Being gone from EU4 for a while, I really like how things changed

[Bibor]

As the title says, I really like most of the changes that I see. The game still becomes stale around 1600 if I'm not insisting on some complex personal achievements, but hey, that's after ~5000 hours of EU4 – I hardly blame the game for this.

There are two things that I particularily like about how EU4 changed:

First, there are very few instances of "this is clearly the better button to press" left in the game. Among other things, I find myself saving up points to switch between government reforms as the game progresses. Yes, this includes "noble privileges" )

Second, "going colonial" now really requires you to decide whether you want to dabble in (european) politics or focus on colonies. Even if native nations growing big and attacking your nascent colonies is a bug, I actually like that bug. Idea groups also play into this – growing financially stable by going Economic/Trade or investing into colonization is actually a serious decision to be made now.

My only wish for the game now is only that the devs expand on the Favor system and turn it into a true "currency" for diplomatic relations, and perhaps a new relationship type that's between alliance and neutrality that enables at least some favor actions, like "stop raiding my coasts for pete's sake"...

 

[BlazeKnight_]

First, there are very few instances of "this is clearly the better button to press" left in the game. Among other things, I find myself saving up points to switch between government reforms as the game progresses. Yes, this includes "noble privileges" )

I find quite the opposite has happened; if anything there are more cookie clicker buttons to press for free modifiers. There is almost always only 1 clear superior choice for government reforms and estate privileges, and neither of them are anything dynamic. It's literally just press button for free modifier.

Second, "going colonial" now really requires you to decide whether you want to dabble in (european) politics or focus on colonies. Even if native nations growing big and attacking your nascent colonies is a bug, I actually like that bug. Idea groups also play into this – growing financially stable by going Economic/Trade or investing into colonization is actually a serious decision to be made now.

Colonial game hasn't changed at all since 1.0, unless you mean the new colony subject types, which I completely forgot existed because there is, again, usually only 1 clear choice. And it is, again, just a button you press to give your subject and you different modifiers, not something that actually changes gameplay.

 

[MatthewP]

I find quite the opposite has happened; if anything there are more cookie clicker buttons to press for free modifiers. There is almost always only 1 clear superior choice for government reforms and estate privileges, and neither of them are anything dynamic. It's literally just press button for free modifier.

I agree to a point on gov reforms - there are only a few where I go back and forth and I rarely change more than once or twice in a run, and often 0 times. But there are some interesting and situational ones in there.

For estate privileges, don’t agree at all. These days there are a bunch of good ones for most nations, and they can be quite situational. Also the mini game of figuring out when and which to ditch for absolutism is fun, though I’m not the biggest fan of the “revoke land every 5 years” game (and therefore don’t play it, which is fine).

Colonial game hasn't changed at all since 1.0, unless you mean the new colony subject types, which I completely forgot existed because there is, again, usually only 1 clear choice. And it is, again, just a button you press to give your subject and you different modifiers, not something that actually changes gameplay.

The mechanics of making colonies are mostly the same, but the colonial game has changed a ton due to native changes (as the OP already mentioned) and other things. You can like or dislike the changes but I don’t see how you can plausibly deny they exist.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

The mechanics of making colonies are mostly the same, but the colonial game has changed a ton due to native changes (as the OP already mentioned) and other things. You can like or dislike the changes but I don’t see how you can plausibly deny they exist.

Except that doesn't actually change gameplay at all, except that DOWing native nations is faster than manually propping up colonies. Like, its not really any different from just DOWing nations in Eurasia. If anything the colonial game became even more similar to gameplay everywhere else: you just blob into nations to form colonies quickly.

For estate privileges, don’t agree at all. These days there are a bunch of good ones for most nations, and they can be quite situational. Also the mini game of figuring out when and which to ditch for absolutism is fun, though I’m not the biggest fan of the “revoke land every 5 years” game (and therefore don’t play it, which is fine).

Revoking land whenever possible is exactly what you should be doing though. And the "penalty" for doing so is near nonexistent. And can you seriously call ditching privs a minigame? You either do it or you don't, is the answer. There is no real thought process into interacting with the estates, it is more or less the same as when you choose where to expand into. Click button to get modifier, click button to remove modifier. Not to mention it is clear which privs are good and which ones are not worth the time.

