And now, not a single available province in coastal America...

[Mister X]

It's less about radically ahistorical results, and more about how they occur in-game. This can be attributed to, well, the required mechanics being ungodly complicated to do. You'd need a pop system, shifting trade routes and nodes that still use natural paths (let's say that something very unfortunate happens to Venice, and it basically is reduced to a fishing village in a putrid swamp. It definitely isn't a trade node anymore as a result). Far more dynamic countries too. It can't be "tribe x reforms into an empire and single handedly commits sunset invasion by raising their peepeepoopoo meter to 100 by pressing a magic button"

History is very fickle, but for a reason - and this reason is very hard to show properly, resulting in many things feeling like ass-pulls. A single major plague could happen and basically nip European domination right in the bud. A string of particularly competent rulers might result in the Aztecs getting horses very early on without being annexed, increasing their agricultural output immensely, centralizing and basically being able to stand up to the Europeans quickly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It can't be "tribe x reforms into an empire and single handedly commits sunset invasion by raising their peepeepoopoo meter to 100 by pressing a magic button"

Sure, everything is forced into some degree of abstraction.

However, I hold the game mostly handles the power differential fine (natives are much, much weaker in EU 4). We're not seeing AI sunset invasions. Instead we see junk like England allying Iroquois and never attacking them/taking advantage of the 150+ year advantage of disparity.

History is very fickle, but for a reason - and this reason is very hard to show properly, resulting in many things feeling like ass-pulls. A single major plague could happen and basically nip European domination right in the bud. A string of particularly competent rulers might result in the Aztecs getting horses very early on without being annexed

Aztec survival would have been harder than Incan. Aztec would have had to abandon the sacrifice stuff and their leadership would have had to prevent their subjects from hating them. Not impossible from 1444, but improbable. Still, the Spanish relied extensively on support from the locals, which wasn't a given in alternate history.

Spain was lucky to conquer Inca. Inca was devastated by both disease and civil war. Anything upsetting the Spanish timing likely makes it impossible. Similarly, were it not for their capture of Incan leader/screw job events were likely to have gone differently too. Conquest of Inca was one of those historically improbable things that happened, yet tends to get treated the same as NA tribes in terms of plausibility of success. Put Spain in some significant war that delays an attack 30 years and history completely changes in SA.

Anyway, the new world is weaker by design, and I don't see any basis to support that they need to be weaker still. There are some old world starts that are harder (Ethiopian subject Damot, Mzab, etc), but even those are way ahead of the natives in monarch points/strength progression if the player gets out of the opening alive. For years of EU 4 patch cycles, NA/SA have been awful to play because there was limited if any player agency (outside of using tricks that were later arbitrarily defined as "exploits" to play the game). The better you were, the more you waited. The new world doesn't need that.

Similarly, we don't need to see Europeans conquer western hemisphere frequently any more than we need Mughals owning 80% of India in most games. That's not what EU 4 is. I've heard earlier entries in the series were railroaded like that, but EU 4 has never been that game.

 

[Cymsdale]

Laying the groundwork for the next DLC: Sunset Invasion: EU4 Edition.

 

[Vohen]

That doesn't change anything I've said in our discussion.



No. That's a moved goalpost.

The principal argument/point contested is that the state of natives specifically is a problem because the AI doesn't conquer them. That point has been refuted. Nobody here has disagreed that the AI is an issue.



This is what I refuted. There has yet to be any demonstration that colonization doesn't work. Talking about the AI is evidence the AI doesn't work, not that there is something wrong with the colonization mechanic.

According to the quoted rationale, all of the following are broken mechanics, and it is a fraction of total examples:

• Inti
• Nahuatl
• Mayan
• Council of Trent
• All subject interactions with diplomacy without exception
• Idea group selection
• HRE
• Revolution
• All unique unit types (banners, streltsy etc)
• Mission trees
• Converting provinces
• Fog of war
• Scorched earth
• Attrition
• Estates
• Stability

You might agree some of those are broken, but I'd wager you probably don't agree that all of them are broken to the same extent natives are broken, which demonstrates an inconsistency in the rationale presented as a basis for claiming colonization is broken in 1.31.



OP's post is explicitly against (misrepresented) native mechanics/strengths, so no. It's an argument against mechanical design at its core.



The self-contradiction is noted (you can't simultaneously have no room to colonize and claim the AI doesn't colonize).

Still, find where I said that and I'll take this seriously. Otherwise you might as well claim the player has a de facto monopoly on everything in EU 4.

The point is the AI can't colonize North America, that's it.
That's a problem both with colonization and the AI.
You saying the AI in general is broken is unhelpful at best, since they could colonize before, but can't now, it's something they specifically broke in the new patch.
Somehow you're missing how the AI is the crux of the matter, and are instead taking it as only a call against natives.
If they manage to fix colonization for the AI while keeping the new native mechanics, by all means, great, but if they can't and we're left with an AI in a worse state than in 1.30, then that's a clear downgrade, and throws the whole colonial game out the window, since the player will only compete against natives.

