DDRJake's Twitter Teaser

[PedroLuiz]

Who knows, maybe innovativeness mechanics would make playing tall actually a valid option?

you have hopes, they'll soon be dead

 

[OoshR32]

Who knows, maybe innovativeness mechanics would make playing tall actually a valid option?

Valid option for what? Certainly not WC. It's tough to do that without artificially gimping wide play.

 

[Sfan]

Who knows, maybe innovativeness mechanics would make playing tall actually a valid option?

Yes, sure. And Victoria III is released next week.

Valid option for what? Certainly not WC. It's tough to do that without artificially gimping wide play.

Valid option for something, I guess. As it stands, whatever the goal, you are better with wide play. It's obvious a WC requires wide play, but in an ideal world, the best way to hit the money cap would not be to One Tag, nore the best way to play the Game of Thrones to become the biggest country of the world and then force PUs by war.

 

[Llyw olaf]

I want to add one thing kind of unrelated thing to this thread. Actually I always thought it was more likely for Victoria 3 to be released than to see Jake active on the twitter. Something must have gone terribly wrong.

If his tweets stay EUIV and work related I think we're fine. If they become banal tweets about his lunch or rants about the lack of sugar in Irn - Bru, then we worry.

 

[mag_zbc]

Yes, sure. And Victoria III is released next week.

I don't expect a complete rebalance of the game, but it can perhaps be a step in the right direction. Currently blobbing it the only way to go

 

[CheesySnake]

rants about the lack of sugar in Irn - Bru

To be fair that is a pretty important issue.

 

[OoshR32]

A valiid option for something, I guess. As it stands, whatever the goal, you are better with wide play. It's obvious a WC requires wide play, but in an ideal world, the best way to hit the money cap would not be to One Tag, nore the best way to play the Game of Thrones to become the biggest country of the world and then force PUs by war.

Valid doesn't mean otpimal. You can be a strong trade and/or colonial nation playing tall as is. But EU4 is a crude history simulator and big has proven to be best, if you can keep it together, which is one area EU4 currently found wanting. It's far too easy to hold off implosion.

To be fair that is a pretty important issue.

Just so long as they leave the girders in...

 

[Stadhouder]

If his tweets stay EUIV and work related I think we're fine. If they become banal tweets about his lunch or rants about the lack of sugar in Irn - Bru, then we worry.

To be fair that is a pretty important issue.

Now I'm really curious what the heck Irn - Bru is supposed to be, I've never heard of it.

 

[TenshiN]

Now I'm really curious what the heck Irn - Bru is supposed to be, I've never heard of it.

Probably, this

 

[Sfan]

Valid doesn't mean otpimal. You can be a strong trade and/or colonial nation playing tall as is. But EU4 is a crude history simulator and big has proven to be best, if you can keep it together, which is one area EU4 currently found wanting. It's far too easy to hold off implosion.
Just so long as they leave the girders in...

It depends what you call "strong" trade gameplay then. To me, anything below 1000 trade income means the game is a failure, but we're going offtopic. I'm yet to see that without blobbing.

 

[Stadhouder]

Probably, this

I think I'll stay with the primary Scottish national drink.

 

[Badesumofu]

It depends how you measure success. I made a 91 province empire that had 3300 development all in accepted cultures. It can crush any opposition. Trade income is only 500 or so, but total is 1200ish. Obviously if I went wide I could have more money and soldiers. But tall play is a valid way to build a very powerful empire.

 

[R.Graymarch]

Inovativeness confirm before today dev clash
If you are ahead in getting tech, you get a bonus

 

[ArtayOfficial]

Spoiler

Innovativeness confirmed.

 

[sprites]

Innovativeness.... we'll see whta they do with that

 

[CosmicChronos]

Innovativeness Gain

9:57