Whats your gripe with coalitions, when they combine people outside a shared super region?
They hard-limit war score taken (unlike any coalition in history ever) and they block separate peace entirely regardless of situation for target country (unlike any coalition in history ever).
@TheMeInTeam Probably the largest strawman post I've seen in the forum, to date, and you're replying in one case as if you're @EarlKonrad to whom I gave a separate reply.
That's not what "strawman" means. The assertion that EU 4 is a fantasy game in practice is MY argument, not yours. I'm not representing it as yours, I'm stating it as a refutation of your position.
You might disagree with it. Maybe you will even give solid reasoning why at some point. But as I'm not representing it as your argument, it is false to call it a strawman.
The portrayal of realism isn't rigid, but within enough of a bounds to provide a somewhat historic presentation throughout the game's play through.
I won't comment on pre-EU 4, because it's outside of the scope of a discussion about colonization in EU 4. But to refute the quote above:
Since the game is less than 24 hours from release, I figured I would start this thread. On steam, it seems F11 or F12 is a simple screenshot(where F12 sends it to your steam screenshot library, and F11 sends it to Documents/Paradox...
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Even in the 2013 posts, there are flagrant divergences from anything historically possible/plausible, such as Japan owning all of Mexico before 1590.
Last - you keep injecting comments in criticism of Game Design that allows World Conquest (WC), but no one here (myself included) is arguing in favor of WC potential in Game Design. Take a big Nerf Hammer to that one as well (something we actually agree on).
The point being that your statement about what the game is/supposed to be (a historical simulator), is not actually consistent with what the game is now, what the game was 1 year ago, what the game was 8 years ago, or what the devs described as "risk on crack". WC is intentionally part of the design, and some of us are okay with that.
What you are advocating is a hard design shift in what EU 4 is, > 8 years into its existence (maybe for only some mechanics, maybe more broadly). It's bad practice either way.
I don't know what game you were looking at, but it wasn't EU 4.
There just has to be a desire on part of the developers to accomplish this.
And there was, in some of those other games. EU 4 is not those other games, it is EU 4. For better or worse, its mechanics/systems were designed differently with different goals in mind. It's okay to have different types of games.
Even back in 2015 and before with completely different devs, the company line was still "gameplay > realism", and WC was both an achievement and achieved numerous times.
If you were building colonies in the Caribbean in 1500 as Congo solely to achieve early Westernization, then yes, you were metagaming with cheesy strats.
What the heck. No, you colonized Caribbean as nations like Aztec, Maya, Inca/Chimu, or Cherokee. If you picked Kongo, you'd just drop 1-2 colonies up the ivory coast and westernize off the Portuguese or Spanish colony there.
The cheese strats were things like seizing a nearly-finished European colony from across the world as Brunei and using that to westernize. Kongo/Aztec didn't need to do anything like that.
Players today are able to break Institutions in a similar way by devving provinces, with even more absurd results.
If you believe developing for institutions is "cheese" you do not have a coherent definition of what "cheese" means in your own mind.
You're free to play like that. But I didn't play like that, and the AI certainly didn't play like that. Using those strategies as your frame of reference for general game balance is misguided.
The game's rules define its reality, not what some player did or did not do. The fact of the matter is that westernization was available the instant any nation touched a western core, and this could happen very early with minimal effort unless you were in Asia. And amusingly, people complained about the natives being unrealistic/in some cases too strong even back then.
Similarly, even in 1.3-1.5 or whatever, taking historical peace deals was (mostly) impossible and numerous historical conquests would never happen w/o player doing them. And coalitions were even worse than they are now, in terms of historical realism.
This. WC should be near impossible, if not completely impossible to pull off by 1820. The game should not be balanced around WC runs.
Those that have designed, implemented and sold the game have consistently disagreed with you in both word and action since before the game released until now. There are multiple achievements for WC, and it remains a fact that whatever players say about it, only a tiny % of players actually succeed when attempting them. More still don't try, then parrot statements about it that are obviously false
.
Pushing your expansion rate is THE thing the game builds constraints around/challenges. It's a measure of skill that separates players, while PvP in MP games is another such measure. I will not agree to arbitrary, self-inconsistent logic nor an argument to completely change EU 4 into something else. Either of those things will make the game worse than it is right now, to at least some of us.
