For being an RP crowd you sure lack a lot of creativity.
I'm sorryu how is any of that creative? it's just gamey, and RPers hate that, it ruins emersion, I am creative enough to know that ortodocism taking voer all catholicism wouldn't have prevented the reformation, in fact it would have made a much more massive split inevitable. The issues that created the reformation were worse in the orthodox world.
Color me confused then. Why is the WC achievement fulfilled by such a small percentage of the player base yet it seems this forum is filled with players who find it too easy?
It's not that we find it to easy it is that it is to easy for out tastes. It is to easy because we think it should be impossible, because guess what? It was impossible! And before you say realism and gameplay, I counter with immersion, it beign possible ruins my imemrsion and from the fact that CK2 is still more popular I would say that is the general consensus. People in general prefer realm management to a blobbing on timetrail
Are you implying that those people are assuming owning an entire continent is the same in regards to difficulty as owning the whole world?
We are implying we don't care. In fact owning an entire continent should be about as difficult as WC is right now. Actually a bit more difficult seeing as some people can do WC before 1600.
No, thats why we need a different game.
I like playing stuff like city builder and other management simulators and im allways looking for new ones.
But not at the cost of the current EU4.
That's what you want and we've heard that, but just because you want that doesn't invalidate us wanting something else, you cma here to our thread and started tryign to shout us down, complaining about us asking for what we think would make more enjoyable to us, and qyuite franlky the majority are with us.
Quite frnakly the only reason I even play eu4 these days is because it is a step between Ck2 and vic2 for the full paradox run. Except that it is just a less enjoyable game of Risk.
Realism is hardly an argument for changing gameplay. Or if it is, then we should all ask for players to only be able to see and control one army at a time (if your ruler is present there), and other armies with delay (possibly months, depending on the distance) as the messengers tell you where they are and what they have done. Because that's how it worked in the real world. Would make a hell of a fun game indeed.
Actually that sounds pretty awesome if done well. But no we're not talking realism for realism's sake we are talking realism for immersions sake. And if that does not sound immersive for you then that's fine but that does not invalidate the fact that it does to us and we get almost no immersion out of what the game currently is.
Expansion is higher yield than doing nothing by design, because expansion is riskier than doing nothing. That is a good mechanic, it encourages engaging with the game while playing it, rather than something you can accomplish by spinning your chair 180 degrees and staring at the wall 50% of play time without damaging the position much.
Except it does not have to be, the neatherlands "did nothing" during ww1, do you not think they were more at risk than the US was despite the US was proavtively meddling. Inf act I would say doing nothing does put you in a vulneralbe postion. But one that in reality comes with great rewards, Sweden did nothing during ww2 and they walked out of the war as one of the richest countries in Europe because they still had their infrastructure and industry intact.
In the eu4 period England/Britain also had a more hand sof approach never tryint to rule Europe but instead just trying to keep it divided, and it worked out very well for them they were very much the winners of this period.
And as for doing nothing, it is only doing nothing by the mechanics that are in the game right now that's what we want to see change.
Which is their best selling game of all time, which is the game which took them from being a small studio in Sweden to at least a AA studio. Because the powergamers are always a minority and catering to them is rarely a good idea. Yeha they ware loud and obnoxious, just look at this thread, but they represent a mere fraction of the gamers.
I refuse to acknowledge the idea of "immersive experience" because players find immersion form different sources and I'm not willing to assert one person's immersion > other person's immersion, or imply that by attempting it as a justification for my position.
If people don't want to blob they don't have to do so, but that was never the real issue in this thread.
Well that is nice to know, but totally irrelevant, this thread is about what we find immersion is, you have stated where you find yours ok that's fine we'll agree to disagree.
Games are only frustrating if they're designed poorly. Pretty much any idea can be run with and made fun if done right. And a lot of things are outside of your control right now. You control a single country in a wide world of them. Your vassals aren't really under your control except diplomatically. Your allies aren't. And of course all the neutral countries of the world aren't. The events you receive aren't. (that being said, I have never and will never propose that events should blow up countries; events are instantaneous occurrences, and any system that allowed countries to blow up a bit would have to be a system, because those things never happen instantaneously. Almost anytime someone proposes using events for things, it's because they don't know what the proper system should look like and are using events as a bad workaround).
In fact there is actually not much need for RNG, there is very few random things in real life, randomness in games represent the unknown. In games made unknowable while in reality they would just be unknown. If the game actually hid more stuff away and allowed us to get information only more indirectly like a ruler in this era would then there would be less need for RNG while still making the game less predictable. I am reminded of heroes 3 (and perhaps later heroes game haven't played any) where instead of knowing the strength of an army you are given a ballpark word, scores of hydras, legions of pikemen and so on. That is good use of that idea, and another example is HoI where how much you know depends on your spying. And the same thing could be used for EU4, it would give you something to guess about, it would make espionage actually useful (Not sure if it's still useless but it was for a very long time), and it would be an interesting mechanic that would give you something to do in peacetime.
And no events is only bad design when they are sort of a paintjob on mechanics that are all the same, of events were better integrated in the game then they would be much more interesting. And that goes even more for ck2, hence why I suggested a quest generator for that game ages ago, where you drew events from a deck of possible event chains and they evolved depending on your circumstances, sort of a modular procedural story engine.
Oh and I originally came to post this, some of the brighest mind in the buiness things that having the game difficulty change over he course of a game and other hidden effects is a good thing:
Call it punishing success all you want it makes for better gameplay than snowballing does.
