Concerns about the lack of major gameplay changes

[Hetzerr]

Anyone else thinks that there are too few major changes in the game compared to EU3? All the time I played the demo it feels like I am playing EU3 with an expansion and a graphic update. Colonization, warfare, HRE and Papacy mechanincs are nearly the same as before, a few changes in diplomacy and technology but the general concepts are still the same, as well as with ideas. The only major change maybe with the trade system.
Don't get me wrong I like the game a lot, but I thinks it is just because it cloned the gameplay concepts of the previous EU title. I mean you do the same things during you play the game, for example with colonization: hire explorers, attach them to units, send out them to the Terra Incognita, deal with the natives and send colonist, repeat. Warfare, converting religions, diplomacy is feels the same aswell, with a few changes, mostly just interface updates, like the production screen (which is very handy by the way). Even my most hated thing from EU3, the pirates is still the same.
My main concerns is that I am pretty sure that the future expansions for the game will be the same as they were in EU3: expand the timeframe in the 1800's and the 1400's, add some flavour for the asians countries etc.
The only major change which I hope will be good is the new multiplayer system, but I am still concerned that it will be full of bugs (which is not a new thing with Paradox games at release).

 

[unmerged(683295)]

How can people say that it is like playing EU3? The monarch power system is such a big difference alone, colonization works different as you do not have a pool but an envoy to send, i do not know much of the HRE changes(if an), but the papacy have also seen a remake with the investment system(I do not know much about the changes or the impact, but there have been changes). Diplomacy have been made so much better, you can actually see whether the "deal" is okay or not, and what impacts it. And how would you change how it should be to explore the world and convert regions?! It has not been changed because there is no need to do it.

 

[safferli]

No discussions of piracy, please

 

[Grave Digger]

Got Ninja'd

 

[Thanik]

Anyone else thinks that there are too few major changes in the game compared to EU3? All the time I played the demo it feels like I am playing EU3 with an expansion and a graphic update. Colonization, warfare, HRE and Papacy mechanincs are nearly the same as before, a few changes in diplomacy and technology but the general concepts are still the same, as well as with ideas. The only major change maybe with the trade system.
Don't get me wrong I like the game a lot, but I thinks it is just because it cloned the gameplay concepts of the previous EU title.

You can tell this about almost every sequel of any game If game is so good, why change it totally.
think it is not bad idea to add new features to approved title... Many of new things in EU 4 are really major changes anyway to gameplay.

Total War , Civilization or Tropico series are similar to previous version , but this mean they are not enjoyable:>?

 

[trcanberra]

You can tell this about almost every sequel of any game If game is so good, why change it totally.
think it is not bad idea to add new features to approved title... Many of new things in EU 4 are really major changes anyway to gameplay.

Total War , Civilization or Tropico series are similar to previous version , but this mean they are not enjoyable:>?

Well - Civ V is VERY different from IV but with you re the other changes. Also, I'm not usually one for worrying about graphics but this game just looks superb.

 

[unmerged(139685)]

The game has gotten a lot better overall, more streamlined, with better feedback (in eg. diplomacy, quite a godsend). There are a few unfortunate cuts (slider policies, freedom to combine ideas, province modifiers), but overall the game is significantly improved - I won't go back to EU3. It still is the same game, of course.

 

[unmerged(344099)]

I fully agree with everything written here. I would see 2 major changes that could give a flavour that the game is not simply being adjusted, but really gaining in depth
1- It should be possible, if wanted, that we can see a step deeper in the provinces organisation, by dividing them into counties/shires/bishoprics. By having this level of details, we could have for instance better explained casus belli (if a county is much richer / strategic that the rest of the province), and also more possibilities in the exchanges after a war - which was truly the case). This would also give better explanation in the rebellions - for example if a county is of a different culture/religion).
2- Linked with the previous, I would like to see what is really going on in the provinces I rule - if a technology/city is changing, I am currently frustrated that I dont see any change except in the menus. With a version 4, we should now be able to zoom in and see what is happening ... a bit like in TW series but not to move a single guy, just to see the actual evolution of our country over time and linked with the new techs.

