Other than the high coring cost, which was also present before 1.5 I believe, I think this is a really nice version we have at the moment. Just having minor issues though, like with the launcher/steam overlay 
1.5 Fan here
- Thread starter Pugman
- 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.
Playing a game should not be about tabbing out and browsing Reddit.
Now that's "grand strategy". Is that really the best way to cool off aggressive expansion though?
I heard you can also build buildings, look at your alliances and manage your diplomats but I haven't tried such radical strategies yet. I leave that to the elite players who enjoy challenging gameplay.
You don't think there are issues with coalitions, because you can avoid them forming? Obviously you don't understand the arguments about coalitions. I think you just mean you can't see the issues about AE.
Yeah, great job. I'm still painting the map just as much as before, but the new mechanics have just encouraged me to use more cheese to avoid the "controls". Because I find that more fun than "roleplaying" in a game where I want to invade Korea as Japan and I can say "Oh, Ming is going to defend them with an army 4 times my size, what an OPPORTUNITY" (before I've even started with the cheese).
By the way, I find your choice of words in "controls on map painting" rather amusing. Not "challenge in the game that inhibits map painting" or "flavour that provides other things for map painters to focus on".
I'm not unhappy with 1.5, I'm just going to get what enjoyment I can out of it and then move on. Which is exactly why I started map painting, when I got dissillusioned with how stupidly big my empires became and got bored, I decided to play the mechanics instead of the neighbouring countries, and balance MP usage and compete with western powers while being under a Chinese tech penalty. Not what I want but I find it more of a challenge than "roleplaying" when I know I that any "difficulty" I'm experiencing is just because I sat there doing little instead of taking every opportunity.
Of course, this is just my personal play style in order to get enjoyment out of EUIV and not how others have to play, but people thinking its wrong if someone else map paints is bizarre, and feeling the need to post about it is even more bizarre, so I just wanted to let you know that I've got my paint brush all over that dam map in 1.5, despite the "controls".
I only wish there was a Report button in this forum... I am growing tired of the same trolls trying to hijack every single thread with their "vision" of Truth. Hey Phillip, just cut it off, will you? I am old enough to not get annoyed by attitudes like yours, but man are you pressing my resolve...
And NO, I will not post in "your" thread... I have a dozen arguments to make to counter yours, but I have seen the type of responses you give to absolutely everyone that dares to counter... no matter how rational some posts are, you and your court just degrade everything and everyone that disagrees with you. No thanks, enjoy "your" truth.
Now please leave the people that enjoy the game do just that, and express themselves. Thanks.
And NO, I will not post in "your" thread... I have a dozen arguments to make to counter yours, but I have seen the type of responses you give to absolutely everyone that dares to counter... no matter how rational some posts are, you and your court just degrade everything and everyone that disagrees with you. No thanks, enjoy "your" truth.
Now please leave the people that enjoy the game do just that, and express themselves. Thanks.
you know what you sound like?
"(insert political party) ONLY TELLS LIES"
"Can you give any examples?"
*says uh for 15 minutes*
"THERE'S SO MANY IT ISN'T EVEN WORTH SAYING"
aka an idiot
and you want to censor people who simply disagree with you, which is a wonderful trait
Please. Who are you trying to kid.
He starts up a new thread to "express his enjoyment of the game" as you say and drops that little passive aggressive stab in there instead of arguing in the original thread, and then when the other guy notices it and defends his position some other angry people drop in the thread and say he's hijacking it.
If his true intention was just to start a thread to discuss the joys of 1.5 he would've left that little jab out of his statement and you know, like, actually talked a little more about what is enjoyable. I mean really, "map painting" is basically like a derogatory term on this board. You know what he meant.
But isn't grand strategy not only about wars but also about diplomacy, trade, development etc.? It is IMHO therefore avoiding large coalitions against player is integral part of the game. If someone wants constant wars and conquest then please play Total War games such as Empire, Medieval 2 etc. This is not an irony. Total War series is really good for players which seeks to conquer and not involve in deeper diplomacy at all.
And yes, I can't see the issue with coalitions because there isn't such. There is however an issue with people who want to conquer too much, too easily. This is not such type of a game folks and please understand this.
