You're right about PP. For national focus I was using mil as an example, you're still getting 300 mana no matter how it's distributed.
Bigger nations must have more problems!
- Thread starter Roubik
- 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.
- Status
You're right about PP. For national focus I was using mil as an example, you're still getting 300 mana no matter how it's distributed.
I meant doing nothing in the context of the person in front of the screen doing nothing. In reality, I'm rather averse to war, rather than inclined to send millions to their deaths. Economy and quality of life work differently in reality too, but we don't need EU 4 for a dose of reality
.In essence you're asking for a different game though. There's nothing wrong with playing/wanting other games, but I'm not seeing why EU 4 needs to conform to other games.
My point is that immersion = preferences and nothing more, and as such it's weird to use it in an argument as if it's anything but own preferences. "I prefer more or less expansion to be possible" is a reasonable statement, assuming the reasons for it are coherent. "X is bad because it's immersion breaking" offers literally nothing more than that though. If one's already arguing against the merits of something it's a redundant statement that does not contribute. Obviously they feel it's a bad thing (or are playing devil's advocate), otherwise they wouldn't be arguing against it.
Extra credit isn't always right. They give a lot of good advice, but that episode was particularly poor given how some of the examples allow for self-contradiction.
Hiding how an AI makes decisions is completely sensible. Misrepresenting odds (even to favor the player w/ anti-streak) is dishonest. Making how mechanics interact completely opaque with no in-game way to discern how they work other than heavy trial and error (several mechanics in civ 6, forts in EU 4) is pathetic. If EC says otherwise, they're irrational.
Again that is what we are trying to change and I would much prefer the game to be more like reality.
Perhaps but I see no reason why Eu4 shouldn't change to cater to my needs, After all the people who feel the way I do are many and the powergamers few.
Certainly, but we must be allowed to state our preferences then it is up for paradox to realize the writing on the wall, that the powergamers are just vocal minority and if they want EU4 to ever catch up to the popularity of ck2 then they need to change things about it.
Man is often self contradictory, to work with a medium such a video games one must cater to that flaw. Statistics show people actually enjoy fair games less.
And if Paradox was running for office then it would matter but they're not, and if they scramble some of the numbers in the background (say a miniupdate which tweaks them once ever few months) then the people why try to figure them out by trail and error can try for a very long time. God does not play dice with the universe but paradox can literally do it with theirs.
And it wouldn't be the game lying to the player it would be the players in game presence being misinformed, it's feature not a bug.
Yesterday I started a vote in my ck2 council and then saved and quit and then I came back to it and lost it despite the game stating I would succeed before I pushed the button this is because it recalculated when I restarted. At first I was a bit miffed then I realized it was the first time I had ever lost one of those votes, and it was actually kind of exciting. Would be a lot more interesting if I had to guess a bit on who was actually on my side or not.
And you should obviously have ways of getting more information in the game at a price, but who's to say the information you just bought is accurate, well perhaps you could pay again and find out of the guy you hired last time is reliable, but what if they are all unreliable? Now that is a question every spymaster in the history of the world has asked themselves, and it could be a very interesting part of gameplay.
And it's realistic, just over a century ago Germany thought that Italy would join them in ww1. Instead Italy joined their enemies, turns out Germany was misinformed. Sure it sucked for them but such is the game of empires, sometimes things don't work out as well as you think they will.
As for EC beign contradictory of course they are, there'as always an optimisation problem, how much hidden can we do things without making them unplayable? And so on. Any idea taken to it's logical extreme fails.
Last edited:
I was naive to think that maybe, just maybe, a few players would appreciate the absurd amount of effort and planning that went into a pre 1600 WC, and perhaps even attempt one themselves. as opposed to the kneejerk reaction of "this shouldn't be possible," "nerf blobbing." Aside from the fact that a bunch of people who don't play the game are spamming the forums to make it harder for the ones who do, dedicated players will always find a way to min/max regardless of the penalties that are introduced. The fundamental disconnect is that "you" don't understand how the game functions at its core and the reasons why blobbing is optimal.
