Is it?
In my game Ottomans westernized in 1590. And we all know the pace of westernization around the globe.
Take some time to digest that. If that isn´t being nice to countries outside Europe I don´t know what it is.
Does the game feel historical to you?
- Thread starter keynes2.0
- 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.
Is it?
In my game Ottomans westernized in 1590. And we all know the pace of westernization around the globe.
Take some time to digest that. If that isn´t being nice to countries outside Europe I don´t know what it is.
Your example of being nice to non European countries is to point out a European country making a suboptimal decision for itself? That doesn't make sense.
- 1
I'm not sure that's a real dichtomy. Crusader Kings 2 is far more historical, but doesn't feel any less of a game for it.
Is the current implementation of length of war the best of all possible implementations? No.
Does it prevent a lot of issues from popping up? Yes.
Is it so fundamental to the way the AI acts that changing it is a major undertaking? Yes.
Is changing it a high priority? No.
I'm not saying I will never change it, but people who think they can just drop something so centric to the AI, throw in a few numbers they pulled out of a hat and call it a day would have a very rude awakening if they actually ever tried working on the EU4 AI, and the people saying 'it's entirely unnecessary and just hurts the AI' should try disabling it for themselves before they presume to school me.
- 7
- 5
I have to say that when I read a book about early modern history I find everytime things about, favourite ministers, parliaments, ecclesiastical reforms, privilegia, corporations, buy\sell of titles, taxation, debts, banks, jurisdictions, family ties. EUIV cover things that any other game don't cover, but a lot of things are not in the game, and these are necessary to have the feel of the age.
What about my idea - that when there is at least (for example 30% of war score), that length of war modifier ticks twice as fast (two points per month instead of one etc.).? Could it be a bad tweak, or something that could be considered without changing A lot of things, and be a little tuning?
Not a horrible idea, though I'd rather do it by simply reducing the effect of the modifier rather than having it 'tick' faster since the tick time is synced to a lot of other mechanics @ 5 years. I'll consider it.
If only I had more posts like this, and less people trying to armchair redesign the whole AI.
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
Paradox could do a LOT more for EU5 in representing the progressing time period, as the game advances.
The game starts in 1444 and ends in 1821, but music, graphics, etc are the same all the way through in EU4.
With a bigger budget, more music can be produced that corresponds to the different centuries, giving a feeling for the late medieval era in the 1444s all the way through to the 19th century. In the beginning, music would be more like CK2 and toward the end it would resemble more of the Victoria 2 touch.
It would've been cool with a city/province view, seeing towns grow and the architecture change. Advisor portraits clothing could reflect the era, and event images too.
Other than that, I think the game is historically immersive.
The game starts in 1444 and ends in 1821, but music, graphics, etc are the same all the way through in EU4.
With a bigger budget, more music can be produced that corresponds to the different centuries, giving a feeling for the late medieval era in the 1444s all the way through to the 19th century. In the beginning, music would be more like CK2 and toward the end it would resemble more of the Victoria 2 touch.
It would've been cool with a city/province view, seeing towns grow and the architecture change. Advisor portraits clothing could reflect the era, and event images too.
Other than that, I think the game is historically immersive.
Last edited:
- 4
Not at all. You asked if the game feels disconected from reality. The pacing of westernization certainly makes me feel it is, very often.
The game doesn't really feel very historical to me. And I'm quite happy about that, since it's a game.
There are many unrealistic things in the game. But I imagine some of them are there to make things simpler from gameplay perspective. Otherwise ability to create troops would be restricted by manpower of the province you were creating it from. You couldn't order 15 regiments to be created from a low manpower province in Arabia, when most of your manpower pool came from your Indian provinces. Same goes for reinforcement of troops.
There are other issues as well, but I suspect these are challenges with the AI (remember that this is a real time game with hundreds of AI nations playing at the same time, doing things every day and every month) and adding a higher level of thinking, planning and predicting for an AI nation can be a severe performance hog on the game.
There are other issues as well, but I suspect these are challenges with the AI (remember that this is a real time game with hundreds of AI nations playing at the same time, doing things every day and every month) and adding a higher level of thinking, planning and predicting for an AI nation can be a severe performance hog on the game.
You don't have that many people calling for a redesign, though you have some. You have a lot more that are unhappy with it as-implemented, and reasonably so.
And yes, I've tried removing it (or making it small). It doesn't work. I haven't figured out a way to make it do what I proposed (maybe I just missed how to do so, it's been quite a few months since I looked), or I'd have tried that ages ago and just said the result here.