Like I said, you don't understand the argument against coalitions. You're talking about the AE complaints there.
Also I don't understand how you read my post and thought I'm unhappy because the game doesn't let me conquer enough. Actually exactly the opposite.
Thanks for this post. I played a Venice game up to about 1600 on hard and the coalitions were just right to make it fun. Was surprised France didn't jump in against me despite some high AE, but the other usual suspects were there. I'd probably still be playing if I hadn't ahistorically cut Styria off of Austria, dramatically reducing the difficulty. 1.5 is the best yet.
Last edited:
kuolema then maybe it's better idea to explain to me the issue you see with coalitions instead of keep repeating that I don't understand it?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?757081-Why-Coalitions-are-Broken-1.5-and-Before
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...e-fix-a-simple-way-to-improve-them&highlight=
Not my exact thoughts. You'll notice the 2nd one actually talks about BUFFING coalitions. And yet I still see so many arguments that run like:
Person A: "I think coalition warscores make things tedious not to mention unchallenging."
Person B: "Well maybe you should go play on easy."
I saw those threads and completely don't agree with points presented. I still think that all these mournings are pointless and the problem is in people's misunderstanding what kind of a game the EU4 is. BTW you said before that I'm talking:
Then I must tell you that AE is strongly related with coalitions so I see no point why not to I include both factors in one dicussion.
Because you're not including both factors. You've only talked about being careful to avoid coalitions from forming. Ergo how coalitions function when they've formed is irrelevant. Therefore the argument goes:
Person A: I think the coalition mechanic doesn't work well (read: not what actions cause them to form, but how the experience of fighting them is).
Person B: No, there's no problem, because you shouldn't be letting them form (read: not how the experience of fighting them is, but what actions cause them to form).
This was my original point. And you've just dismissed both those threads with your only given reason being that people play too aggressively and cause coalitions to form too much.
The real problem here is that their is no established base on which to argue from. One side believes that the game is fundamentally broken and another side enjoys the game and happily continues to play it. There's no common ground. You aren't going to convince a side that enjoys the game as it is that they do not or vice versa.
Perhaps the best thing to do is approach the issue from a position of mutual understanding. It will probably cut down on the rate of squabbling at least. The alternative is every thread being filibustered with 1.5 AE comments until the next patch.
Perhaps the best thing to do is approach the issue from a position of mutual understanding. It will probably cut down on the rate of squabbling at least. The alternative is every thread being filibustered with 1.5 AE comments until the next patch.
It'd be nice to be able to do that regarding literally any mechanic, yes. It's pretty difficult to do, however, when someone expresses that a given mechanic needs improvement and why, and then most responses instead talk about that player's skill, attitude, the game overall, biased non-statistics (IE "vocal minority" assertions, which even the mods asked people not to do), difficulty, or personal experience.
However, the stated purpose of this thread is to simply praise the game...until you read the OP. Then, it becomes readily apparent that it's also being used as a pot-shot against people who have problems with 1-2 really bad mechanics, without addressing them. These posts addressing my "attitude" are kind of comical actually, as they serve yet another attempt to duck the actual points brought up and constitute a direct logical fallacy. In practice, they're a basic (and weak) attempt to attack the credibility of a person when incapable of attacking the credibility of the person's arguments.
Also, it's the OP that brought up coalitions, not me, so it's rather sad to pin them being mentioned here in this thread on me. With a few exceptions that I'm not proud of, I keep my discussion of mechanics to threads intended for them or related to them. This is such a thread however, so it's ludicrous to complain that I address a game mechanic in a thread that specifically mentions it in the OP
.Be careful what you wish for. The post I'm quoting is both completely and utterly off-topic and involves name calling and personally attacking another poster instead of their arguments. I wonder what you'd find if you perused the forum rules concerning those things?
Somewhat amusingly, it still annoys me more that you claim you have arguments and refuse to make them.
Yet another active demonstration of my first post in this thread. Read argument, say "I don't agree", then provide 0 supporting arguments as to why.
Last edited:
I'm playing Tuscany>Italy and went from 2 provinces to 48 in 200 years. Never fought a coalition, though a couple did form but even then it's was dissolving in a few years. Plenty of that territory is HRE, but no real issues with AE. I like this version, and don't have the issues some others are having.