“El Dorado” Expansion for Europa Universalis IV Lets You Go For Gold
- Thread starter VeraVonGunner
- 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.
If you could only learn to read a whole sentence before making this kind of statement we could at least argue. I alredy explained WHY there are major power needed. Game doesnt handle very well the rising of a nation by any military being except if its done by missions OR by a event/lucky nation. You wouldnt have any kind of major power at all for centuries before any could grow without a 10 mini-nation coalition.
To be fair, there are only two things that TheMeInTeam loves more than EU4. Those are: Arguing about EU4 and telling people they are wrong (likely in reverse order).
I appreciate TheMeInTeam's forum contributions, and really, I jest... but also, really, I'm pretty sure those are TheMeInTeam's favorite things.
I suggested this ages back and had it shot down on the grounds that it would "lead to too much stratification of the community". I still support it, though, because as you say it would be the solution to most of the disagreements over how much railroading is too much.
I'm so happy to finally see some Meso/Sudamerican content, though I was hoping they'd get new buildings in their DLC. I wonder, though, if these religions will overshadow the Totemist and Shamanist mechanics.
I'm not usually one for calling for more religious details (since I like economics more), but we've currently got unique Catholic, Calvinist, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, and now Meso/Sudamerican mechanics. It'd be nice to see faiths like Protestantism and Buddhism get some love.
I'm not usually one for calling for more religious details (since I like economics more), but we've currently got unique Catholic, Calvinist, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, and now Meso/Sudamerican mechanics. It'd be nice to see faiths like Protestantism and Buddhism get some love.
I'm with you on paper, with the exception of Novgorod. It was a paper tiger by the start of the game that was probably as doomed as Byzantium to be subjugated by either Muscovy or Lithuania. Having one of the conquering powers embrace Novgorod's trading priorities isn't out of the realms of possibility though; a more Baltic-prioritizing Muscovy to Russia that adopts Novgorod's ideas or has 'Commerce-Russia' ideas would be ideal as an option to take for the player or AI, outside of national ideas.
On the subject of nations that are represented in an overpowered manner, mo'effin France. I'd actually suggest slapping France with a modifier called Feudalism that drastically reduces a lot of their bonuses until they go through a series of reforms to centralize the state. France is way too stable and way too centralized at game start; what makes it worse is that if you started chopping off more lands into vassals France would probably be sporting bigger total armies under their vassal hordes, or just annex them in twenty years instead of fifteen like it now. What'd be more appropriate would be for France to have higher revolt risks, higher stability costs, and possibly lower morale with each reform they pass knocking off one of these penalties. I've never seen France collapse into a civil war for the Wars of Religion or suffer massive peasant revolts; they need the damn nerf bat and I have no idea why no one has called this out before using history and facts rather than game balance as a reason.
You could just slap France with a big dollop of Local Autonomy at the start of the game. They'll burn it off if they focus on sorting themselves out internally, but it at least means France needs to take a bit of a break after the HYW (a war which was, naturally enough, devastating for France even more than it was for England) before going full aggro.
Actually most places with start with a fair amount of LA, especially Europe, as European states are currently way too rich and strong in the 15th century. England should probably get some special LA-reducing events at the end of the wars of the Roses (assuming they have given up on France - an England that's still in France will be far too busy to focus on centralisation), to get them back on their feet and to represent the policies of Henry VII.
If we take history on account, Scotland also should be, Granada/Navarra, Hungary/Bohemia, Hanseatic league, Denmark, all knight orders, and i could continue pointing nations that had alredy begun declining only to be absorbed. Yet you dont need to "make useless" the nation at your side. Because Burgundy isnt useless, Bohemia and (sometimes) Hungary arent useless. Sometimes Burgundy may ally Spain and Austria and beat the shit out of France. Sometimes Bohemia may ally with Poland (sightly strange, but happens a few times) and some minor powers and destroy Austria. Sometimes Hungary manages to have a decent allies and pushes the Ottomans away by releasing the Byzantines (which actually only delays, because Ottomans will rise 50 or 80 years later).
What i dont get, is why all major powers have a railroad to run but England doesnt? People may argue that England wasnt a major power until 1600. Yet before they were one of the key nations in europe. They were one of the allies someone would need to atack France. But they arent anywhere... In the HYW they just get roflstomped by France in Europe while Portugal keeps sending troops through the pyrinees to raise France score. Then it reachs 40% and Portugal white peaces and England is forced to give all provinces in Europe plus sometimes release Cornwall and Wales. They could recover, sure, if it wasnt for the War of the Roses (which actually France should have something like that when they changed from Valois to Bourbones in the middle of the Wars of Religions -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion) which actually makes them to swim in rebels for 20 years or so and sometimes it never ends, because it keeps poping more and more "religious" rebels (Hussites, Waldesians, etc).
