Does the game feel historical to you?

[Beagá]

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.

Thing is, the "answer" already exists.

It´s Victoria 2´s system or an improvement of it. It would also allow for western nations to also be assymetrical (because seriously, Portugal or Russia didn´t really have tech 32 32 32 like UK had).

The problem is, Vicky 2 has WAY fewer nation tags. It allows therefore to add complexity in areas which EU4 kinda can´t. Or maybe you CAN add that system but it was not the philosophy of the game.

Add to that how Literacy exists and works... and OMG I want Victoria 3 now :/

IMO the whole social and economic system of EU4 should probably be merged into one system, and military technology have ANOTHER system.

 

[alqemist]

If you consider how accurately the game balance represents the actual balance of powers I would say the game is pretty bad. France is an unstoppable blob, usually takes out half the HRE and all of Spain, unless it gets under a PU of someone...

In my experience France frequently fails, but then I turn off lucky nations. Maybe you need to too.

 

[alqemist]

Totally agree. You can even also mention that those Ming armies in Denmark manage (somehow) to reinforce if they lose some numbers. How's that possible? If your army hasn't got a land connection to a core province which is controled by you, you shouldn't be able to reinforce your armies.

You reinforce even when exploring NA and darkest Africa don't you? I don't thing Ming armies in Denmark is any more unbelievable than Danish armies in China.

 

[BFTeixeira]

You reinforce even when exploring NA and darkest Africa don't you? I don't thing Ming armies in Denmark is any more unbelievable than Danish armies in China.

I don't get your post... You're exactly making my point. I used the Ming army in Denmark just as an example, not as the only situation wrong.

 

[alqemist]

What i ideally would want is an immersive game in the way that is realistic, you dont go invade Russia in winters in 1500 becouse your entire army would die of attrition,

December, 1237 Batu Khan takes Ryazan
February, 1238 Batu Khan takes Vladimir
February 1238, Batu Khan takes Suzdal
March 1238, Subutai annihilates the Rus army at that battle of the River Sit, killing their Grand Prince
December, 1240 Batu Khan takes Kiev

Was 1500 a particularly cold year?

 

[wingzero890]

December, 1237 Batu Khan takes Ryazan
February, 1238 Batu Khan takes Vladimir
February 1238, Batu Khan takes Suzdal
March 1238, Subutai annihilates the Rus army at that battle of the River Sit, killing their Grand Prince
December, 1240 Batu Khan takes Kiev

Was 1500 a particularly cold year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

[Loaf Warden]

You reinforce even when exploring NA and darkest Africa don't you? I don't thing Ming armies in Denmark is any more unbelievable than Danish armies in China.

Yes, you do. And you shouldn't. That's the point. There ought to be a supply line system preventing things like this.

December, 1237 Batu Khan takes Ryazan
February, 1238 Batu Khan takes Vladimir
February 1238, Batu Khan takes Suzdal
March 1238, Subutai annihilates the Rus army at that battle of the River Sit, killing their Grand Prince
December, 1240 Batu Khan takes Kiev

Was 1500 a particularly cold year?

Well, yes. But in any case, the Mongol Empire should not be taken as a valid test case for how feasible something is in a more general sense.

 

[Beagá]

Yet essentially what destroyed the Grand Armée was attrition, not battle.

Let´s also forget that even by the time of Sun Tzu logistics and feeding armies was considered important.

Seriously, I fail to see the point you want to make except using very specifc situations to make broad statements. Also surrendering was a possibility, it´s just that everything in EU ends in sieges.

 

[alqemist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

That may be something to do with it, but according to the linked article the MWP was purely a North Atlantic phenomenon and not global.

 

[Chamboozer]

Although the Mongols are a bad example due to their uniqueness, alqemist is basically right. "Russia can't be invaded in the winter" is a historical trope, not a fact of reality. Russia provided logistical and environmental challenges to invasion, not an absolute deterrent.

 

[pirro]

The game is far from historical.

 

[alqemist]

Yet essentially what destroyed the Grand Armée was attrition, not battle.

Let´s also forget that even by the time of Sun Tzu logistics and feeding armies was considered important.

I think we all agree the current magic reinforcements are unrealistic.

Seriously, I fail to see the point you want to make except using very specifc situations to make broad statements. Also surrendering was a possibility, it´s just that everything in EU ends in sieges.

The warfare does end up being a bit same-same doesn't it? In reality not every city had to be besieged for most of a year or more. Quite often cities would fall quickly. Sometimes they would open the gates to the "enemy" -- the city fathers cared more about protecting the city than they did which prince they sent taxes to. Also nations often came to terms after losing battles. Some game mechanics seem to exist just to chew up the player's time.

 

[pirro]

I think we all agree the current magic reinforcements are unrealistic.



The warfare does end up being a bit same-same doesn't it? In reality not every city had to be besieged for most of a year or more. Quite often cities would fall quickly. Sometimes they would open the gates to the "enemy" -- the city fathers cared more about protecting the city than they did which prince they sent taxes to. Also nations often came to terms after losing battles. Some game mechanics seem to exist just to chew up the player's time.

The warfare has always been BS. Magic reinforcements, way too big armies in mid game while early game the armies are too small, no "leve en mase" system, battles that take forever, fortresses resisting for years a siege...

 

[Druplesnubb]

I checked out this thread and reading Alqemist's posts is seriously making me freak out. I'm so used seeing that face to my own posts only.

 

[alqemist]

Although the Mongols are a bad example due to their uniqueness, alqemist is basically right. "Russia can't be invaded in the winter" is a historical trope, not a fact of reality. Russia provided logistical and environmental challenges to invasion, not an absolute deterrent.

I have read that winter is actually a good time to invade Russia if you have the cold weather gear and supplies. The ground is hard and you can move fast. Much of the land becomes boggy in spring and even summer.

The warfare has always been BS. ... battles that take forever,

Most early modern battles were done in a day or two. In EU they go on for so long you can march in armies from hundreds of km away, even recruit new units and get them to battle before it is over. I wonder why they had to make it like that.

I checked out this thread and reading Alqemist's posts is seriously making me freak out. I'm so used seeing that face to my own posts only.

Sorry, I tried to choose an avatar no-one would want. Hopefully we will always agree so there will be no confusion.

 

[keynes2.0]

They made it like that so players would have time to chose to retreat or not and so reinforcements could enter mid battle as happened many times historically. It is a bit weird that such a core game mechanic hasn't gotten reviewed.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Nah, it's cool. I chose this thing because I have brown-greyish hair and a beard in real life, and also because I thought it looked kinda similar to the koala avatar I use in some other forums.

 

[keynes2.0]

Having a bard in real life sounds neat! Falalan whenever you want it!

 

[Druplesnubb]

Fixed it, but you can assume that the previous version of my post was true too.

 

[Pro]

They made it like that so players would have time to chose to retreat or not and so reinforcements could enter mid battle as happened many times historically. It is a bit weird that such a core game mechanic hasn't gotten reviewed.

Any reinforcements that arrived in a historical battle would be forces that were already present in the province in EU4 terms. The kind of marching half a country to reinforce a battle going badly is pure gameyness.