Bigger nations must have more problems!

[TheDungen]

Please find one post in this entire thread that has said or implied that every game should end in a WC, or that "casual" play should be nerfed. I think I can speak for the "blobbing crowd" by saying that we don't give a shit about how casuals play this game. Yet you seem to be obsessed with WCs.

It's also extremely ignorant to think that fast WCs are mostly the result of exploits that are not working as designed. Note that I am calling you ignorant with respect to your understanding of EU4. You may be a very bright person otherwise.

If you find a 2k dev Ottomans to be too much trouble, make a thread, post screenshots of your situation and people will help, myself included. The game shouldn't be changed just because you don't feel like learning to overcome perfectly surmountable obstacles.

I am "obsessed" with a gradual increase in difficulty not a decrease I am "obsessed" with the game being challenging not because of a time limit but because of mechanics.
And there is no reason you should want casual play nerfed because it essentially already is.
And yeah it very much is, last WC I saw was about removing and adding the provinces of the HRE something like three times to pump up imperial authority that is an exploit to me. Because it makes no sense in the context of what it is meant to portray.

I don't find a 2k ottomans particularly intimidating, but I understand the people who do and I think there should be internal decline mechanics, because like I said I think the challenge of the game should be in the mechanics not in the timelimit.

 

[bly08]

What's a difficult challenge not due to time limit but mechanics?

 

[Vulkandrache]

last WC I saw was about removing and adding the provinces of the HRE something like three times

As for being impressed with the achievement of managing things like WC before 1600, no not any more than I am impressed with the 15 minute Legend Of Zelda Ocarina of time playthrough using the deku tree exploit to skip to the last boss

Not a good analogy. While some might argue that HRE shenanigans could use some change there has not been a something that just make an "I win" button appear in EU4.

Just as you wont find someone who just started playing Zelda skip from the Deku tree the end the people who pull of the fast WC's are the people that have played the game so much that its basic gameplay has become trivial to them. Thats normal, thats called learning.
Those people could move on to play other game, that would be totaly fine. Or they can try to find ways to make EU4 fun again.
That can be achieved through mods, by putting limitations on yourself or by trying to break the game. Thats nothing unique to Eu4, it happens with nearly every game.

I have a fair amount of respect for the 15 minutes zelda run, at least he realizes that it's mostly for fun

While yes, those people try and seek ways to "skip" parts of the game, your Zelda analogy doenst hold up.
Even in Speedruns that dont skip right from start to finish the runner will use bugs, glitches or just tight execution to bypass parts of the game (i.e. skipping entire rooms if they dont contain important stuff).
The EU4 players that use their knowledge of the game and maybe even the occasional glitch to do things like pre-1600 Wc's are not warping with the Deku tree.
They are skipping rooms.
Meanwhile your words imply that every Zelda64 Speedrun that doesnt collect 100% of the items "skipped" parts of the game and thus doesnt count and/or is not impressive.

 

[DaZelle]

Please do tell me why skipping the game is impressive. Avoiding mechanics avoiding content, ofcourse everything that could be added seems like a chore to you if it means that is just more stuff you are trying to circumvent but some of us want a game to play not just to beat.

Oh boy.

How on earth did you get the idea that we are skipping content? I've read stuff like "I wanted to play a tall game and focus on trade and diplomacy" many times, but you know what? We do the same thing, but mistakes don't really get punished when u play tall since your country is too stable. But while sitting at over 100% oe and trying to juggle coalitions things go downhill pretty quickly if you fuck up.

And your Zelda anology....that's like using the console to get a WC. And I highy doubt anyone of us would do/enjoy that.

 

[checro]

I am "obsessed" with a gradual increase in difficulty not a decrease I am "obsessed" with the game being challenging not because of a time limit but because of mechanics.

But that is your problem. This just isn't the game for you.

More then half of the mechanics (cool, good and fun mechanics) are linked with the speed of expanding. And if you are expanding too slow you never experience them, and of course it is too easy and not fun. (And it is you who is skipping content)

But that is not a bug or a problem, it was designed as that from the start, so if you don't like it you just don't like the game.

 

[DaZelle]

Have you ever seen on of the blobbers open a thread asking to nerf tall playstyle because it is "too easy" (and yes, playing tall is brainless compared to playing wide)? No, because we don't care how you play. How about we add a modifier to tall empires that highly developped provinces suffer from diseases/overpopulation or whatsoever. Seeing ppl on reddit have 60+ development provinces in the middle of africa, wouldn't they have problems to support such a huge city? Where is your immersion there? How likely would it be that another constantinopel appears out of nowhere in a couple of years in dry lands in the sahara?

