1508 Australian Liberation Army, aka AAA

[L'Afrique]

If you want a history sim you are playing the wrong game bc EU4 devs have again and again said that no, this is a resource management map painter.

It's particularly hilarious to be complaining about the history sim aspect and australian numbers while the initial player complaining is doing ryukyu shenanigans.

e: also it's worth noting that every time this comes up, people insist that they are also upset about ahistorical euro stuff like France and Prussia being ludicrously powerful merely by existing, but no one ever, ever posts rage threads about that, it is always colonized peoples being even playable that get the rage threads. The pickelhaube'd bismarckian prussian space marines goosestepping across France and Poland with infinite discipline in 1550 will 110% guaranteed return in EU5 and not a thread will be posted calling them specifically out.

 

[ruianp2]

If you want a history sim you are playing the wrong game bc EU4 devs have again and again said that no, this is a resource management map painter.

It's particularly hilarious to be complaining about the history sim aspect and australian numbers while the initial player complaining is doing ryukyu shenanigans.

e: also it's worth noting that every time this comes up, people insist that they are also upset about ahistorical euro stuff like France and Prussia being ludicrously powerful merely by existing, but no one ever, ever posts rage threads about that, it is always colonized peoples being even playable that get the rage threads. The pickelhaube'd bismarckian prussian space marines goosestepping across France and Poland with infinite discipline in 1550 will 110% guaranteed return in EU5 and not a thread will be posted calling them specifically out.

Oh i didn’t realize this was a rage thread. Sorry if this bothered your peaceful mind then lol.

 

[Ivashanko]

If you want a history sim you are playing the wrong game bc EU4 devs have again and again said that no, this is a resource management map painter.

It's particularly hilarious to be complaining about the history sim aspect and australian numbers while the initial player complaining is doing ryukyu shenanigans.

e: also it's worth noting that every time this comes up, people insist that they are also upset about ahistorical euro stuff like France and Prussia being ludicrously powerful merely by existing, but no one ever, ever posts rage threads about that, it is always colonized peoples being even playable that get the rage threads. The pickelhaube'd bismarckian prussian space marines goosestepping across France and Poland with infinite discipline in 1550 will 110% guaranteed return in EU5 and not a thread will be posted calling them specifically out.

People raged about this all the time back before the game was announced. Well, not specifically about Prussia and France, but about tag-specific national ideas in general and how they make certain nations arbitrarily better than others. Britain's constant overwhelming navy in particular drew a lot of fire.

The devs made it clear that they were not going to change NIs, and over the years most people have either accepted them or have modded their games like I have.

The changes to indigenous groups were made, from what I can gather, fairly recently, and is probably why so many people are raging about it.

 

[ArtFart]

I have fun in it. Whether I should play the game is my business, mind your own.

Then why have you made this thread slating it?? I didn't say you shouldn't play it either, I said that the game you describe ("history simulation game") is not EU4.

 

[ruianp2]

Then why have you made this thread slating it?? I didn't say you shouldn't play it either, I said that the game you describe ("history simulation game") is not EU4.

slate, what a grave word. What did I say that would qualify as “criticize or censure severely”?
I’m happy for you if you like the game religiously. I would like to reserve the right to criticize please.

 

[L'Afrique]

People raged about this all the time back before the game was announced. Well, not specifically about Prussia and France, but about tag-specific national ideas in general and how they make certain nations arbitrarily better than others. Britain's constant overwhelming navy in particular drew a lot of fire.

The devs made it clear that they were not going to change NIs, and over the years most people have either accepted them or have modded their games like I have.

The changes to indigenous groups were made, from what I can gather, fairly recently, and is probably why so many people are raging about it.

That's the thing, at the beginning people complained about NIs as a concept but not specific tags. Now, even among the ones who accept the Prussia power fantasy and love national ideas, other tags are ahistorical nonsense!! No one must ever be allowed to hae a power fantasy as the iwi of Ngapuhi it must be an acceptable tag!!

It's the same stuff that happened a decade ago when CK2 sunset invasion landed and we got the evergreen "PARADOX HAS RUINED MY ABILITY TO FEEL HUMAN" rant

 

[Ivashanko]

That's the thing, at the beginning people complained about NIs as a concept but not specific tags. Now, even among the ones who accept the Prussia power fantasy and love national ideas, other tags are ahistorical nonsense!! No one must ever be allowed to hae a power fantasy as the iwi of Ngapuhi it must be an acceptable tag!!

It's the same stuff that happened a decade ago when CK2 sunset invasion landed and we got the evergreen "PARADOX HAS RUINED MY ABILITY TO FEEL HUMAN" rant

People complained a lot about England and Britains specifically. I don't think people cared so much about Prussia because it's a late-game tag.

