Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Seeing eu4 dev team committing to balance the game, reducing power creep and fixing bugs has motivated me to make this thread and try to help them. My objective is to talk about some of the major complains about navies in eu4 and other stuff I think it can be improved on. From there we can determine some solutions as a suggestions.
I can almost say in full confidence that everyone in the community had some kinda of problem with navies, from personal experience every time I ask someone what do they think of navies in eu4 they say "the navy is broken".
So we will slowly talk them in 4 categories for better understanding. Do remember you can't talk about one without taking into account about the other, these problems are all connected with each other. Also It may take some time to read. ;)

Admit it, you at least heard someone say this about eu4, they aren't wrong, they do feel useless. This isn't a unknown issue, in the past (1.30) blockades were changed to make navies feel more impactful. But even after those changes, it still feels relatively useless and people keep complaining, why? There are some answers to this. To start of most of these complains are because of warfare, since outside of warfare (trade, piracy, subject liberty desire etc) the navy actually preforms well and doesn't feel useless. Now eu4 is based on land armies, so it isn't surprising the navy usually preforms a supportive role for the army, since you can't gain land without using a army or occupy land without an army. Thanks to that the navy already feels not that important. That is fine as long the supporting role of the navy is useful and has impact. Looking at the feedback right now, that isn't the case. Lest's go layer by layer of what the navy would normally do in a war.
Here are some examples:

-Imagine you are Byzantium and managed to gain naval supremacy against the ottos to block the strait. So what now? You would think you would block their access, but no, they will still cross and get you since they own both sides of one strait or they will just ask military access to all nations in the north (crimea etc) walk all that way to get to you.
-
Here is another example, you are Portugal AI and england gets declared by burgundy, your navy combined with england achieved navy supremacy and you think you would be safe. Worry not, burgundy got military access to all western europe, even your ally castile to get to you.
-You are the papal states ande declared war on venice, you managed to get naval supremacy while their army was still on their island, one person would think you managed to trap them. But they still crossed to the mainland since they owned both sides of the strait, despite not having naval supremacy.

-You are the PLC and declare war on denmark (that has a holding in latvia), now you probably need to use your navy to get into denmark, but no need, the denmark AI asked most of the northern HRE military access so you can just walk to mainland denmark and enforce your demmands.


I believe you can see where I'm driving at, military access is one major problem. Military access in eu4 allows your army to enter enemy land from neutral parties AND on top of that it's so easy to get them. But eu4 doesn't stop there, there's the "conditional access" mechanic, if one party gets access everyone in the war gets it. The results are usually that the player doesn't even need to ask military access, the AI (even if it is the enemy one) does it for the player.
The moment eu4 military access becomes something hard to get, something that isn't always a guarantee or be abused by the AI, or simply making it impossible to invade someone from a neutral party, navies suddenly become a necessity. You now would want to use one of the biggest advantages of navies, which is the transport of personnel (at the moment only colonizers have some use for that) to certain places.
A counter point to this is the AI (it's always the AI, I can't cout how many good things were cut bc of the AI) doesn't know how to naval invade or transport troops, the eu4 devs showed in the dev diaries claim that the AI can now naval invade properly in 1.32, if that's the case I no longer see any reason not to change military access. It would help so much the importance/use of navies for non-colonizers.
The other major problem is blockading crossings and straits. Should owning both sides of a crossing make it possible to always cross it? I do like to hear people thoughts on this one. The current way it's a double edge sword, while it gives the players some strategic reason to take the straits, it makes the navies more useless. But on the other hand if we make navies able to block straits even tho you may own both sides of it, it makes the crossings lose strategic value. I don't have any ideas on how to improve this one, I can only say that personally I would prefer that navies could block the passage of troops even tho you may own both sides, it will make navies feel more important and the crossing can still maintain their uniqueness, which is to allow troops to pass one side to another without the use of transport ships.
If we wanted to make navies even more important, it would be the supply system. Sadly EU4 doesn't have a supply system and probably never will, since the devs said adding new mechanics are out of the picture. It is something we can hope for eu5, "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics".
Regardless if we make navy important, we need to improve the naval combat so it doesn't feel broken and unbalanced. Naval combat saw many improvements over the years. In 1.30 it was addressed the biggest complain about navy combat with the added mechanic of "Ship disengagement chance". But the power creep and balance of naval combat remains to be fixed.
If you have any experience in naval combat you know what I'm talking about and this is generally the reason why people say "navy is broken".
A lot of people argue the main culprit of the problem is Global naval engagement. If you don't know, unlike the combat width of land warfare, the naval engagement width of the two participants are independent, that means one participant could have wider engagement width than the other. The results are obvious, the guy with the most width has the best advantage so he wins, since he has more ships in the fight. The naval game is so determine by how much ships are in a fight that it was only natural when galleys were changed to 0.5 width they became the kings of the high seas.
You may ask me, are there any modifiers or any disadvantage to this... the answer is no. I remember in one game, Portugal had 400 heavy ships while France only sent 100 to battle, it was a diference of 4 to 1, but since France had better global naval engagement it destroyed Portugal ships and on top of that it captured most of them. France advantage of more heavies in battle was enough to win. If this was land combat, Portugal would had won.
I'm yet to see a strat that overpowers someone having more width. Which is why the biggest feedback and the solution people come up with is to make naval engagement the same as land, both sides should have the same engagement width. Strait up remove all modifiers and make both sides have equal amount of global width in battle. The theory goes It would make naval warfare more accessible for common naval nations. It's the easy fix problem that people come up with, "oh that thing is a problem? REMOVE IT" but I doubt it can be that simple to solve it and I think it would create some unforeseen side effects (like maneuver pips would be useless in battle). And what if PDX doesn't want to remove it? In my honest opinion, you don't even need to remove that modifier and make it work the same as land combat, you can just nerf most of those modifiers and make them really hard to get and stack. This is a power creep problem, lests try balacing it first before going into the idea of "removing it".
For example:
Admirals maneuver pips should only give 5% or less (3% or 2% are ideal), also all 20% global naval engagements should be cut to more than half to a maximum of 10% while all others that had 10% would get 5% or removed.
If are wondering "woah those values look so low" you are right, but don't forget, its a enormous advantage 1 more ship engaged in battle against your opponent and you need to consider that those are all % modifiers (and that naval engagement width increases by tech), so it is actually quite balanced.
For example lest's use 3% pur pip:
A 2 maneuver admiral that would give 6%, at dip tech 12 gives he would add 3 width, that's 1 heavy. A 6 pip (18%) would add 9 width, 3 heavies. If we compare to old values a 6 pip admiral would add 30 width (10 heavies). That's a dip tech 12, imagine at dip tech 24...
You still maintain maintain your higher quality from having good admirals but it wont be a power creep. Some may argue it does not resolve the "problem", after all one side still has more ships engaged than the other. But it wont be a giant diference of more than 10 heavies, that's beyond overkill and can only be countered if you had the same modifiers. This way I think it would maintain the integrity of the naval combat system while allowing weaker naval nations not to get trashed so hard they enter into another dimension.
Of course this requires testing, I did not test this. It's all theory and math. I don't have the time to do a mod and test this stuff. If you wanna do it for the funs of it, go right ahead and please share the results. I may be wrong here, and the best solution may be to strait up remove it. Just remember when doing the tests to give the side with less width double the ships of more.