 

[beckermt]

The game has gotten a lot better overall, more streamlined, with better feedback (in eg. diplomacy, quite a godsend). There are a few unfortunate cuts (slider policies, freedom to combine ideas, province modifiers), but overall the game is significantly improved - I won't go back to EU3. It still is the same game, of course.

Uggh, no way, sliders ideas were terrible. Every decade gain a tiny benefit in the direction you want your county to be. Also, for certain countries there weren't any real decisions. Centralization and Innovation were needed to Westernize, and Central was always better than Federalism. Horrid system.

I played the demo and I've played EU3 since. As soon as I went back I missed the new envoy system, the improved production system, the improved diplomacy, etc.

Vast improvements were made. Kudos, Paradox for keeping the core game solid while refining it. Perfect sequel.

 

[unmerged(778142)]

I agree that there aren't too many huge differences - but to me, that is a good thing. I really enjoyed EU3, I thought it was a brilliant game, and an EUIV that is for the most part an upgraded EU3 is exactly what I wanted, as a consumer - basically I played EU3 to the point that it felt a little repetitive, so the ability to play the same game but have it feel fresh again is something I'm really looking forward to.

 

[Sam L]

Why fix something that is not broken? I love the fact that EUIV looks better, monarch points makes a huge difference and we get CKII official converter.

I used to play Civ IV more than any Paradox games. I still love it but Civ V I never even bought because they tried to fix something that is not broken and ruined it.

 

[trcanberra]

Why fix something that is not broken? I love the fact that EUIV looks better, monarch points makes a huge difference and we get CKII official converter.

I used to play Civ IV more than any Paradox games. I still love it but Civ V I never even bought because they tried to fix something that is not broken and ruined it.

If it was not broken then you still have a great game to play with Civ IV. I didn't like Civ IV but loved V, especially after the first xpac - as they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Hetzerr]

I used to play Civ IV more than any Paradox games. I still love it but Civ V I never even bought because they tried to fix something that is not broken and ruined it.

This is not true anymore. At release Civ5 was a terrible I admit it, but after the expansions it is the best title in the series so far (and I played Civ games since the 90's, around 2000 hours of Civ4 for example.

And Civ5 is a great example that you can make major gameplay changes in a sequel, which are mostly missing EU4.

 

[chatnoir17]

It is an expected question for the developers and they have already prepared the answer.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=87120&d=1375963010

You can agree or disagree their opinion though.

 

[Baikal]

Why fix something that is not broken?

A thousand times this. I can't fathom why so many people apparently expect the developers to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Hetzerr]

A thousand times this. I can't fathom why so many people apparently expect the developers to re-invent the wheel.

After I played EU3 for years it is pretty boring, and the devs sticked too many concepts from it that playing EU4 is feels like that I play the previous title with some improvements.

 

[towerbooks3192]

I avoided the demo as it will get me more excited and might get the wrong impression of the game when I know its not the actual product yet.

I do love the way things seem to be much clearer and the AI seems reasonable and increasing stability and coring really requires you to do something instead of just fix some sliders and wait for magic to happen. The only thing I don't like is that it now feels like a game instead of something realistic but we will see what would happen.

 

[Baikal]

After I played EU3 for years it is pretty boring, and the devs sticked too many concepts from it that playing EU4 is feels like that I play the previous title with some improvements.

Well what concepts would you like to change and what revolutionary changes would you advise?

 

[PiriReis]

If you change it too much, then people will whine about their favorite gameplay elements not being anymore in the game.

Let alone Monarch point system, piety mechanism, trade system, coalitions and envoys are already major changes. EU4 looks good and plays well.

 

[Hetzerr]

Well what concepts would you like to change and what revolutionary changes would you advise?

I am not a game dev, I am just a gamer who wants to be entertained.