Regardless, assigning weights to existing modifiers differently is all that can reasonably done without reworking how wars function in general (the whole WL centric aspect with allies having no say or influence is a serious, but separate issue for example). I'd imagine it is quite a bit harder to teach the AI how to use forts than to alter existing modifiers for length of war, in no small part because "optimal" play around forts (as it'll be understood in say 6 months) is probably unknown to literally everybody right now.
But you didn't say this in the other thread. You claimed it too easy to get out of wars w/o risk. I don't see how that's a plausible constraint, because I *have* played without length of war as a factor. Having the AI do nothing and having the AI burn resources to accomplish little-to-nothing in return are both undesirable outcomes. Nothing at all is more undesirable, but is that really the best that can be done...even within the constraint of current modifiers?
In the other thread I was explaining the purpose of the modifier. Said thread was calling for its removal. If you want me to consider numbers suggestions from you, maybe you should try posting said numbers suggestion instead of expecting me to wade through ten paragraph ego posts about every thread where you think you won an argument in the last three months.
- 6
I believe the music in EU2 worked like that, but I agree nonetheless because it's a great idea and gives an excuse to put organ music into a game that is low on organ music. Not all the music needs to be century-locked either, it could just be a music DLC that gives a bunch of century locked music.
It'd be nice to have advisor portraits change as the centuries progress, absolutely.
- 1
To me it's historical enough. I want to play a grand strategy game where I'm building a large empire.If I want more internal strife I pick up CK2. I like the unique aspects EU4 brings over a lot of other competitors in that it adds historical flavor, but for me, a history simulator is not where I want EU4 to be. The larger issue in my view is when mechanics break enjoyment. Late game when working to conquer my way into Europe (I do like watching how Europe evolves while I'm not there BTW) and I get hit by a 15 year regency I'm quite put off by the game. It doesn't create more challenge. It doesn't draw me deeper into the game (it's not like there was anything I could do to impact it), it just happens and now I'm supposed to sit and wait.
Yeah, if you can improve on the historic flavor, great. But keep in mind it's flavor and shouldn't interfere with the ability of the game to dynamically evolve, or the player's basic ability to do simple tasks like declare wars or peace out enemies who have been defeated.
Yeah, if you can improve on the historic flavor, great. But keep in mind it's flavor and shouldn't interfere with the ability of the game to dynamically evolve, or the player's basic ability to do simple tasks like declare wars or peace out enemies who have been defeated.
Just because I think the modifier is bad as-implemented and say so in the thread doesn't mean I support the OP's suggestion for it. Ego posts go both ways incidentally, it doesn't mean much when two people with obvious egos start pointing fingers at each other over that. At least I'm not trying to use that to attack your credibility, because either of us having an ego is irrelevant to the game.
Removing LoW entirely makes no-risk wars a non-issue; it's game killing. You know that, much better than I do no doubt.
My suggestion is that for the losing side, LoW is removed as a consideration for demands below the war score (keeping min 10% to make demands).
As a human, can you dip out of wars doing that? Yes, but you'll run afoul of 5+ year truce timers while taking relatively little, and in many cases it would be a misplay and squander an opportunity to really BREAK someone. It would also stop the AI from getting 80 war score then taking 30 3 years later...more opportunities to stab a greedy human potentially and less opportunities to dogpile an exhausted AI.
Thing is westernization in game is weird regardless of pacing. It doesn't boost tech levels just remove penalty and give neighbour bonuses if you hadn't managed to get most of it anyway. It seems to want to strike a middleground between actual westernization(that is replacing part of cultural, societal, economical and such values for western's to thereby be capable of easily 'catching up' and learning from the then more similar countries) and modernization(keeping up in technological development and implementation regardless of how precisely) but lacks several advantages of either while at the same time the disparity is far greater than what would be historical so it has to be easier than them if most of the world is to be even relvant(not even playable or important).
Really I have been wondering for the longest time on seeing how hard it would be to set up things so that westernization is similar to what is right now in game but also putting you up to 90% or so of tech level while adding specific reforms that every country has to go through to keep in tech to represent unifications, nation'states and so on. Would require setting up a lot of different paths and base requirements to meet at least the general circumstances of countries world wide but it would make for a far more interesting game even in Europe and have the playthrough of countries be more distinct as right now you have basically native americans, Ming, hordes and everyone else.
- 1