Choosing between 2 different modifiers is not good gameplay. The Gov reforms and Estates system could have been something to interact with, instead of something to press for free modifiers.

 

[MatthewP]

Except that doesn't actually change gameplay at all, except that DOWing native nations is faster than manually propping up colonies. Like, its not really any different from just DOWing nations in Eurasia. If anything the colonial game became even more similar to gameplay everywhere else: you just blob into nations to form colonies quickly.

Revoking land whenever possible is exactly what you should be doing though. And the "penalty" for doing so is near nonexistent. And can you seriously call ditching privs a minigame? You either do it or you don't, is the answer. There is no real thought process into interacting with the estates, it is more or less the same as when you choose where to expand into. Click button to get modifier, click button to remove modifier. Not to mention it is clear which privs are good and which ones are not worth the time.

Choosing between 2 different modifiers is not good gameplay. The Gov reforms and Estates system could have been something to interact with, instead of something to press for free modifiers.

I’m not going to bother listing the things I don’t agree with here, it seem like you don’t like the game and I do so I doubt we’ll see eye to eye. It’s ok, not every game is for everyone.

Where I do agree: yes, optimally you should always be revoking land. But I find it tedious and the consequences for skipping it are small, so I skip it.

And yes, gov reforms and estates could have been made the central mechanic of the game and been greatly expanded, and it could have been cool. But given they’re not intended as the central mechanic of the game, I think they’re quite good. Certainly much better than what we had in those areas before the reworks.

 

[Nostalgium]

Colonial game hasn't changed at all since 1.0, unless you mean the new colony subject types, which I completely forgot existed because there is, again, usually only 1 clear choice. And it is, again, just a button you press to give your subject and you different modifiers, not something that actually changes gameplay.

1.0 didn't have Colonial Nations, didn't have Treasure Fleets, didn't grant you merchants for colonizing, demanded manual exploration rather than missions, and didn't have Trade Companies. That's all disregarding extra native TAGs and small tweaks like adding a MIL cost too Attack Natives. Whether or not you like the changes is something else, but there have been significant changes since 1.0.

 

[Bibor]

I find quite the opposite has happened; if anything there are more cookie clicker buttons to press for free modifiers. There is almost always only 1 clear superior choice for government reforms and estate privileges, and neither of them are anything dynamic. It's literally just press button for free modifier.

It really depends on the goals of your campaign.

There is a really broad spectrum of how dependent we are on estates, from zero to maximum. High absolutism is comparatively weak for most things except "getting more clay". And "getting more clay" isn't such a clear-cut winner as it used to be. In my games, I find myself having at least 4 to 5 different phases in handling estates.

The government reforms are also "meant to be clicked" more than once. They also tie in into estates, heavily. If your aim is 95 absolutism by early 1600s, choices in both estates and govt reforms are obvious. If you decide to play with estates and actually customize your empire, however, your priorities change. Sometimes it really *is* important to permanently remove 10% influence from nobility. Once your provinces drop to zero autonomy, gaining 2 accepted cultures is a no-brainer. And, there is nothing wrong in turning your empire into a republic or parliamentary monarchy. Stuff that required weird hacks (mainly succumbing to rebels) are now options of change. I like it.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

1.0 didn't have Colonial Nations, didn't have Treasure Fleets, didn't grant you merchants for colonizing, demanded manual exploration rather than missions, and didn't have Trade Companies. That's all disregarding extra native TAGs and small tweaks like adding a MIL cost too Attack Natives. Whether or not you like the changes is something else, but there have been significant changes since 1.0.

You are attacking exaggeration as if it somehow means colonial gameplay has gotten interesting or changed much at all. It is still more or less the same as it has been for over 5 years now, the only difference being the amount of tags in the area you can blob into.

It really depends on the goals of your campaign.

There is a really broad spectrum of how dependent we are on estates, from zero to maximum. High absolutism is comparatively weak for most things except "getting more clay". And "getting more clay" isn't such a clear-cut winner as it used to be. In my games, I find myself having at least 4 to 5 different phases in handling estates.