Now we are moving on to naval ideas. If you take naval ideas, no one can beat your navy, even GB, they need naval ideas. That's a fact and has been proven. The power creep of naval ideas is insane, it has moral, naval engagement and heavy/galley combat ability. Those alone are enough and yet we aren't even counting the rest of the idea group and its policies. While I do agree that if you have more quality you should win, I don't think you should annihilate your enemy because he didn't had naval. That doesn't happen when you select quality ideas, nor in the land combat. You can get neat buffs but they don't make you be able to preform 10 heavies against 60 and somehow annihilate them. There's no other idea group in the game besides naval ideas that makes someone take that certain idea so he wont get trashed. Naval ideas need to get it's naval modifiers nerfed. The naval engagement width could/should be remove, the heavy/galley combat ability be reduced by 5% or 10%. You could even trade some naval modifiers with a simple army bonus like "marine training 10% ICA". This way you could keep some pretty minimal army quality while focusing on your navy. And although naval ideas makes you win battles thanks to superior naval quality, it wont trash everyone ships that didn't got naval ideas. Hopefully.

Before GB needs a nerf, their naval modifiers are too powerful. It's a bit tiring hearing people complain about that. The national ideas guarantee more than 20% naval moral and god tier admirals, this should be enough but GB gets more. I know the memes of "GB rules the waves" but look, they weren't invincible and it's not healthy for the game balance to have Doom ships that are unable to be sink patrolling the seas. My suggestion would be to strait up remove one modifier, for example heavy ship combat ability (20% moral is too iconic). If changes were to occur on global naval engaged width, it would be an indirect nerf to GB (their god tier 6 maneuver admiral wouldn't increase their combat width by 60%) so maybe its possible to just nerf the modifier by -5% instead of strait up removing it. This still requires some testing.
Other stuff like naval theocracies should have their naval moral reduce to 10%. Naval theocracies are a bit overpowered at the moment. There's probably more balance complains I could write, but I can't remember everything.
I have other complains for example on why cannons are the only thing that does damage in both fire phase and shock phase (this created the meme of the natives canoes having 1 cannon). I believe this system could be innovative like land combat, where fire phase is the actual fire phase (cannons or arrows go brr) and the shock phase is the moment where your crew boards ships. But alas that probably is asking too much, it probably falls into the trap of reworking something/add new mechanic. The devs stated they don't want to add new stuff until everything is fixed/balanced so this can wait. But at least it sounds like something cool on paper.
Now a sad flaw about the navy is the lack of ship diversity in game. All ships designs are european. This makes the navy the same everywhere, it's bland, borin, you know there's a lack of flavour and there isn't nothing unique about it. You may well be China but your ships will be european, only things preventing this is the skins packs. But we know the Chinese didn't build ships like the portuguese, nor did the Indians and the natives etc. Different types of ships should be unlock with tech (like how land armies work) depending on your tech group you would get a certain type of ship. Tech groups exist for a reason. Furthermore some nations could/should even get special type of ships. Iberian nations should have the latin caravel as their special unit. And you know you want the "turtle ship" for Korea. Those are only a few example for unique ships types. This would immediately create a feel of unique ships and make navies more diverse than ever, just like land armies are. I know this is something possible to do, I remember seeing mods do it. While this might be something a bit awkward to implement and I do admit personally I'm not a fan of the army system of selecting unit types, I dislike more that everyone uses the same european style type of ship design and there's no variation of ships. Also if we have a system like this and we aren't getting a new one, might as well use it. By using it, it would be more creative, unique and fun to have different kind of ships for each tech groups battleing between each other. Skin packs don't count. The special ship desings for certain countries is something Im toying around because it has great potencial, but probably not necessary.
If you are wondering on what grounds would different ship types be, there's some stuff, for example the sailor cost, the ducats/maintance for the ship, the width of the ship, the amount of cannons, hull size and speed. There's actualy a lot of stuff to make different ship designs.