I love you alternative-history talkers so much. You always know what and when exactly could happen, and what couldn't.
But please don't apply your superior knowledge to the game, thank you.
Just to remind: IRL Moscow subjugation started more than 20 years after the game start date. more than 20 years. You don't have to stay paper tiger all these years as Novgorod did IRL. And this is exactly the game's field. Otherwise lets just play history simulation.
Last edited:
It's not looking forward historically, it's legitimately talking about Novgorod as of 1453. None of the nations you listed above with the exception of probably Granada were backed into a corner like Novgorod was. Novgorod's apparently vast territory was only nominally controlled by them via the means of trading posts, they were dependent on the Muscovites to feed their populace, and they were entirely surrounded by states looking to expand into them. They were politically deadlocked between Lithuanian and Muscovite factions, as in, factions supporting their falling under the sphere of one or the other, and their manpower was outgunned by all of their neighbors. Novgorod knew what lay in the cards at game start, let's not pretend otherwise.
As for England; England wasn't a power until 1600. Acknowledging that is good, so let me address your other question. I'd argue that England is fairly represented, the reason they keep getting screwed is because France doesn't have enough shitty events for the Wars of Religion like England does for the War of the Roses. It's not that England is disproportionately weak(they honestly need a nerf when it comes to their power projection; I've had way too many games where England is acting like 1750 Great Britain in the rest of the world instead of 1550 Great Britain. To be fair, this is the case for all Europeans) but that France is way too overpowered disproportionate to what they were.
I'm sorry bringing up things that were already in motion offends you. Let me pull up this quote right here from Wikipedia to soothe your anger:
Well, Granada, Byzantium, Hungary, Scottland, Navarra, Salzburg, all the petty states in turkey, Tabarestan, etc etc etc, are countries which should dissapear very quickly or stay without doing anything for the whole timeline. Yet they are there. Why? Because they where there historically. England should start becoming a major power in 1550-80, but it should alredy be strong before that. You know, is not that a country opens a letter saying "Congratulations, you are a major power now!" and they start eating the world without mercy. England was a naval power which dominated the seas untill Spain was able to contest it, yet, we (Spain) failed the invasion to England and they just continued ruling the seas.
No one is saying take them out of the game. What I am saying is, don't be surprised that they fail. Which is what you appear to be arguing against; most of those nations you listed like Hungary and Scotland were so far from doomed that I'm not sure why you bring them up; Matthius Corvinus damn near capitulated Austria during his time in charge of Hungary, and Scotland was never conquered militarily, it fell under a personal union.
As for England, it's not uncommon to see them being disproportionately strong to what they were by 1500; I'm not sure but it must be some statistical oddity that has me seeing dominant Great Britains very often versus you seeing crippled Englands. As for English naval superiority; the English fleet was large yes, but they were not anywhere near being unchallengable until the early modern period. Both the English and Spanish gathered basically every free ship they could find in order to defend or invade, respectively, with the exception that the Spanish were a global empire at the time versus England's complete lack of colonies. Saying England dominated the seas is being overly generous; their land military was competent but not exactly fear-inducing like the Tercios were, but relatively small, and their navy was large and tasked strictly with the defense of England. England was a useful ally to have, but not a power to make on quake in their boots. It's only once England's commercial and naval assets were deployed in search of colonization and especially trade that the English navy ballooned to the point where England could project power.
Last edited:
Scottland was in a perpetual statuquo for all the time they should live in EU4 because they had (literally) NOTHING to conquer. They should just "sit waiting untill England decides to eat/vassalize/have a personal union" with them. For example, i can try to compare it with Aragon:
Aragon was a trade power in the mediterranean with a lot of influence in southern italy. They even should have cores in Athens because they just lost it less than 50 years before game start. Because of the union of Aragon and Castile to form Spain its railroad with an event called "Iberian Wedding".
Scotland was a kingdom without land to conquer, with no real allies (France were using them to weaken England), with no future at all, it should join England and Ireland to become Great Britain around 1600, but the point i wonder at all is WHY this isnt railroaded as with Aragon and Castile?
Understand that i am not requesting nations to be removed or have no chance of surviving, what i have been wondering since my first post on this thread is WHY England is different? Why other major powers have events or are very FORCED to become what they should be on history except them?
Well i think thats an understatement. England was never conquered because no one was able to match their fleets alone. So why France is able to field around the same amount of ships?
Just check this screen, there is no interaction between me and Europe:
THIS is what most times i see, ive never seen an England colonizing North America or conquering India.
Well that is interesting. I never had a game where England didn't colonize North America, even my Irish one where I harassed them from early on they were exiled to NA after I took their territories in Europe. India is rarer but even not playing into endgame whenever they are doing well(Formed GB as they normally do and weren't forced to release the component countries) they end up taking provinces in India.