The government reforms are also "meant to be clicked" more than once. They also tie in into estates, heavily. If your aim is 95 absolutism by early 1600s, choices in both estates and govt reforms are obvious. If you decide to play with estates and actually customize your empire, however, your priorities change. Sometimes it really *is* important to permanently remove 10% influence from nobility. Once your provinces drop to zero autonomy, gaining 2 accepted cultures is a no-brainer. And, there is nothing wrong in turning your empire into a republic or parliamentary monarchy. Stuff that required weird hacks (mainly succumbing to rebels) are now options of change. I like it.

Both of your counterarguments are missing the point. It doesn't really matter whether or not you want to blob hard or play more passive, what to do with estates and government reforms in either scenario is more or less clear. Clicking different buttons to gain different modifiers isn't changing the gameplay at all. Oh, I want to expand now. Okay, click button to remove privs. Oh, I want to sit and make my country strong. Okay, click button to set privs. In both scenarios, it is clear which of the 2 modifiers is superior, and the gameplay devolves into "click button and have it happen instantly."

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

You are attacking exaggeration as if it somehow means colonial gameplay has gotten interesting or changed much at all. It is still more or less the same as it has been for over 5 years now, the only difference being the amount of tags in the area you can blob into

You are ignoring everything else he said and focusing on the additional tags. So yeah you are the one ignoring evidence in favor of your argument.

 

[FrogCrusher]

Regarding estates, the events were not adapted wrt previous system, so most of the choices are no brainer. The downside of lots of good modifier event option is the increase of influence. And before, it could be very harmful, with disaster and so on. Since the new system is in place, I never saw the disaster ticking up in any campaign. Neither I saw AI going into those disaster whereas it was frequently the case before.

 

[bokorthedust]

Regarding estates, the events were not adapted wrt previous system, so most of the choices are no brainer. The downside of lots of good modifier event option is the increase of influence. And before, it could be very harmful, with disaster and so on. Since the new system is in place, I never saw the disaster ticking up in any campaign. Neither I saw AI going into those disaster whereas it was frequently the case before.

I saw a couple of Burghers take control popups from a couple of AI countries in my last run, but I agree that the estate disasters have pretty much have been neutered and are rare to happen.

 

[Bibor]

If this game would be a piece of road, it started as a racing track. Blob and win.

In time, it developed into more of a highway.
If you want to race, you can. But long-distance haulers are welcome, as well as family SUVs. For racing, there are more tools than ever, but being a trucker also has its appeal.

There's nothing inherently "passive" to careful planning of a non-blobbing game. It might not be as "exciting" as paiting the map, but it has it's own (huge) rewards. A single province can now in EU4 be as powerful as 5, 10, perhaps even 30 "lesser" provinces. And the constraints are the same – time. It's not easy to create a super-powerful yet geographically small empire in the given time frame. Mana points, income and every other resource also has to be managed and carefully planned.

The only true advantage of blobbing is... denying growth to your neighbors. Which is a valid strategy. From an evolutionary perspective – definitely one of the most powerful. But, as evolution has taught us, being superior is not always being the best at the one thing you can do. A tiger might have many advantages, but we humans developed different tools. And beat it at its own game. (The issue I have with how far we, as a species, are willing to go in wanton destruction, is out of scope of this conversation, though).

EU4 will always be a blobbing game. But it does it with style. And, if you're really skilled, you can really not blob and get the same sense of satisfaction. A sensation, which is basically the point of this game anyway. Satisfaction with what I, as a player, achieved.

In my most recent game as Italy, I created Bulgaria out of nothing. Over time, I grew it, developed it, invested into its provinces, conquered for it. And then, when it reached what would be rank 3 in global power, I just released it have its own thing. Sure, we share the same dynasty and religion, and we stayed allied. But it can now have a life of its own. If it wants to, I can expand into that pesky Commonwealth or anywhere it wants to. This is also an achievement. For me. And "cost" me tens of thousands of ducats and thousands of mana points to achieve. It is a "win"? It is, for me.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Regarding estates, the events were not adapted wrt previous system, so most of the choices are no brainer. The downside of lots of good modifier event option is the increase of influence. And before, it could be very harmful, with disaster and so on. Since the new system is in place, I never saw the disaster ticking up in any campaign. Neither I saw AI going into those disaster whereas it was frequently the case before.

I saw a couple of events for AI countries and in a MP game a player lost most of his country to an aristocratic coup.

Though the fact they need over 100% influence is really bad. The previous 80%for the start of the disaster was much better.