i wonder if it is now viable to not be forced to expand to stay competitive, since you can stay small in provinces and still play in the same league like the big empires, thinking on netherlands an GB here
Announcing Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
- Thread starter TotalyMoo
- 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.
then this expansion is no real improvement to make tall empires more viable
It is from what was shown so far more viable than currently(that can only be done through trade and depends on location) and especially for western countries allows them to use all those extra monarch points in improving their own province instead of conquering others' but obviously the best play is a mix of both. As shown by your own example in Netherlands.
Best DLC announcement so far, but just as long as playing a "taller" EU4 game turns out to be a distinct reality. I just hope all the changes will not end up making EU4 only a slightly "taller" game. If the new setting is to take place, then make it happen good and proper.
Please also let CK2 benefit a little from "Common Sense", for it too desperately needs a shift in direction.
Please also let CK2 benefit a little from "Common Sense", for it too desperately needs a shift in direction.
More rp, less blobs, reworked factions and assassinations.
- 2
Generally speaking, by using the same principle used in “Common Sense” DLC and making CK2 a “taller” game as well - and not a game mostly driven to blindly conquering more and more provinces as the only reliable way of succeeding.
- 3
I wonder if events that mention the king dying without an heir not happening while the kingdom has an heir will be common sense in the new expansion. Just had the most fucking moronic situation ever - 1495, Burgundy ate about half of France and the rest was divided between Brittany, Provence and England. France was down to 5 provinces.
The king/duke of Burgundy dies without an heir (despite having a strapping young god-prince for a heir) and France gets all of it's lands in a bullshit event. Ragequit that game despite being on the other side of the bloody continent. Yet another attempt at a Poland game torn down by idiocy.
The king/duke of Burgundy dies without an heir (despite having a strapping young god-prince for a heir) and France gets all of it's lands in a bullshit event. Ragequit that game despite being on the other side of the bloody continent. Yet another attempt at a Poland game torn down by idiocy.
That only happens for the Burgundian Inheritance and I find it unlikely to change any time soon. If it bothers you so much either mod it away or play Burgundy, France or Austria as for those either it just flat out can't happen(Burgundy) or can take action preventing it.
In another game the IW fired with Castille divided 3 ways between Aragon, catholic Granada and Castille itself.
These deterministic events need more checks to make sure they happen in realistic situations.
I wasn't twisting your words, I just didn't understand what your argument is. I was asking for clarification, and giving an answer to what I perceived your argument to be. What does "they didn't think about those futures" mean? Did you mean features?
You are telling me that because I knew, when I bought the game, what was going to be in the game and what was not, I cannot complain when they charge money for features? My post was arguing that some features, which in some cases were fixes (i.e. combining custom-named armies), should have been in the game at launch and because they weren't, they should not warrant a price tag. That example you gave is horrible, by the way. An example of my argument would be if Bethesda made a DLC for Fallout 3 which added a new area (as all the Fallout 3 DLCs do), as well as a few fixes. If those fixes were tied exclusively to the DLC, people would be upset. That is my argument.
- 1
- 1
Iberian Wedding has nothing to do with heirs.
But yes, preferably by changing things so they are no longer needed(I only ever saw Spain form without the event once in the 1700s) but I see that about as likely as a naval rework and less likely than a rework for East Asia.
Nothing to do with heirs, but everything to do with lack of checks for such events.
I announced a new product from my photography gear company on Facebook not long ago and someone felt the need to comment criticizing it...for being something he didn't need. Not that it was poorly designed or built, not that it was overpriced, just that I sucked and it sucked because I dared to release a product not targeted at him.
Customer entitlement (and entitlement in general) has become such a problem in our society. The fact that you can't afford the DLC doesn't make the DLC overpriced. The fact that they were able to find things to add or improve in the game doesn't mean it was released incomplete. And the fact that you don't like something doesn't make it wrong.
Customer entitlement (and entitlement in general) has become such a problem in our society. The fact that you can't afford the DLC doesn't make the DLC overpriced. The fact that they were able to find things to add or improve in the game doesn't mean it was released incomplete. And the fact that you don't like something doesn't make it wrong.
- 10
- 2
I agree with you on this subject, but I tend to divide 'Customer entitlement' to justified and unjustified. The deciding factor is mostly what said customer been promised with said product.
For example, the whole 'Mass Effect 3' debacle was justified - I didn't get what I was promised at the time (resolved with 'Extended Cut' DLC). However, with 'Common Sense' if you are not happy with the games direction Paradox lets you chose to remain with the version of the game you prefer.
BTW, I'm not into photography but good luck with your new product lunch nonetheless
- 1
Yes, there's only so much proff-reading you can do while sick
All your other examples were what can be considered features so I probably missed that one (and I did mention it was an extreme example).
But, you are right. Paradox does have a tendency to mix features with bug-fixes/refinements when preparing patch notes. Sometimes it feels like "Crap! We gave too much for free. Put something from the top of the list into the DLC so they won't be upset" kind of thing
To clarify: I don't mean dev posts would be set that colour, I mean that devs would set other folk's posts that colour, if they debate the same old topics, so I may skip the inanity at my convenience.
Last night I had a horrible nightmare. Common Sense was released and it costed £80 for some reason, and all common sense was lost. There was an uproar on the forums and the devs were answering with lines like "but we never said it wouldn't cost 80". In my nightmare the expansion was adding way, way more, I think there were some futuristic features as well, though I can't specify any. It was in making much longer than in real life. I couldn't buy it so after all the waiting I had to keep playing without it, it was a paine. Then I dreamt about a girl I used to know, that part was good .
. Then I dreamt about a girl I used to know, that part was good .- 1