The main problem is that the only source of damage for ships are cannons. So I can see that it would be hard to balance it out or if it is impossible to work. I'm also not sure if this goes too far from the devs agenda on not pushing too far and breaking the game. And the community may not like the idea of different ship types for countries and actually prefers that everything remains the same for the sake of balance and simplicity. Although that would be rather strange, keeping tech groups for the army and making their army units late game weak compared to western ones but for ship warfare everything is the same... for me we are better of using the system already in-game. What are your guys thoughts?

EU4 tech's are a bit weird and institutions are already changing them to the better. But I want to point out that eu4 technology tree is "wrong". Ignoring the fact that the eu4 wiki has the dates when you unlock each tech in game wrong (for example dip tech 7 is supposed to be in 1492 but in game its set to 1479), the historical dates when you unlock ships are also wrong. For example the portuguese caravel was first use in 1450, but in eu4 we unlock the caravel in 1500s. I can only guess the reason for this was because while iberian nations were using it (like Portugal and Castile) most of western and the rest of the world wasn't? I have no idea. But this is no excuse for wrong dates and only proves my point that we probably need unique ship types. Furthermore it isn't just the caravel wrong, stuff like carrack and galleons are also wrong. I'm no expert in naval history but I know for a fact that most naval units in the tech tree are wrong, so If a kind soul that knows more could be enlighten us on what are the actual dates of the ships, it would be great. This way we may help PDX to get some of the dates fixed.
I believe some people may be thinking now "this doesn't look like a big flaw" well compared to others before (like the power creep of naval combat) it isn't, but it is still a big error to only be able to unlock a ship more than 50 years later of it's creation. Also while PDX is at it, I suspect that the in-game tech's should correspond to the eu4 wiki, since dip tech 7 unlocks the extra colonial range. If thats the case, eu4 wiki makes sense for claiming to be in 1492 (discovery of the new world), but in game it is set to 1479, there are other tech's in other dates too. I don't have the time to list all of them. Im not sure if this qualifies as a "bug" but the tech's need to get checked and get their dates fixed.
I think no one has complains about the need to fix the dates in the technology. But if you have voice your concern down there.


That about sums up. Don't ask me why the tech tab has more space between it and the others, I dont know how to fix it. Please be respectful and I would like to hear people thoughts about this and their suggestions on the issues I presented. Maybe you can write others flaws which I forgot or didn't had time to write. Also some feedback on the new suggestion would be great, I took a lot of time to reflect about them but Im no lord genius that will get everything right. Even if they sound good, they can have some obscure drawback that could make stuff worse than the current state (most stuff is theory and from personal experience, I do not have the time to mod and test this stuff).
 
  • 12Like
  • 2
Reactions:

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Now for real I just think eu4 has a lot of potencial even now when they refuse to add new mechanics. And seeing them trying to do something gave me some hope, which is why I made this thread.
But now that I think about it, maybe i should had made smaller ones instead of putting everything here.
 

_Bachus_

First Lieutenant
Sep 30, 2021
230
368
The power creep of naval ideas is insane, it has moral, naval engagement and heavy/galley combat ability.

In the past it used to be that nobody cared about naval ideas. Then they buffed them. People still mostly don't care about naval ideas after the buff. But at least it was a move in the right direction IMO. Don't see any point in saying we should make naval ideas more useless as before so if you would take them you wouldn't even see any difference. What's the point then in taking them. You could just delete them from the game. If you would look at what idea groups people are taking the naval ones are at the bottom of the list still.

Why? You seem to argue bacause navy is useless. Don't really buying this logic. People don't use navy too much and their ideas bacause they prefer to do WC or other land-grabing strategies. You don't really need any navy to do that. In fact navy is detrimental to this playstyle. Don't see any real solution to that. How you would make navy essential for land-grabing meta? But is this even a problem in itself? I don't think so. If you want to use navy and make your game around trade, being tall, and creating trade empire without much land conquest navy is essential to do that. It is useful then. We don't need to make them so you can't do WC without the navy. It would be stupid to even try to do that.