You don't have valid quantitive statistics on player preferences. Blobbing =/= powergaming either, only optimized blobbing.
I counter-claim posters who want the game to be "more historical" without any coherent reasoning for exactly how historical are a vocal minority and cite identically strong evidence.
Not catering to irrationality, sorry. Humanity should hold itself to a higher standard, if it is to make it long-term. "Statistics show" a lot of things.
When you meet the standards of lying as accepted by language, you are lying. Telling player X % is the case when it is really Y is lying. If lying in such a fashion is a "feature" of the game, I have no respect for that feature and less for the person who found it acceptable than I had previously.
The game can trivially accomplish this without lying about what will happen, simply by giving % chance votes that are not misrepresented percentages. Confirmation bias is bad enough without evidence justifying suspicion such as a track record of actually lying percentages (EU 4 had this with claim fabrication discovery at one point). Actually several other methods could work too. "X will happen" then having it not happen isn't acceptable.
There are things you can hide w/o hiding rules, such as information available to opponents, opponent plans, areas of the map player can't see etc. Where they are self-inconsistent is being okay with misrepresenting the rules to the player. That is not okay to do and it frankly reflects poorly on the game designers who do it intentionally. At least with EU these things are usually bugs, though the offensive coalition pre-war information has been lying so long I'm starting to wonder...
One problem not being discussed here, but that I guess nobody would like it to go away is the military ledger.
You have perfect information of every country in the world, with how many men they have available, how many are recruited, how good they fight (discipline) and how long (morale), that, for me is one of the greatest immersion breakers in the game, and I'll be the first one to admit that I use it plenty when planning the next attack.
One thing that I ask though, did coalitions got nerfed (as in, they hardly form any more)? Because that seems to be the case for me.
You have perfect information of every country in the world, with how many men they have available, how many are recruited, how good they fight (discipline) and how long (morale), that, for me is one of the greatest immersion breakers in the game, and I'll be the first one to admit that I use it plenty when planning the next attack.
One thing that I ask though, did coalitions got nerfed (as in, they hardly form any more)? Because that seems to be the case for me.
Why do you even care wether a WC is possible or not? You will never have to face a WC in your games, so how would your experience improve if they made it impossible?
These anti blobbing threads usually go the same way. People claim "blobbing is too easy", "big empires are too stable" or "I want a more challenging game" while playing tall on normal difficulty with castille. Ofc there won't be any problems keeping your country stable when u take 1 province every 10 years.
But this thread actually started with a request to make wide nations less stable because the AI (!) nations were too powerful. So what is it? Is the game too easy or too hard?
Well, my main problem is that aside from the HRE that kinda has some anti-blobing mechanics to it and maybe the peripherical tributaries of Ming (who will kill each other until they reach a certain balance) you don't find that many small-medium countries by the time the game reaches its first century.
IT IS too easy to blob for both the player and AI.
I see Ottomans conquering the Mamluks before 1550, I see at most 3 or 4 tags in India by the time the first european nation discovers them.
Perhaps it might be that I reached a skill level where I can see that blobbing is easier and I can take more risks, but the problem is, that when you reach that point, blobbing is always easier or cheaper than growing tall.
I understand the concept of high risk-high rewards, but it feels that blobbing is medium risk-high rewards, while growing tall is low risk-low rewards.
IT IS too easy to blob for both the player and AI.
I see Ottomans conquering the Mamluks before 1550, I see at most 3 or 4 tags in India by the time the first european nation discovers them.
Perhaps it might be that I reached a skill level where I can see that blobbing is easier and I can take more risks, but the problem is, that when you reach that point, blobbing is always easier or cheaper than growing tall.
I understand the concept of high risk-high rewards, but it feels that blobbing is medium risk-high rewards, while growing tall is low risk-low rewards.
True, playing tall has 2 downsides: inefficiency and boredom. I understand that everyone has a prefered playstyle, and if other players enjoy playing tall, that's fine. But when these players suddenly want to make blobbing less efficient because of "balance issues" my blood pressure rises.