You guys keep using catch phrases like immersion, realism, etc. only when it supports your case, while it could also be used the other way round.

And btw what did all the tall players do before they added development? Was playing tall a thing back then aswell?

 

[iquabakaner]

Have you ever seen on of the blobbers open a thread asking to nerf tall playstyle because it is "too easy" (and yes, playing tall is brainless compared to playing wide)? No, because we don't care how you play. How about we add a modifier to tall empires that highly developped provinces suffer from diseases/overpopulation or whatsoever. Seeing ppl on reddit have 60+ development provinces in the middle of africa, wouldn't they have problems to support such a huge city? Where is your immersion there? How likely would it be that another constantinopel appears out of nowhere in a couple of years in dry lands in the sahara?

You guys keep using catch phrases like immersion, realism, etc. only when it supports your case, while it could also be used the other way round.

And btw what did all the tall players do before they added development? Was playing tall a thing back then aswell?

Since when did anyone here said that is immersive?

Yes, I would really like to play for hours to build a nation and then my ruler dies and my country splits and it's time to play whack-a-mole with the rebels.

We literally play that in CK2, and it's a more popular game than EU4.

How's that whack-a-mole with rebels? I feel like every war in EU4 is whack-a-mole, on the other hand.

 

[cristofolmc]

Seriously, I don't get why so many people that are against blobbing game by nature still use the argument it is unchallenged. Do a WC with a horde by 1650 and tell me if it wasn't challenging. You have no challenge because you do NOT want to have challenge in the blobbing style, that's it. But in reality, there are many ways to have challenge by using the game as it is. And some achievements are real challenges!

Just say the truth: you do not like the blobbing game and want have micromanagement challenges by dealing with internal collapse instead of fast pace expansion challenges. But please, stop saying there is no challenge in the blob game.

You're the one telling the truth. The challenge is to get the horde on its feet. THat may be challenging. NOTHING ELSE. Oh well, yeah, a timing challenge, WC before the end date. A gamey challenge. I was talking about real challenges based on real world problems, not arcade challenges about time records and stuff xd. Yeah it can be a challenge to world conquer before end games. What I meant its that it isnt challenging go for WC once you've get the horde on its feet. Its just keep conquering. What I meant was a "historical" or realistic, based on real world challenge. You have no actual limitation other than time xd If I used extended timeline ther would be NO challenge whatsoever for WC I'd probably finish it before 1200 as a matter of fact.. Its stupid. And again, if you want to go for that arcade gamey play style fine, go grab a mod. But a game that prides itself to be a Grand Strategy SO SUPERIOR to the others should have world conquest as its core or else change the name of the game to "Risk" The Computer Game.

 

[StefanFan]

This debate is kind of useless at this point, it's just some personal words war between stubborn parts. If you check the OP:

The vast majority agrees with the OP ideas. The rest is cancan.

To be more specific, 80% of the people agree that bigger nations must have more problems, while 20% don't.

 

[Regaccio]

It's sad to see a thread that could have been a productive discussion on how to improve internal politics and solve the insane snowballing problem in EU4, devolve into pages upon pages of "stop liking what I don't like!!".

 

[moscal]

This debate is kind of useless at this point, it's just some personal words war between stubborn parts. If you check the OP:

The vast majority agrees with the OP ideas. The rest is cancan.

To be more specific, 80% of the people agree that bigger nations must have more problems, while 20% don't.

But Devs did not answer anything and this is sadly

 

[inreadible]

Since when did anyone here said that is immersive?


We literally play that in CK2, and it's a more popular game than EU4.

How's that whack-a-mole with rebels? I feel like every war in EU4 is whack-a-mole, on the other hand.

First of all, where is your source that CK2 is more popular, according to Steam EU4 is far more played. Second, Counter Strike is even more popular but I see no reason to add every Counter Strike mechanic to EU4.

And your own words were: " but nothing that really threaten your "heartland" like in CK2, where you could basically have more than half of your country turned against you, with concentrated troops similar to your size, that works like an independent country."
So I assumed this means a shitton of rebels? You can call it an independent country popping out of your country, but it doesn't sound much different from current rebels.

 

[iquabakaner]

And your own words were: " but nothing that really threaten your "heartland" like in CK2, where you could basically have more than half of your country turned against you, with concentrated troops similar to your size, that works like an independent country."
So I assumed this means a shitton of rebels? You can call it an independent country popping out of your country, but it doesn't sound much different from current rebels.

