Italian states, including Venice.

Survival is way easier than expansion, especially with the current diplomacy system.

Hell, in most cases, you can't get wiped out even if you try.

 

[unmerged(798670)]

It is unrealistic and unsatisfying that a player can behave like a conquering madman and NOT provoke a solidary response on the part of the entities being represented as the "AI nations" in the game.

A strong defensive alliance to stop you is perfectly reasonable, a magic power to protect them from losing land to you because they are in that alliance is not reasonable.

I don't care if you triple the military power of a coalition member because of how scared they are you expanded, I care that you have no chance of losing, and even after you beat them completely you still do not win.