They call for changes or want to add new game mechanics while lacking a deeper understanding of those mechanics already in the game. And when it comes to evaluating changes, whom do you trust? A player that mainly plays tall in europe? Or soemone who has played in every region and has pushed the game to its limits (not talking about myself here)?
In another thread some suggested to buff rebels to make the game more challenging for him. But guess what, you don't really have to deal with rebels when playing tall. So how would their game experience improve?
While I do understand both sides of the debate, I am strictly with the blobbing party here, because it fits my playstyle.
When I play this game, I blob. That's all I do. I am constantly at war and I detest speed 5 or any longer periods of waiting.
If nations should not be able to expand beyond a certain size that would mean either not fighting any wars anymore or fighting wars for no gain. The latter is something I wouldn't do of course.
By making WC impossible you would effectively remove my gameplay and turn the game pretty much into something like Inca or Aztec post reforms.
So suggestions in this thread should offer me something interesting to do instead of being at war and expanding.
So far, in my opinion, none of the suggestions in this thread deliver this. "we need internal something something" is not really worth discussing, because no concrete examples of mechanics are offered by which to judge whether they would improve (make more fun) the game.
Of the offered ideas many would do nothing some may even strengthen blobs, while others would make the game just that much more tedious (rebels). Remember more tedious does not equal more challenging. More difficult to conquer the world does also not equate to a more challenging game, as I could easily come up with some suggestions that would make world conquest impossible (remove coring, HRE and japanese mechanics should do the trick) but not add any challenge to the game.
On the other hand a more challenging game, in which the challenge from actual gameplay or AI improvements and not some artificial hard boundaries would be massively appreciated by the stronger players participating in this thread. This should also make the game more challenging for not too blobby nations, that are actually for long periods of time stronger than a WC nation and thus have an easy time achieving local dominance. However I have so far not seen one suggestion that would achieve this and I also believe it not to be possible.
Also I am sorry to say it, but a lot of the comments here display a clear lack of understanding what the actual in game challenges are a WC nation faces and how a nation vying for local dominance (say only conquer Europe) compares to a nation going for WC.
When I play this game, I blob. That's all I do. I am constantly at war and I detest speed 5 or any longer periods of waiting.
If nations should not be able to expand beyond a certain size that would mean either not fighting any wars anymore or fighting wars for no gain. The latter is something I wouldn't do of course.
By making WC impossible you would effectively remove my gameplay and turn the game pretty much into something like Inca or Aztec post reforms.
So suggestions in this thread should offer me something interesting to do instead of being at war and expanding.
So far, in my opinion, none of the suggestions in this thread deliver this. "we need internal something something" is not really worth discussing, because no concrete examples of mechanics are offered by which to judge whether they would improve (make more fun) the game.
Of the offered ideas many would do nothing some may even strengthen blobs, while others would make the game just that much more tedious (rebels). Remember more tedious does not equal more challenging. More difficult to conquer the world does also not equate to a more challenging game, as I could easily come up with some suggestions that would make world conquest impossible (remove coring, HRE and japanese mechanics should do the trick) but not add any challenge to the game.
On the other hand a more challenging game, in which the challenge from actual gameplay or AI improvements and not some artificial hard boundaries would be massively appreciated by the stronger players participating in this thread. This should also make the game more challenging for not too blobby nations, that are actually for long periods of time stronger than a WC nation and thus have an easy time achieving local dominance. However I have so far not seen one suggestion that would achieve this and I also believe it not to be possible.
Also I am sorry to say it, but a lot of the comments here display a clear lack of understanding what the actual in game challenges are a WC nation faces and how a nation vying for local dominance (say only conquer Europe) compares to a nation going for WC.
I agree, I admit that I've played mostly with Castille when learning the game, and then I moved on to play some other countries (Portugal, England, Sweden, Muscovy, Poland, Brandeburg, Holland, Ottomans, Cuzco, Aztec, Manchu, Ashikaga and Kai), by far, I found Aztec the most hard to unify before the Europeans arrived (but I only played twice there, so maybe I should give a shot again).