And I think this is perfectly valid if the game have options to play the game differently. It's not a question wheter navy is useful for WC. It's the question wheter a player wants to play some specific playthrough where the navy is essential and your aim isn't grab land. I feel the game delivers that for people who want it.

As for MA. Military Access was changed so many times in EU4. We've seen them all. No access at all, conditional access, all access nowdays. I think current version is the best one. All of them have some drawbacks but the past version where you just couldn't get to someone and you couldn't peace them out for years was not what we want to go back to. You just need to accept that being Portugal doesn't protect you from being attack from land. Duh!

I think it goes back to misunderstanding the navy. Navy isn't for making land-conquest harder/weaker. Navy is its own thing where you're building an naval empire. This is the goal in itself, not grabing land but staying small and building around navy. This is why thinking we should make navy usuful and essential for WC is completely off. If you want play around navy you can't do WC because it's different kettle of fish. Maybe the game should have some limitations around other factors to better guide players to naval playthroughs. But it's not a must. Someoene who wants have fun with navy can do that currently anyway. You just need to stay small and not aimed at expansion in every direction. If you can focus on that, navy can be very fun to play with. I get this is not optimal vs other strategies to grab some achievements. But so what?
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:

TMRWMeta

Private
31 Badges
Oct 26, 2018
13
15
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
In the past it used to be that nobody cared about naval ideas. Then they buffed them. People still mostly don't care about naval ideas after the buff. But at least it was a move in the right direction IMO. Don't see any point in saying we should make naval ideas more useless as before so if you would take them you wouldn't even see any difference. What's the point then in taking them. You could just delete them from the game. If you would look at what idea groups people are taking the naval ones are at the bottom of the list still.

Why? You seem to argue bacause navy is useless. Don't really buying this logic. People don't use navy too much and their ideas bacause they prefer to do WC or other land-grabing strategies. You don't really need any navy to do that. In fact navy is detrimental to this playstyle. Don't see any real solution to that. How you would make navy essential for land-grabing meta? But is this even a problem in itself? I don't think so. If you want to use navy and make your game around trade, being tall, and creating trade empire without much land conquest navy is essential to do that. It is useful then. We don't need to make them so you can't do WC without the navy. It would be stupid to even try to do that.

And I think this is perfectly valid if the game have options to play the game differently. It's not a question wheter navy is useful for WC. It's the question wheter a player wants to play some specific playthrough where the navy is essential and your aim isn't grab land. I feel the game delivers that for people who want it.

As for MA. Military Access was changed so many times in EU4. We've seen them all. No access at all, conditional access, all access nowdays. I think current version is the best one. All of them have some drawbacks but the past version where you just couldn't get to someone and you couldn't peace them out for years was not what we want to go back to. You just need to accept that being Portugal doesn't protect you from being attack from land. Duh!

I think it goes back to misunderstanding the navy. Navy isn't for making land-conquest harder/weaker. Navy is its own thing where you're building an naval empire. This is the goal in itself, not grabing land but staying small and building around navy. This is why thinking we should make navy usuful and essential for WC is completely off. If you want play around navy you can't do WC because it's different kettle of fish. Maybe the game should have some limitations around other factors to better guide players to naval playthroughs. But it's not a must. Someoene who wants have fun with navy can do that currently anyway. You just need to stay small and not aimed at expansion in every direction. If you can focus on that, navy can be very fun to play with. I get this is not optimal vs other strategies to grab some achievements. But so what?
Naval is the best idea at what it does. Also the game is not just about WC. The overarching issue is you either completely focus on navy or ignore it as it is. If someone stacks modifiers they will blow the other nation out of the water. That isn’t the case with land quality that isn’t the case with conquest and that isn’t the case with any other modifier stacking.
 
  • 6
Reactions:

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
First I would like to thank you for your response. But needles to say it still don't agree with most of your points.
In the past it used to be that nobody cared about naval ideas. Then they buffed them. People still mostly don't care about naval ideas after the buff. But at least it was a move in the right direction IMO. Don't see any point in saying we should make naval ideas more useless as before so if you would take them you wouldn't even see any difference. What's the point then in taking them. You could just delete them from the game. If you would look at what idea groups people are taking the naval ones are at the bottom of the list still.

Why? You seem to argue bacause navy is useless. Don't really buying this logic. People don't use navy too much and their ideas bacause they prefer to do WC or other land-grabing strategies. You don't really need any navy to do that. In fact navy is detrimental to this playstyle. Don't see any real solution to that. How you would make navy essential for land-grabing meta? But is this even a problem in itself? I don't think so. If you want to use navy and make your game around trade, being tall, and creating trade empire without much land conquest navy is essential to do that. It is useful then. We don't need to make them so you can't do WC without the navy. It would be stupid to even try to do that.
From what you said..people wrongly complained that naval ideas were useless. So PDX buffs naval ideas modifiers. Did people started using them? Of course not, how strong naval ideas modifiers weren't the problem, it is the fact that having stronger buffs for navies didn't help WC or in wars at all. Its also not by letting naval ideas stay OP that will make taking it worth it when navies aren't good. It was no step in the right direction, it was an unnecessary step backwards that caused problems.
So tell me how does this leave other play styles like a tall trade empire or MP games that have uses for naval ideas? It leaves them with a broken all too powerful modifiers for navies that makes your ships ascend into god mode.
The rest @TMRWMeta explains good enough.