Internal mechanics is not just "adding more rebels", even though making rebel mechanic more interesting in itself would be a good option, for example like in CK2 where you can actually interact with disloyal factions within your realm (it's an example, by no means am I suggesting to put CK2 exactly into EU4). The aim was not to make WC totally impossible, but to make internal management interesting and, to a certain extent, more realistic. You can WC in CK2 as well, but you have to constantly manage your internal problems just as much and probably more as you grow, and there is a huge chance of everything breaking apart if you do it wrong (sometimes even if you do it right, e.g. your character suddenly died), instead of in EU4 where you pretty much only need to care about unrest in recently conquered provinces, and where you are about to conquer.

The current rebel mechanic spawns only rebel stacks that are pretty much always inferior to your troops, and is simply too easy to deal with, and also too easy to avoid in the first place.

I don't expect you to read every one of my post, so let me put that out again for you.

 

[checro]

You're the one telling the truth. The challenge is to get the horde on its feet. THat may be challenging. NOTHING ELSE. Oh well, yeah, a timing challenge, WC before the end date. A gamey challenge. I was talking about real challenges based on real world problems, not arcade challenges about time records and stuff xd. Yeah it can be a challenge to world conquer before end games. What I meant its that it isnt challenging go for WC once you've get the horde on its feet. Its just keep conquering. What I meant was a "historical" or realistic, based on real world challenge. You have no actual limitation other than time xd If I used extended timeline ther would be NO challenge whatsoever for WC I'd probably finish it before 1200 as a matter of fact.. Its stupid. And again, if you want to go for that arcade gamey play style fine, go grab a mod. But a game that prides itself to be a Grand Strategy SO SUPERIOR to the others should have world conquest as its core or else change the name of the game to "Risk" The Computer Game.

So... You are saying that mongolian horde conquests in history weren't historical?

 

[Kayden_II]

01. Stability-Costs ...
It makes sense, that the stability-costs are influenced by "what-ever" since it makes sense, that a 1-province-1-culture-1-religion-nation has to spend fewer administrative monarch-points in regards to its stability than a 100-provinces-10-cultures-2-religions-one ...

02. Government-Ranks ...
It makes sense, that there're several goverment-ranks within my nation since the player could begin to play as a 1-province-nation, than as a "duchy" aka an area/state, than as a "kingdom" aka an entity of a lot of "duchies"/areas/states and than as an "empire" aka an entity of a lot of "kingdoms" ...
The actual thing is, that currently, each nation is 1 big blobb instead of 1 big blobb and several "sub-blobbs", for example a german empire (big blobb) with the prussian kingdom ("sub-blobb" 01) + the bavarian kingdom ("sub-blobb" 02) + the saxonian kingdom ("sub-blobb" 03) + duchies + even 1-province-"sub-blobbs" like lübeck/ hamburg/ bremen and these "sub-blobbs" could be the base for an internal system in regards to stability/instability.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

During my first WC attempt I had 20k+ development as the Ottomans in late 1780s. I thought it would be an easy finish but ended up a few provinces short. Even if I did finish there was no part of me that could possibly think "this is a piece of a cake, it should be more challenging." I have no idea how that thought could enter anyone's head while having undergone the same experience.

I'm not saying doing a WC is boring(it really isn't). I'm saying that *I* get bored doing them(or really any campaign, for that matter). Not because of a lack of tension or challenge(because there's plenty) but because I need to switch things up on a regular basis. I will often switch campaigns on a whim because I feel the need for freshness.

 

[bly08]

I'm not saying doing a WC is boring(it really isn't). I'm saying that *I* get bored doing them(or really any campaign, for that matter). Not because of a lack of tension or challenge(because there's plenty) but because I need to switch things up on a regular basis. I will often switch campaigns on a whim because I feel the need for freshness.

I didn't say anything about being bored.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

I didn't say anything about being bored.

My apologies, I misread the tone of your response. Please forgive me.

 

[cristofolmc]

So... You are saying that mongolian horde conquests in history weren't historical?

Right cause the mongols conquered the qolrd and didn't face any problems and didn't collapse or enything. Just like in EU IV.

Nice twisting xd. Keep trying. Even the british empire would've made for a better argument. But you had to go for the worst example xd. The glorious and successfull mongol empire xd

 

[checro]

Right cause the mongols conquered the qolrd and didn't face any problems and didn't collapse or enything. Just like in EU IV.

Nice twisting xd. Keep trying. Even the british empire would've made for a better argument. But you had to go for the worst example xd. The glorious and successfull mongol empire xd

Well, they didn't try for 400 years. They only did it in a timeframe imposible for EU4 and gues what, suffered from OE...

But it wasn't about that. It was about if it was historical or not, and you said conquering so much wasn't historical and was arcady...