That is not necessarily fair.
Until 1500 England was dominated by the cost of the hundred years war and the war of the roses, preventing them from really doing anything. The 16th century was the Tudor era, other than recovering from 200 years of conflict, England also centralised and built up its economy. They did get involved in European conflicts as a major power, invading France a couple of times (winning sometimes) and being named defender of the faith for a long period. It also marked the defeat of the Spanish armada and rise of the British navy (it isn't a very long period).
Then the union with Scotland, conquest of Ireland and rise of the British colonial empire happened over the next century.
If in the game the war of the roses doesn't happen, or ends quickly or England is just more stable or even just England wins some lucky victories, it makes sense that they would become a major power even earlier. No power made anyone quake in their boots, even France or Spain could easily be brought down by circumstances. I don't think it is fair to underestimate England's strengths.
In my games, they just colonize some small island in caribean sea and then stop colonizing at all in America. Sometimes they start colonizing South Africa, sometimes they just break because waldesians/hussite/civil wars and then i see how Cornwall/Wales/Scottland releases, to be reconquered a few years later.
I mean, I can sympathize with that. I've argued that the Iberian Wedding should be more diverse(and should actually have Aragon as the PU leader anyways if they're a part of it. By the time Spain became a more unitary state it was on Ferdinard's deathbed and he ruled almost exclusively from Aragon IIRC). The problem is that in the way the game is modeled, England usually eats Scotland even with France defending them. As I've said, I'm not sure how often you see England failing versus what I see, but a dead Scotland by 1500 is the usual, which is why (I think) Paradox is content to sit back and let Great Britain form that way; it's not quite crazy to imagine England successfully subjugating Scotland militarily rather than via matrimony. I actually wish there was a cleanup event for the Scottish if they exist a OPM or TPM to have them subjugated by the English since I' ll actually see them colonizing up the wazoo while England is off doing their thing in the New World.
But yeah, I usually see Great Britain form. I'd argue that things such as the Burgundian Inheritance or the Iberian Wedding should have more variability to them rather than be removed, as well as giving France a Wars of Religion event chain and autonomy nerfs rather than railroading England also in order to achieve more consistent formations of Great Britain/a stronger England in the late game.
Well i think thats an understatement. England was never conquered because no one was able to match their fleets alone. So why France is able to field around the same amount of ships?
Just check this screen, there is no interaction between me and Europe:
THIS is what most times i see, ive never seen an England colonizing North America or conquering India.
France is broken, I think I've already touched on that. Nerfing them would go a long ways towards easing the scenarios you consistently seem to find. And England will dominate navally ingame irregardless unless they end up being conquered due to having a good synergy of ideas as well as being able to leech a lot of trade from their node. If the English get invaded, it's not because France had more ships, it's because the AI has no idea what to do with their navy half the time and is content to deploy it to the Caribbean instead of defending the home islands. That's not really on England not being strong enough. As for colonies, that's....actually pretty crazy. In every game I play, and I do mean that literally, I end up pulling my hair out trying to keep Britain out of the colonization game.
And to be fair, all Europeans fail in dominating India, but that's because the mechanics for colonization in India are poor :/
I am very well aware of history of Novgorod Republic.
Imagine this: what if Novgorod would start preparations 20 years before the event, heavily investing in military and seeking alliances faster? Would the result still be the same?
What if, for example, Ivan III would die prior to the event? What if hordes would damage Moscow prior to the event?
Players have knowledge of what will be, therefore have powers to prevent it by doing things which were not done IRL. And in context of dynamic NIs and national interests (or something), it means that Novgorod-Russia should have as same possibilities to adapt to the colonization as Moscow-Russia would have possibilities to embrace trade.
Last edited:
Hum... Are those ironman games(or the same settings, not like ironman has anything special in and of itself)? Because I have seen huge english CNs in just about anywhere except California and Alaska.
You are Russian, so I'll defer to you on the history, but who exactly could Novgorod turn to in order to stop Muscovy? Sweden wanted to eat chunks of Novgorod itself, and Lithuania as history shows was also interested in subjugating Novgorod, albeit with more autonomy it appears. The only real candidates I see to stop Muscovy are the hordes, but would Novgorod really turn to them as allies, unless it happens to be a coincidental war between Muscovy and both the Hordes and Novgorod? Not even asking about game plausibility here, I'm asking to learn more.
I'm not advocating hitting Novgorod with nerfs because the end result is pretty much the same in most games, but does give a window for a talented player or a lucky AI to do something cool. Something I'm fine with tbh. Not sure why me naming Novgorod as a fairly doomed state in hindsight is something you find controversial.