Now this part confuses me. I already wrote in the thread "...outside of warfare (trade, piracy, subject liberty desire etc) the navy actually preforms well and doesn't feel useless.". There you go, the utility there was never in question. But you missed my point that "outside of warfare", means it feels useless in warfare. Also Im not sure why you insisted this stuff was around WC since the core of the problem was navies not helping enough in winning wars, not WC. War doesn't equal WC and land grabbing. Being useless at WC is a result of not being useful in winning most wars. I'm aiming at the core problem, not the consequences of it. I also did state that navies were fine only fulfilling a supportive role in wars as long their supportive roles aren't useless. So I cannot understand what point you were trying to make when the solutions I presented were to make navies useful on their supportive role.
Also my suggestion isnt to make naval ideas useless, it hardly is, its to make balanced and reduce the power creep it creates.
And I think this is perfectly valid if the game have options to play the game differently. It's not a question wheter navy is useful for WC. It's the question wheter a player wants to play some specific playthrough where the navy is essential and your aim isn't grab land. I feel the game delivers that for people who want it.
Here is the thing, you got the wrong idea. I wrote everything there from the perspective of the MP community. I do sometimes play SP but the majority of my time in eu4 was in MP. This is most definitely not a thing about WC. I play with a lot of play styles and the problem is the few supportive abilities navies have in warfare don't even work thanks to other game mechanics like military access. Making them useless. If by improving how useful navies are in warfare makes them more important in other play styles it's only natural, it should had been that way from the start.
As for MA. Military Access was changed so many times in EU4. We've seen them all. No access at all, conditional access, all access nowdays. I think current version is the best one. All of them have some drawbacks but the past version where you just couldn't get to someone and you couldn't peace them out for years was not what we want to go back to. You just need to accept that being Portugal doesn't protect you from being attack from land. Duh!
"you couldn't get to someone and you coudn't peace them out for years". I'm sorry, but I rather have a better military access system that makes sense and allows navies to have use. Instead of the current BS system with no logic and drawbacks because people find annoying they can't peace out a random OPM for some years. Like that's normal and makes sense. That's the point of being far away and you being unable to reach, that's what happens many times IRL. I do understand your problem with it, but maybe we can just upgrade the system of peace deals so we can peace out these random OPMs faster instead of screwing up the balance of the game.
I like to compare eu4 military access system with hoi4. And hoi4 does it so much better. And look, In that game you literally can't white peace countries so you end up at war forever. But for the sake of balance and logic, a belgium can't just invade Afghanistan by asking military access from neutral iran and then make a vassal out of it.

Also Portugal is just the most common example I saw in SP, that literally can happen in any country of eu4 and is bad design choise. I accept very well portugal can be attacked by land when the other party, Castile/Spain isn't neutral. Otherwise it's outrageous that countries like the ottomans will walk all of north africa, cross the strait and invade portugal by land. How can anyone think this is fine? It isn't. It creates those unrealistic gamey scenarios the AI abuses, and the players too. Do I need to point out how many bad things the current system creates? And we going to maintain the current system because people will cry if they can't go and siege OPMs far away, "ah its annoying to wait". Like bruh. There so many solutions better than this. I know every solution has drawbacks but the current way has too many.
I think it goes back to misunderstanding the navy. Navy isn't for making land-conquest harder/weaker. Navy is its own thing where you're building an naval empire. This is the goal in itself, not grabing land but staying small and building around navy. This is why thinking we should make navy usuful and essential for WC is completely off. If you want play around navy you can't do WC because it's different kettle of fish. Maybe the game should have some limitations around other factors to better guide players to naval playthroughs. But it's not a must. Someoene who wants have fun with navy can do that currently anyway. You just need to stay small and not aimed at expansion in every direction. If you can focus on that, navy can be very fun to play with. I get this is not optimal vs other strategies to grab some achievements. But so what?
And yeah this part here gives me reason to believe you misunderstood me since you talk like I only want to make navies useful for WC when that wasn't my objective at all. I for real when writing most stuff forgot most players play the game for WC. If they became useful for WC it would only be a side affect of making them useful in wars.
Let me ask, why can't navy make land conquest harder? Well they did IRL and they have the ability in game to already try that. On top of that they can help make land grabbing easier. Not essencial, but a good supportive role which is what my goal is. Sadly certain game mechanics (and maybe the lack of it) make navy supportive role useless.
And this talk of you need to play this certain way so you can enjoy navy is bad. I shouldn't even need to make my entire game around navies to be able to enjoy them. I should be able to play ottomans, build their usual big empire and have a navy to help me in wars. The exact opposite of a naval empire and being small. Navies aren't exclusive for certain play styles so one can enjoy them. The current problem is if the ottomans build said navy, their navy is useless and barely helps at all.
At this point im just repeting myself a lot.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:

_Bachus_

First Lieutenant
Sep 30, 2021
230
368
it was an unnecessary step backwards that caused problems.