That's not even to mention how the whole colonization mechanic is undermined by this.
Now that it's all mostly conquest, whole idea groups and NIs have become largely irrelevant.
But fair enough, different means to the same end, and as a player I can adapt to that, if only the AI could do the same...

you can't simultaneously have no room to colonize and claim the AI doesn't colonize

I can, the AI doesn't colonize because it has not room to colonize.
From what I've seen, they may do it, but the natives will end up blobbing before the CN can form or become healthy enough to compete with them and will end up conquered or very easily cornered.

Still, find where I said that and I'll take this seriously. Otherwise you might as well claim the player has a de facto monopoly on everything in EU 4.

I'm glad we agree that the colonization game is broken and doesn't work for the AI then.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If they manage to fix colonization for the AI while keeping the new native mechanics, by all means, great, but if they can't and we're left with an AI in a worse state than in 1.30

Per above we're seeing significantly different results between games (game versions?). In my game almost all of SA is European colonies, and a good chunk of NA went to AI hands before I took it from them myself.

Also seeing 50+ year differences in colonization/native expansion times.

Other than that, if you've anything to say/address earlier points I'll respond when I see it. The fact that 1.31 buffed colonies and the relative power difference being straight up ignored despite the premise of this thread is silly.

Asserting that most DLC patches broke some mechanic because the AI doesn't use it properly is even more silly (if you're not doing this the argumentative position is worse).

 

[Vohen]

Per above we're seeing significantly different results between games (game versions?). In my game almost all of SA is European colonies, and a good chunk of NA went to AI hands before I took it from them myself.

Also seeing 50+ year differences in colonization/native expansion times.

Other than that, if you've anything to say/address earlier points I'll respond when I see it. The fact that 1.31 buffed colonies and the relative power difference being straight up ignored despite the premise of this thread is silly.

Asserting that most DLC patches broke some mechanic because the AI doesn't use it properly is even more silly (if you're not doing this the argumentative position is worse).

Anyone's anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless for the next person, be it yours or anyone else's.
It's only worth mentioning when observed in relevant quantity, and given just how many people have complained about the AI not being able to colonize NA anymore, it becomes pertinent.
The AI is having big issues colonizing where it hadn't before, it's been observed by many people in multiple threads.
If it isn't happening to you, great for you, but it's not particularly relevant.
Now, if you run several AI-only test games to present some evidence that the AI is doing well, by all means, that would be very helpful and close this case once and for all.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The AI is having big issues colonizing where it hadn't before, it's been observed by many people in multiple threads.

Anyone's anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless for the next person, be it yours or anyone else's.

Hmmm.

Now, if you run several AI-only test games to present some evidence that the AI is doing well, by all means, that would be very helpful and close this case once and for all.

Indeed, a statistical sampling to demonstrate that problem exists in the first place might be useful. At least for whatever hotfix it happens on!

Edit: there is also still no argumentative basis for the AI failing to colonize being a problem other than the basic assertion that the AI is broadly bad. Since you don't seem to have a refutation for that/any answer to the arguments above at all, I will take the lack of response as conceding that point.

 

[Vohen]

Hmmm.

Did you happen, by any chance, to miss the line between those quotes?
Giving you the full benefit of the doubt here.

Edit: there is also still no argumentative basis for the AI failing to colonize being a problem other than the basic assertion that the AI is broadly bad.

Again:

You saying the AI in general is broken is unhelpful at best, since they could colonize before, but can't now, it's something they specifically broke in the new patch.

 

[Mister X]

A population dynamic could work. Needs pops tho. North American colonization snowballed because the countries in question were pretty overpopulated and needed to get rid of the surplus.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Did you happen, by any chance, to miss the line between those quotes?
Giving you the full benefit of the doubt here.

What's our sample size on this forum?

Anecdotal. We don't have nearly the amount of compiled evidence that would count for anything other than that. Which you just claimed is worthless no matter who provides it :/.

Again:

That was refuted multiple times in earlier posts which you've never quoted or addressed (posts 26, 28, 40, 42)

28 destroys what you just said, and you didn't touch that part of the post. 40 questions (again) the notion that AI failing to conquer the western hemisphere is a specific problem at all, which has never been established in this thread in an internally consistent fashion.

Did you perhaps miss those? "Giving you the full benefit of the doubt here" .

 

[Vohen]

What's our sample size on this forum?

Certainly more statistically relevant than one person's anecdote.

But well, this whole conversation is moot at this point, if you paid attention you'd see I answered you, multiple time even, but instead you seem more interested in "destroying" on an internet argument.
I'm happy to have left XBLA behind well over a decade ago, but I guess those people still find there way around, oh well.
So peace champ, have this "win", go tell your parents or something, and have a good evening

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Certainly more statistically relevant than one person's anecdote.

That's not how statistics work. The fact is that nobody here knows what happens on average, period. Especially not between hotfixes.

