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
Which is why it has to be fun. I already stated that in the criteria.
You can't see how adding more rebels to slow down blobbing would make the game less fun?
Only a small minority have done a WC because it is a difficult achievement that requires patience and a solid understanding of game mechanics.
Players who have not done a WC are not necessarily anti-blobbing. That is a very naive and shortsighted assumption.
There is more than "adding more rebels" when you make a mechanic to control blobs. The current rebel mechanic is useless anyway.
That is an interesting opinion, could you expand on why the current mechanic is useless, as well as what "more than 'adding more rebels'" refers to?
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.
Do you have a specific suggestion in mind from this thread that would both improve internal mechanics and be fun to play? I do not have CK2.
I find rebels difficult to deal with and impossible to avoid. We must see the game very differently. I have a lot of trouble with rebels every game whenever I try to blob.
I wish I had a very freshed out idea, but I can only tell what's wrong with the game and point out there have been alternatives present in other games so far.
You have rebels on recently conquered territories, you have occasional event spawned rebels, all who simply cared about a small area with extremely predictable (and lame) movement. 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.
Eh, that sounds too complicated; one of the things I'm worried about with what I already proposed is that that would put you up to six or seven estates already; this is I'd imagine close to the very uppermost limit of what I'm comfortable with (I'd say eight could work at least for what I proposed earlier, but no more). You're now proposing even more than that - technically, an unlimited amount. That sounds way too complicated to me.
On a related note though, I think I've floated the idea before of letting your accepted cultures be determined by what land the estates hold, though. If you are BB and hold your endgame historical territories, the way to get all those cultures (off the top of my head Saxon, Prussian, Pomeranian, Silesian, and Polish) to be accepted would be to give sufficient land of those five cultures to your estates that those cultures felt represented as a part of your government. (This isn't really on topic with what the thread is discussing, but is just related enough to our little sub-conversation that I figured I'd mention it). Related to that, having an unaccepted culture and/or religion should be a huge deal, which it...well, isn't. It's unfortunate, but it's hardly a reason not to take land.
I would also have shift absolutism to be something that diminishes the influence of whatever factions you're facing while offering other downsides - loss of faction loyalty, unrest, etc. It should, in a perfect world, free you from the burden of having to play nice with your nobility and estates, with all the consequences that entails. There are reasons why absolute monarchies didn't prove to be a long term government model despite the convenience they offered (as well as serving as an example of what I mean when I say mechanics should have upsides and downsides to them).
Estates were one of the things I have thought about too (even though it's not very freshed out). I would like to see the Dutch revolt connected to the disloyalty of the Dutch nobility.
I wish I had a very freshed out idea, but I can only tell what's wrong with the game and point out there have been alternatives present in other games so far.
You have rebels on recently conquered territories, you have occasional event spawned rebels, all who simply cared about a small area with extremely predictable (and lame) movement. 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.
I see, is this the implicit assumption when the posters in this thread say blobbing is too easy, as in, relative to CKII? CKII sounds like a superior game with optimal difficulty level.
CKII is much easier to blob in early game, and late game you have vassals that are blobbing hard in every direction. If you keep big vassals happy and try to split apart their titles it is very painfree to blob.
yeah, because if they make France conquering Europe hard for me it becomes impossible for 99% for the playerbase.
You are correct about the highlighted part though. I consider a player who understands the basics of the game should be able to do Three Mountains once the initial restart luck is out of the way. Indeed, I think this forum would have much better informed comments if you had to submit a TTM save within the last 2 years to make suggestions, would you agree with this assessment?
Incidentally, I always notice the same antiblob people also happen to complain about ming being a challenge to fight. The country that takes 50% more morale damage when confronted with a stiff breeze! It is pretty funny that the mingsplosion they then desire is some straight up sixth century or worse ahistorical abomination for the eu4 timeline.
Incidentally, I will point out there are already significant challenges you can do in this game that do not involve world conquests.
Here's one of my favorite, preventing the reformation:
Or here's a nice one from a talented player I know:
For being an RP crowd you sure lack a lot of creativity.
Last edited:
Conquering Europe should be impossible, there is no plausible world in which that occurred. France in real history got about as close as you could possibly expect, and even then it was with a healthy dose of client states as opposed to direct control, and they still had tons of unconquered territory.
If you own a particular DLC. Good luck if you don't, I guess?
Insulting people is not productive. Everyone here just wants what they see as best for the game. Knock it off.
Let me put it this way.
When a group of people can be relied upon to make consistently inaccurate / not factual statements about how the game works, I do question their ability to competently make suggestions that can actually improve the game. Would you trust someone that didn't understand what discipline does to improve the combat mechanics in the game? Same thing here.
You have people commenting that VH doesn't affect endgame difficulty, incapable of understanding why WCs that are done 100-200 years faster are exponentially harder, not understanding that corruption doesn't prevent dip tanking, etc. etc. And they bring this enlightened view to wherever they go.
You couple that with some assertions that somehow we are the ones afraid of challenge and yes, you might provoke a response. If you are going to make passive aggressive 'git gud' statements then try not to get exposed when someone takes a brief look through your posting history.
Again, OP is complaining about competent AI. That's not me, I love this change (and I've mentioned other difficulty increasing things), it is him.
When a group of people can be relied upon to make consistently inaccurate / not factual statements about how the game works, I do question their ability to competently make suggestions that can actually improve the game. Would you trust someone that didn't understand what discipline does to improve the combat mechanics in the game? Same thing here.
You have people commenting that VH doesn't affect endgame difficulty, incapable of understanding why WCs that are done 100-200 years faster are exponentially harder, not understanding that corruption doesn't prevent dip tanking, etc. etc. And they bring this enlightened view to wherever they go.
You couple that with some assertions that somehow we are the ones afraid of challenge and yes, you might provoke a response. If you are going to make passive aggressive 'git gud' statements then try not to get exposed when someone takes a brief look through your posting history.
Again, OP is complaining about competent AI. That's not me, I love this change (and I've mentioned other difficulty increasing things), it is him.
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?
CK2 did internal mechanics better, less so in some other parts. The difficulty to blob comes when you're extremely small and have to look for CB and the possible expansion route, and in the lategame where you need to manage extremely strong vassals. The mid-game though is not as challenging.
And as someone mentioned above, there are ways to deal with all these problems.
Achievements are a pretty awful way to measure the % of the active playerbase that have done something.
Only 23% of players have unlocked the royal marriage achievement.
Only 23% of players have unlocked the royal marriage achievement.
How is that remotely relevant to a game that, by design, allows you to conquer the world in the 18th century?
- Status