Problems were there to begin with. They tried to do sth about it. It was not the cause. As for the fact of quality. Do you seriously think that land units quality doesn't affect combat in a huge way? You stackwipe armies without land unit bonuses. In naval combat they're at least fighting unitl they sink completely. Land units don't even make it to drawing their weapons without right ideas.

It's completely the same mechanics in land units as well as naval units. With right ideas / policies etc you can totally destroy anyone without those. And whether this is good / or bad is subjective thing. You'll find as many people arguing each case.

Here is the thing, you got the wrong idea. I wrote everything there from the perspective of the MP community.

So you're arguing only in terms of MP. I have no problem in changing anything for MP. I don't play MP. But don't try forcing a change on SP as well. Those are completely different games.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Problems were there to begin with. They tried to do sth about it. It was not the cause. As for the fact of quality. Do you seriously think that land units quality doesn't affect combat in a huge way? You stackwipe armies without land unit bonuses. In naval combat they're at least fighting unitl they sink completely. Land units don't even make it to drawing their weapons without right ideas.

It's completely the same mechanics in land units as well as naval units. With right ideas / policies etc you can totally destroy anyone without those. And whether this is good / or bad is subjective thing. You'll find as many people arguing each case.
No no no, it's different. I know people can stackwipe armies without land bonuses by just using a giant army or stacking discipline to 200%. Thats not the point. The point is if I take quality alone (speaking with the same or less troops than your opponent) I wont stackwipe or always win the battle, thanks to RNG dice rolls and the fact quality alone is not hat powerful. The same goes for every other idea group.
But in the case of naval ideas, you become instantly unbeatable, always, even if you stack maritime+quality and add their naval policies, you still lose for not having naval ideas. It's because naval ideas has basically all the most powerful navy modifiers and all of them are big really high numbers.
So in retrospect, It's not because stacking modifiers of a ton of idea groups and policies would make you stackwipe people who didn't, is the fact you only need 1 idea group for that job. There's a general "rule" in MP's, if someone takes naval ideas, all other naval powers have no choise but to also take it. Naval ideas does it job too well of making your navy strong.
So you're arguing only in terms of MP. I have no problem in changing anything for MP. I don't play MP. But don't try forcing a change on SP as well. Those are completely different games.
I mean, I was trying to argue for both when I first wrote the thread since I think by balancing naval combat and changing certain parts of the gameplay that reduce how useful having navy is would encourage both sides of the spectrum to use it more. Or at least notice that having a navy wasn't useless even for wars. But I admit that I literally forgot that huge part of the community does world conquests. :confused:
 

_Bachus_

First Lieutenant
Sep 30, 2021
230
368
But in the case of naval ideas, you become instantly unbeatable, always, even if you stack maritime+quality and add their naval policies, you still lose for not having naval ideas. It's because naval ideas has basically all the most powerful navy modifiers and all of them are big really high numbers.
So in retrospect, It's not because stacking modifiers of a ton of idea groups and policies would make you stackwipe people who didn't, is the fact you only need 1 idea group for that job. There's a general "rule" in MP's, if someone takes naval ideas, all other naval powers have no choise but to also take it. Naval ideas does it job too well of making your navy strong.

But this is only MP thing where you take ideas against other players ideas. In SP other AIs ideas don't make such a difference. because the game is totally different. You can beat AIs navies without any naval ideas. So taking a naval idea is a waste of idea slot in SP unless you play some specific setup for them. That's why it was buffed.

And I'm not saying current system is ideal only that I see not real problem with strong naval ideas or a sitaution where navy is super strong after taking it. You need to use your slot and points to get that. To be even a consideration it needs to get something impactful on the game. And if you want to take maritime IG as well this is 2 slots of ideas an 6400 mana points to get what???? The ability to beat an AI in naval combat which you could have done without any of those.

With strong naval ideas we can at least play small nation in SP and beat stronger navies which gives some unique playstyle opportunities for people wanting it. Otherwise it's just a contest of who is bigger, who has more land gets better navy. Don't see what do you propose? How would we beat stronger navies in your mind? Would we need 4 idea groups for that? Or do you propose that only selected countries are stronger and you can't do anything in game? Or would we just roll who wins. In SP the game is about knowing what to do to win. So you click some buttons, take some ideas and you're stronger in that department than tags that didn't click the same. Done. Bad MP game, but still good SP.

And if a rival contry will take a naval idea you won't beat them as easily especially on harder difficulties where your navy can be inferior in numbers for large parts of the game even after those ideas.