One of the problems I have is that it is MUCH easier to conquer the totality or a vast majority of India as Ottomans because you can create a land connection all they way to India than with any other European country because you need far more "useless" transport ships to actually take them there, thus, weakening your navy. I still don't understand why we can't use light ships and galleys as transport ships and the only reason why it seems to be "game play reasons", like I said, aside from boring (it can be a subjective thing to discuss), the problem of playing tall is that even though the risks are lower and so are the rewards, the risks of play wide are not that much higher but the rewards SURELY are because every time you are improving your country (by expanding), it means your opponents are getting weaker.
EDIT: I really thought that the estates would be a way of making the internal management of your realm interesting, instead it's just another set of buttons you press once in a while to get something from them or appease them when you need them).
One of the problems I have is that it is MUCH easier to conquer the totality or a vast majority of India as Ottomans because you can create a land connection all they way to India than with any other European country because you need far more "useless" transport ships to actually take them there, thus, weakening your navy. I still don't understand why we can't use light ships and galleys as transport ships and the only reason why it seems to be "game play reasons", like I said, aside from boring (it can be a subjective thing to discuss), the problem of playing tall is that even though the risks are lower and so are the rewards, the risks of play wide are not that much higher but the rewards SURELY are because every time you are improving your country (by expanding), it means your opponents are getting weaker.
EDIT: I really thought that the estates would be a way of making the internal management of your realm interesting, instead it's just another set of buttons you press once in a while to get something from them or appease them when you need them).
Again you have a narrow minded view of what dedicated players are. And it's not about it beign optimal it is about adding other engaging parts to the game and yeah they will mean that there are things you would have to deal with that would distract from the blobbing but if you think you can overcome them go ahead.
This problem is a lot bigger than just the ledger even if it is the most obvious source of such information.
If you had bothered to read the thread you would see because we want realm management mechanics. And because now paradix seems intent on making the AI blob like it was a player to give players looking for WC a bigger challenge which is the wrong way to handle it. Intead they should add in more realistic aspects of why huge realms like that never happened.
I did my only WC with Florence, or maybe it was still just Tuscany back then. Modded though so I guess it doesn't count. And I wouuld like there to be such issues even then, how many countries expanded once every ten years? And never lost anything? In Europe that's much just France and that eventually led to them being in such a bad position that the revolution happened.
The game my dear watson is to blobby.
I have read the whole thread, sadly there wasn't anything new from the "we need more peacetime mechanics"-crowd. And taking away the fun from other players won't increase your experience at all. EU4 never had great peacetime mechanics, and I highly doubt it ever will. I'm not sure changing the game into something it never was after years is a great idea.
"I bought Counter-Strike, but there aren't any team managing aspects. Like, decorating the briefing room. Or cooking for the whole crew. We need more mechanics."
The diffrence is whomever made CS didn't also make vic2 and ck2, compared to those games eu4 just seems like a waste of an interesting period.
Just because these games are from the same company means they should have equal depth in every game aspect? There are only 3 years between vic2 and eu4, why should they make the same game just in a different era? Trade, dynasties and so on never have been the strength of eu4. And yet according to the player numbers, eu4 is doing just fine in comparison to vic2 and ck2. So if you think it's a waste, well, what can I say.
Engaging realm managing mechanics and world conquest are not actually mutually exclusive.
So far however this thread has failed to put forward any meaningful suggestions for improving the game. Vague " we need different mechanics and they are going to be awesome" statements that call for fundamental changes of the game bear little merit for discussion. I am still waiting for something worth discussing here.
This is not directed at you personally, more like a general call out to the board. If you want the status quo to be changed well thought out ideas are more helpful than "I don't want this because of reasons, so change it".
In case you care, i have played all 3 of those games.
CK2 31 hours
Vic2 216 hours
EU4 3900 hours
I personaly think design wise Vic2 is the best out of the games. But it is programmed horifically, with bugs, inconsistencies and an economy model that will inevitably crumble appart.
Ontop of that its UI must have been designed by a blind person. Just look at the factory menu and tell me its not the worst piece of UI ever.
