Wow, the speed with which you have addressed users' concerns is impressive. I only wish these concerns would have been expressed in a calm, diplomatic and structured way in the first place... Raging over a computer game on an Internet forum is just absurd.
Johan don't be too sad by the pitchforks here on the forum. Some of us do like the way you're thinkng making the game much more challenging to expand. This allows you discover other areas of the game and roleplay a bit more. Otherwise all games just end 1650 when you rule all of western or eastern europe. The route I found almost all of my vanilla EU4 games go just because.
Seems great!
I think the main reason so many disagree with you isn't regarding cutting down on expansion isn't because they don't want more depth and harder expansion, but because they want more depth before making expansion harder.Johan don't be too sad by the pitchforks here on the forum. Some of us do like the way you're thinkng making the game much more challenging to expand. This allows you discover other areas of the game and roleplay a bit more. Otherwise all games just end 1650 when you rule all of western or eastern europe. The route I found almost all of my vanilla EU4 games go just because. Now it's less cookie cutter ever time you replay the game. Just add more diplo and dynasty stuff in the next DLC and there will be a lot of room to build the narrative of your nation.
Yes, the attitude was there previously, but the actual relationship modifier which is now present has another (unintended?) effect
Wow, the speed with which you have addressed users' concerns is impressive. I only wish these concerns would have been expressed in a calm, diplomatic and structured way in the first place... Raging over a computer game on an Internet forum is just absurd.
I think the main reason so many disagree with you isn't regarding cutting down on expansion isn't because they don't want more depth and harder expansion, but because they want more depth before making expansion harder.
The Nerf on AE when forcing PU is still not enogh. With the new rules I would gain 240 AE instead of 481 and it would decay with 5.4 per year instead of 2.7. This means my ruler still has to live for 44 years for all AE to disappear. It is ofc possible to go over 0 to keep the union but its still far too much.
You're showing the AE from Great Britain, but isn't one of the fixes to reduce AE by distance too?
Responding in a passionate manner, no matter how questionable the presentation, is just a sign of caring. It could have been executed better, but I would rather they voiced their opinions over not saying anything at all.