I respect your opinion on the matter but this is about difference in perspective. If you looking at it as a MP game you will have completely different optics about mechanics than in SP. SinglePlayer is often about giving opportunities to play game differently without balance consideration. A player needs to find their own balance that is acceptable and challenging for them. And at the end each player does whatever they want without comparing themselves to others. If I want play small and beat the crap out of AIs by beating their navies that's what those strong ideas give. It's not designed to be used in human vs human on even grounds. That's why MP should have their own ideas or mechanics. IF you would want to combine SP and MP you would get some Frankenstein that nobody wants to play. And only 5% of Eu4 player played MP game. Probably 5% of that 5% play it somewhat regularly. So devs make mechanics for majority and the rest can mod the thing.
 
Last edited:

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
But this is only MP thing where you take ideas against other players ideas. In SP other AIs ideas don't make such a difference. because the game is totally different. You can beat AIs navies without any naval ideas. So taking a naval idea is a waste of idea slot in SP unless you play some specific setup for them. That's why it was buffed.

And I'm not saying current system is ideal only that I see not real problem with strong naval ideas or a sitaution where navy is super strong after taking it. You need to use your slot and points to get that. To be even a consideration it needs to get something impactful on the game.
I basically agree with you there but If in SP it was only used for specific setup, did it need a buff to it's naval power? I mean, PDX buffed the combat capabilities of naval ideas and if people can beat AI navies without naval ideas why make naval ideas stronger? I imagine it worked well enough for that specific setup and in MPs. Unless what you mean is, when the AI took naval ideas players still beated AI navies, so they buffed it to make the AI navies have a better chance, is that what you mean?

Well I dont mean to suggest a nerf of naval ideas to the ground, I think most players in MP would like prefer just a bit weaker but would like to maintain how strong naval ideas are. Still hard to argue agaisnt the argument that it needs to be something impactful to be worth taking it, ergo a nerf to it would harm it. Well I used to defend that naval ideas were fine, and that the major problem was that we only have 1 naval idea group just for navy combat (maritime is more utility). Nowadays to me it looks to be unhealthy for game balance and I understand adding new idea groups only makes life harder to balance them out. It's a bit hard to explain, its natural when you take naval ideas it makes your navy stronger than your opponent, but it feels unnatural you become the best naval power of the world thanks to that (until someone else takes it too). People usually compare it to land combat and in land combat there's no idea group alone that makes you the best at land combat.
 

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Navies aren't useless for wars, I won wars in my Strait Talk run without an army because my navy never lost a battle.

But that strategy isn't going to conquer land.
Well if I go nick-picking stuff I can find situations where navies can win me a war. Let me play GB and defend against a collation while staying in my island. :confused:
Those are rare and the problem I try to present is in "casual" wars and situations where navies should help (like blocking a strait) but they don't help (enemy owns both sides). Thats an example but there are more which are far too common, the most annoying is the military access.
 

_Bachus_

First Lieutenant
Sep 30, 2021
230
368
I basically agree with you there but If in SP it was only used for specific setup, did it need a buff to it's naval power? I mean, PDX buffed the combat capabilities of naval ideas and if people can beat AI navies without naval ideas why make naval ideas stronger? I imagine it worked well enough for that specific setup and in MPs. Unless what you mean is, when the AI took naval ideas players still beated AI navies, so they buffed it to make the AI navies have a better chance, is that what you mean?

Nobody was taking them so they tried to change it. It's logical that they didn't sit there and thought : maybe what we need is a nerf to naval ideas.

People can beat AI because it's an AI. And with time, learning the game you outperform the AIs always. This is how games work in general and need to work, otherwise only minority would play them.

If naval ideas or the navy mechanics as a whole are strong you can again play as a small country and do the navy thing. It's not about whether this is better vs land conquest. It's just a way that you can play outside of those comparisons as player self-imposed own rule. Probably not something good for multiplayer because you are playing there with other humans and the game is more about meta. Whereas in SP you can ignore the base game meta and say I'm playing netherlands or some 10 province country and do only naval stuff and trade without expansion as a goal at all. Doesn't matter if this is worse in time or doesn't matter if you'll be worse militarly vs conquering all neighbours. Because the goal is different. It's about this specific setup. The setup is the goal instead of the game meta.

Navy as whole is very good at that because of naval tradition thing that increases trade steering up to 100%. This is more than any trade ideas + trade policies combined together in most cases. Meaning you can basically make unlimited money with limited conquest because of the navy. The navy makes unlimited money here. But this is only possible in SP when you don't play some comparison game where you need to think whether this is better than land conquest or other considerations. And in MP if you would try to do that you would simply die.
 
Last edited:

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Nobody was taking them so they tried to change it. It's logical that they didn't sit there and thought : maybe what we need is a nerf to naval ideas.

People can beat AI because it's an AI. And with time, learning the game you outperform the AIs always. This is how games work in general and need to work, otherwise only minority would play them.