If it had the same polish as the later game do my numbers would look alot different.
When attempting to play CK2 i find myself starring at the screen waiting for things to happen so i can react to them to the point where a single event popping up is a highlight.
There is so little for me to go and and do actively instead of passively that i lost interest real fast since i bought the base game back in 2012.
Right from the start EU4 offered me stuff to do and stuff to learn. It having a base in history, with events and disasters is just a welcome extra.
If you put EU4 in a fastasy world with the same mechanics it would still be playable and enjoyable.
I look at games and evaluate what they have to offer. Gameplay, story, lore even immersion. If stuff fits together i play it.
You can go ahead and be disappointed that a game, good it may be, still wasted much potential, i have done so many time in the past.
But going into a game, playing it and then complaining that its not a different game is pointless.
Can i imagine a EU4 with more interesting internal management? Yes.
Would i play such a game? Most likely. Yes.
But as i said, i dont want such a game to come at the cost of the current EU4.
Instead of going about complaing that EU4 is all blob im hoping that Vic3 is that other game.
Or some other company makes a game like that.
No they should make a game on the same scope, but with mechanics fitting for the era, Eu4 is neither it does not have the scope of vic2 not does it really go into what the era is about. And remember eu4 is only 3 years from vic2 but it's supposed to be 3 year newer yet it is worse in pretty much every aspect. The only thing good about eu4 is that it's easier to learn so I guess it's decent tutorial for vic2?
31 hours? You have essentially turned ck2 on and turned it back of again.
And not it really doesn't fit together, it's essentially a fantasy world with some historical events added on top the barest minimum. It never goes into anything on any meaningful depth, it is as I have pointed out before a game of Risk, a boardgame transplanted to a computer screen. Or a 4x dressing up as a GSG.
And vic3 will cover the vic era which leaves the eu era unexplored because Eu4 does nothing to explore it, I've seen album covers whoch explore periods more throughly than Eu4 does. Don't get me wrong I love the work that Trin does, but seriously they should do so much more with it.
Truth is they are just being conservative Eu is their oldest franchise and they are afraid to take it in any new direction and hence it never goes anywhere it just circles the drain.
I have suggested many diffrent solutions over the years, I made a post about a exceptionalism system last year, I suggested something further up in this thread I cant remember what now because it's really late(edit: spy mechanics and hidden variables was it). And I have made many suggestions on mechanics that would make realm management more intresting and inverse the difficulty curve making the early game the easy part (as it should be in a better designed game) and then difficulty mounting the better you are doing.
Edit: Oh I suggested replacing ideas with something more like the focus trees in HoI where every the setup better reflects what was actually going on in the countries in the era and the goals they had.
In have made loads of posts on the suggestion forum so don't you dare come here and accuse me of not brainstorming for solutions.
Last edited:
And I was naive to think that "dedicated players" as they claim they are actually appreciate the time period they're playing on. When I play I spend half the time reading the history of the country I'm playing. What problems it was dealing with, who was their rival and why, who was their friends and why. And every time I play EU4 I ask to myself is this a good way of portraying this country, how can the mechanics be improved to portray these events. And then I banged on this wall that there's some massive superpower that never goes into decline.
I don't care about whether you do WC, or whether WC is possible, and as I said, I'm sure you will find a way no matter what restrictions are placed upon you. I care about the immersion and whatever we have now don't do that.
And yes I'm a guy that only ever said "internal something something", because I'm just an average gamer trying to voice out what's lacking in the game, and give a vague idea of what I want to see, not a dev trying to present upcoming new features.
I used to read every event 500 hours in, after 2500 hours I click on most popups decisions instantly having already been faced with the same choices countless times. I am no longer as "immersed" in this game from having played it too much. More importantly, how I choose to play a sandbox game in my own spare time should not concern anyone.
To those who believe that WC shouldn't be possible, please go through the AAR forum and the "post your EU4 empire" thread to see which other implausible feats have been pulled off, make sure to berate every single poster and their achievements starting from easiest to hardest. WC should be the last of your worries given its difficulty.
Last edited:
- Status