And you saw a whole lot of threads bashing the BBB and Blobhemia back when they were world beaters, and plenty of threads arguing the Ottomans are OP today. And I'm not sure we can compare anything to Sunset Invasion, which was a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

[cotne22]

Yeah guys, stop complaining, this isn't history game. If you don't like it go play a GSG game that is set in the same time period and is more historically accurate. Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for the upcoming Alien Invasion DLC. It will actually add a challenging opponent in the late game and make this game significantly better!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah guys, stop complaining, this isn't history game. If you don't like it go play a GSG game that is set in the same time period and is more historically accurate. Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for the upcoming Alien Invasion DLC. It will actually add a challenging opponent in the late game and make this game significantly better!

History game and history simulator are different things.

 

[cotne22]

History game and history simulator are different things.

Thank you for correcting me, I did indeed mean the fabled history simulator game, the sequel to Goat simulator. It is quite like EU4, but every in-game day takes a real life day to progress and you can only attack and take enemy territory exactly on the date it happened in real life. You can't have any deviation, becausd that might be interpreted as some to be "alternate history", which would totally break immersion.

 

[ArtFart]

slate, what a grave word. What did I say that would qualify as “criticize or censure severely”?
I’m happy for you if you like the game religiously. I would like to reserve the right to criticize please.

What is up with you man? You're assuming me way to much. I don't like the game religiously, just look at my post history criticizing the poor and terrible 1.31 launch.
I used Slate as a synonym to criticize. Not for it's literal and dictionary definition, that you assume again.

And you have been criticizing the apparent poor simulation that this game offers. My original argument stands that you assume the game is something that it is not. It's a game, not a simulator.

I will no longer be commenting any further, I don't want to waste my time.

 

[ruianp2]

What is up with you man? You're assuming me way to much. I don't like the game religiously, just look at my post history criticizing the poor and terrible 1.31 launch.
I used Slate as a synonym to criticize. Not for it's literal and dictionary definition, that you assume again.

And you have been criticizing the apparent poor simulation that this game offers. My original argument stands that you assume the game is something that it is not. It's a game, not a simulator.

I will no longer be commenting any further, I don't want to waste my time.

Feel free to not comment. I said i have fun in the game, and you asked me is that why I am “slating” it. Is your logic not “if you like the game you should not criticize it”? If you have criticism as well, maybe you should ask yourself that question.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I hadn't seen "slating" used in this context, and now that I have it makes me want to use it more . Perhaps not what I would expect to learn in a thread that mischaracterizes Australian native advantages/drawbacks, but still amusing.

 

[TheSpiderKing]

Not that it's historical for pre-European Australia, but 80k+ troop counts are more than appropriate for the time period, and not just at the tail end of it: the Long Turkish War featured an Ottoman army of around 170,000 against an Austrian coalition (i.e. Austrian territories) of around 250,000 in the 1590s.

 

[Domina Arberiae]

View attachment 730601
View attachment 730602
By the way, during the Jingnan campaign, for the Ming throne, the winner Zhu Di had about 40k army when he started the rebel. He would be pretty terrified to know the mysterious power of Australian natives could raise twice as many troops as he can.

It's a game so I doesn't have to be accurate, like for example, Albania has about 5000 units at the start of the game while they had 15000 during one of the wars Skanderbeg fought against the Ottomans, so like I said at the start, accuracy doesn't matter much in games

 

[Pickman89]

People raged about this all the time back before the game was announced. Well, not specifically about Prussia and France, but about tag-specific national ideas in general and how they make certain nations arbitrarily better than others. Britain's constant overwhelming navy in particular drew a lot of fire.

The devs made it clear that they were not going to change NIs, and over the years most people have either accepted them or have modded their games like I have.

The changes to indigenous groups were made, from what I can gather, fairly recently, and is probably why so many people are raging about it.

It is even worse. People rage because their expectation are disattended. If you removed the free bonuses to GB's navy you would have people rage now (despite the fact that GB for much of its history had a rather puny navy and even now it has a rather small one, look it up).

P.s.: okay, rage is too strong a word but they still feel cognitive dissonance and they express it here. If they would not feel it they would not express it here because there would be nothing to express, it is quite obvious.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is even worse. People rage because their expectation are disattended. If you removed the free bonuses to GB's navy you would have people rage now

Depends what you replace those bonuses with. Making investment into navy give a stronger navy over time (and making the AI do that) can duplicate the effects of a historical GB without also giving massive naval bonuses to a rump state or landlocked country.

Similarly, in a game with causal consistency we should not expect 1750 Kongo, having culture drifted to English forming GB, to attain all of the "historic" missions and "national ideas" and be functionally identical to real history's England --> GB. TAG based features/limitations like this are, in some contexts, at least as implausible as Australian natives in large numbers due to a junk building.

The same territory, government, culture(s), idea group investment, year, enemies, etc can have drastically different capabilities based on TAG alone, and that's complete fantasy. Many, many mechanics core to EU 4 are complete fantasy. Most of these at least give a nod to something in history, and that's about as far as the "historical" part of said mechanics goes.

It is in this context that we find yet another thread about how strong natives are, specifically. As if the implausibility even cracks the top 10-20 things that are implausible in EU 4.