But well, this whole conversation is moot at this point

I can see why you might reasonably say that, since you just claimed the only evidential basis that exists so far for making this thread as worthless. Admittedly, it was weak in the first place which was why I argued against it.

if you paid attention you'd see I answered you, multiple time even

Actually, no. You did not. You repeated previous statements without addressing the arguments against those statements that refute them.

When you get this argument:

You might agree some of those are broken, but I'd wager you probably don't agree that all of them are broken to the same extent natives are broken, which demonstrates an inconsistency in the rationale presented as a basis for claiming colonization is broken in 1.31.

Responding this way, again, is not coherent:

"But AI could colonize in 1.30 and not now".

That is a property shared by many mechanics on that list, and many more that are not on that list, and I'd bet money that if someone asked you if some of them were broken before this thread existed, you'd say no.

Similarly, you still haven't answered this point, at all, even once:

Similarly, we don't need to see Europeans conquer western hemisphere frequently any more than we need Mughals owning 80% of India in most games. That's not what EU 4 is. I've heard earlier entries in the series were railroaded like that, but EU 4 has never been that game.

All the while, you spout ad hominem rather than attempt to refute what I've actually said. Are the arguments not addressed too inconvenient?

 

[insalted42]

Seriously...

Colonization is already a mess and has been for years. Every free coastal province was colonized by 1600 and by 1650, there were not much more left to grab inland.

And now, it's the contrary! By the mid-1500's, the whole North American coast is occupied by native nations. Of course with their meme megacities and some already westernized (yeah, let's not talk about this right now).

How in gods names are the AI and even players supposed to colonize & expand in North America now? Having D-Day like operations with war and landings in the 1550's?

Sigh....

The most unfortunate part of this issue is that, from everything I've seen and read, this isn't even technically a bug. This is "working as intended," and as such there seems to be no plans to correct this in the immediate future.

They introduced so many bugs with the 1.31 release that they are still struggling to remedy legitimate errors. There seems to be no current thought given to the horrible balance issues that pervade this patch (not just the DLC either).

I'm happy with the progress they've been making on bugs, but it's unfortunate that Leviathan didn't just break the game literally, it also broke the game balance. But only one issue seems to be on the roadmap to be resolved in the next several months.

I've come to terms with the fact that 1.30.6 will be my version of choice likely until well into 2022.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm happy with the progress they've been making on bugs, but it's unfortunate that Leviathan didn't just break the game literally, it also broke the game balance.

What "balance" was broken, exactly? This makes it sound like 1.30 was "balanced", which would be an interesting case to make.

Monuments were pretty busted on release, but they've been taken down a few notches. You could make a legit case Totemist's benefits are too high, since they trace to ideas group ideas and cost the same while being significantly stronger in some cases (though you do have to wait for them).

Claiming the AI needs a NA CN for the game to be balanced is like claiming the AI needs to form Mughals for the game to be balanced, silly in the context of a big historical-inspired sandbox game.

Concentrate development is pretty wild though.

 

[Vohen]

That's not how statistics work. The fact is that nobody here knows what happens on average, period. Especially not between hotfixes.


I can see why you might reasonably say that, since you just claimed the only evidential basis that exists so far for making this thread as worthless. Admittedly, it was weak in the first place which was why I argued against it.



Actually, no. You did not. You repeated previous statements without addressing the arguments against those statements that refute them.

When you get this argument:



Responding this way, again, is not coherent:

"But AI could colonize in 1.30 and not now".

That is a property shared by many mechanics on that list, and many more that are not on that list, and I'd bet money that if someone asked you if some of them were broken before this thread existed, you'd say no.

Similarly, you still haven't answered this point, at all, even once:



All the while, you spout ad hominem rather than attempt to refute what I've actually said. Are the arguments not addressed too inconvenient?

Sure thing lad, even gave you an upboat for your personal satisfaction.
I'm surely "destroyed" right now, congratulations

 

[Vohen]

The most unfortunate part of this issue is that, from everything I've seen and read, this isn't even technically a bug. This is "working as intended," and as such there seems to be no plans to correct this in the immediate future.

They introduced so many bugs with the 1.31 release that they are still struggling to remedy legitimate errors. There seems to be no current thought given to the horrible balance issues that pervade this patch (not just the DLC either).

I'm happy with the progress they've been making on bugs, but it's unfortunate that Leviathan didn't just break the game literally, it also broke the game balance. But only one issue seems to be on the roadmap to be resolved in the next several months.

I've come to terms with the fact that 1.30.6 will be my version of choice likely until well into 2022.

Yeah, this is really the last sticking point for me as a non Leviathan owner.
I still have many gripes with the balancing of those new mechanics in the DLC, but the very simple solution there is to just not buy it of course.
Here though, there's really no opting out aside from never updating the game again, sadly.

I'll wait for the next patch that should come out this month, if the situation persists there, I'll just mod it myself.
I already have an idea of how to approach it in a way which doesn't feel cheap or unfair, hopefully I won't need to see how it goes, but honestly I'm expecting much at this point.

 

[gigau]

This thread is going in circles, with people forgetting to remain civil.

Let's all keep calm and take a deep breath.