If naval ideas or the navy mechanics as a whole are strong you can again play as a small country and do the navy thing. It's not about whether this is better vs land conquest. It's just a way that you can play outside of those comparisons as player self-imposed own rule. Probably not something good for multiplayer because you are playing there with other humans and the game is more about meta. Whereas in SP you can ignore the base game meta and say I'm playing netherlands or some 10 province country and do only naval stuff and trade without expansion as a goal at all. Doesn't matter if this is worse in time or doesn't matter if you'll be worse militarly vs conquering all neighbours. Because the goal is different. It's about this specific setup. The setup is the goal instead of the game meta.

Navy as whole is very good at that because of naval tradition thing that increases trade steering up to 100%. This is more than any trade ideas + trade policies combined together in most cases. Meaning you can basically make unlimited money with limited conquest because of the navy. The navy makes unlimited money here. But this is only possible in SP when you don't play some comparison game where you need to think whether this is better than land conquest or other considerations. And in MP if you would try to do that you would simply die.
Oh Well, PDX clearly failed since naval ideas are still barely used. And we can see the problem for the people not taking naval ideas was not bc the modifers were weak. So buffing them as a solution only created the power creep of today. Sounds normal.
Considering your feedback i will try to be more specific and I will apply some changes in my idea. Nerf the naval combat modifiers (reducing or removing) and then buff other buffs or add utility stuff for navies. Here an example:
From 20% Heavy combat ability to more reasonable 15%. From 25% galley combat ability to 20%.
Then remove the 10% global naval engagement or reduce it to 5%. If it is removed we can add a different modifier as a replace, -10% sailor maintenance or something or buff the current one, 10% naval moral to 15% or even 20%. There's lot of possibilities here.
That's just an example. Anyhow I believe my example still works for the scenario you described of tiny Netherlands pushing above its weight with naval ideas and their naval empire. Naval ideas don't need to be broken to be worth it and work, it just needs to be a good idea group for its purpose. And I believe the example I just gave still maintains how strong naval ideas are, heck, it continues to be OP as hell for naval combat. But it doesn't have that much power creep, that would help a lot the MP community and wouldn't affect the SP community that likes to play a small tall empire and roleplay a trade empire. Naval ideas would still be king and strong. Sounds more reasonable no?
 

_Bachus_

First Lieutenant
Sep 30, 2021
230
368
Sounds more reasonable no?

I have nothing against it. But as I said you can't really think the same playing MP and SP game. It's not even closely the same. That's why I think it's bad way of approaching the matter if you try to combine the two into one mechanics. In MP balance matters extremely more than in SP, whereas in SP you can just have things for fun. You;ll always get some mediocre outcome if you want get somthing that would work both in MP and SP at the same time.
 

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
I have nothing against it. But as I said you can't really think the same playing MP and SP game. It's not even closely the same. That's why I think it's bad way of approaching the matter if you try to combine the two into one mechanics. In MP balance matters extremely more than in SP, whereas in SP you can just have things for fun. You;ll always get some mediocre outcome if you want get somthing that would work both in MP and SP at the same time.
Fair enough. A bit of an disapoitment but I understand that being the case for the current state of the game.
 

EarlKonrad

Field Marshal
30 Badges
Jun 18, 2018
2.684
5.526
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Balancing EU IV around MP is ridiculous. A player choosing France will be at an advantage over a Player choosing Portugal from day 1.

It had to be Portugal, hadn't it?

On the other hand Portugal starts allied with English while France is guaranteeing Scotland. Seems like a diplomatic advantage to me (but I get your point).
 

Xary Moft

Second Lieutenant
38 Badges
Jul 11, 2018
108
284
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
Lests hold the our horses, I only think it's really hard to almost impossible to balance eu4 around SP and MP because the game is really old so the devs refuse to add new mechanics or hesite to rework/change existing ones. Otherwise I think it could and should. Other PDX games are of course balanced around SP and the game naturally is somewhat balanced and fun for MP. If something appears broken in MP but that thing isn't broken in SP, PDX still changes it for a healthy game balance. And it's not by changing it instantly becomes bad in SP, one is not exclusive to another. It can be hard to pull of but possible.
EU4 is no different and it probably isn't a surprise if I say eu4 is unbalanced for SP. This goes to the point that no amount of work for MP could ever balance the game for MP. When I first wrote most changes about naval ideas, I of course got the idea from playing MP but if I noticed from playing SP it wouldn't change the fact I would still want to change it. I was thinking of simply reducing the power creep. It was my error tho to forget most people in SP are playing for WC and the changes I propose don't affect them (bc they dont even use naval).
Still it may only affect the people who RP or play tall (and those are what Im aiming for) and I argue its for the better. Having an idea group that makes you instantly broken is not balanced for both SP and MP. Power creep is bad, it will never be good. It may allow a ireland player playing tall to defend itself against GB AI but there's no necessity to be a broken idea group to be worth taking it. One can still get naval quality without replicating doom ships.
Im repeating myself again...
I know very well that eu4 barely ever gives any love MPs (so much so it's almost dead after 1.31). And the moment someone suggest an idea to improve MP (or even mentions it) the SP community just riots. But I stand here and state that my suggestion is for balancing reducing power creep and therefor for both SP and MP. I rest my case here.