I would like it to be later, but that would make Deus Vult from religious even better. I don't know what you guys might have planned for that, but unless there are alternatative cbs it seems to force most players into taking religious first just to expand early
Well Deus vult beign stronger is not really a problem since most nations at the borders between religions are pretty large which means that blobbing will require hard fighting anyway.
I wouldn't mind as long as a replacement CB gets implemented to attack your neighbors in early game. It could give you lower warscore cost for neighboring provinces, just like the claim CB does. The only thing fabricate claim really does is lower the coring costs a little bit.
Then you'd pretty much have what we have today. And coring is already to cheap in the game.
I am sitting here and scratching my head. You should explain your reasoning behind this Johan. I wouldn't call slowing down early expansion an improvement. It's already slow in many parts of the game at the start.
You wouldn't? Well I would, it would push the expansion the in the game towards more realistic levels. It's alreayd way to quick in many areas of the game, like the HRE and ROTW (central africa basically unites in any self contained area in less than a century, in reality they never did before the europeans colonised them).
@Johan i`m not sure that this will be the best solution for upgrading the dip tech.
As i suggested on twiter - tie the cost reduction of coring to dip tree. Something along the lines of 5-10-15-20-25% (which was the old reduction) 3-7-12-18-24 tech level. All tech below 3 get just the CB but not the bonus.
This way you will still have mechanic that gives player the means of declaring war without gimping his economy + foreign relations.
Only if you increase it by the same amount without the tech form how it is now, cheaper coring is the last thing this game needs. It's already way to blobby.
And guess what, plenty of countries did gimp their economies by waging stupid wars.
I concur. Giving the player a replacement cb would alleviate my concerns. And I'm actually open to the fabrication mechanic being reworked.
But if the rework means simply making early game cb's yet more sparse, I'd be royally ticked off, pout and then wait for a mod to be made.
There are plenty of early game CBs, for an example trade conflict cb, that never gets used today because of how much better the conquest cb is.
This IMHO is the main reason why people don't want to lose the chance to fabricate claims early game.
And the main reason they should.
Nonsense. It's changing/tweaking existing features. Fabricating claims is not broken last time I checked.
Then may I reccomend new glasses, and then give me one exmaple of a fabricated claim in real hisory for this mechanic which basically drives the game of EU4.
I don't think I am alone in growing tired of DLCS going out very 'unpolished' to put it mildly. And general chopping and changing from one patch to the next. I love the game and I think it I getting better over time, but I think it's getting a bit bloated. Look at how the Great Lakes and Congo trade nodes are not being treated as inland. A small oversight but I think it's a good example of how big the game is getting, when the devs themselves overlook details like this.
Here I can agree with you, the EU4 team needs to stick to their guns more, if they want to take the game in a certain direction then they should. The less time they waste listening to rants about how they ruined the game the more they can work on making implementations as great as possible.
Better pacing on what standard? It seems like the constant theme is that strong players are getting past the point of AI competition too early in your mind, but is that actually a problem? You don't heap the kinds of bonuses to the AI that Civ does for example, not even on hard (not even close), and yet players often win the game outright long before they run out of time, and could flatten the largest maps even with all victories turned off. Maybe it's not such a big deal if the full timeline isn't meaningful to everyone.
I'm guessing a historic standard. Paradix base their games in history more than any other strategy game maker, and their games have even been used as an educational tool, something that they are increadibly proud of, it's no wonder they want to reign in the aspects of the game that has gotten a little to far from what would have been historically possible, and chief amongst these is blobbing.
Making players wait it out isn't fun. Take away conquest, and players will find another way to do war or have nothing to do in too many cases. What benefit does this confer?
You're not forced to wait you will almost always have the trade conflcit CB against your rivals, that allows you to make war and take money and trade concessions, jus tnot provinces, and guess what money and trade concessions were part of peacedeals a lot more in reality than land was. A very common practice was to take trade centers or important forts of your enemies and then ransom them back to him. Money makes the world go around not blobbing.
Conquest is easily one of the least useful CB methods in the game already. It's worth doing if you don't have better things for diplomats to do (improve relations, annex vassals, building spy network for other uses) but carries more AE and/or much less flexibility in what you take. Nerfing this option comes off as...bizarre.
It's not the best fix ever but then again fabricating claims are almost unheard of in real history.
- Special CB for consolidating culture (e.g. France should be able to go to war to annex other French culture provinces)
That's the nationalism CB it's unlocked about at the same time in history that nationalism actually became a thing. Before that sucha concept didn't exist.
Stability isn't the problem. It's AE.
No AE isn't a problem it's doing it's job. It could actually stand to be even harser for taking provinces you don't have claims on.
Forcing down 'tall game-play' by removing claim fabrication from the start has got to be one of the ****** ideas to-date.
Tall play is playing afree city, playign as a nation and only adding a few provicnes per century is not tall it's realistic amounts of blobbing.
That is incredibly unfair. No, not "instant haters" more like "EU4 lovers" and we do not want to see such a massive, negative change. Maybe try being a bit more objective and not simply worshipping the ground that PDX walks on eh?
What makes it negative, to me it seems like an effort to reign in EU4 in stuff that's no longer working as intended.
You do not design the game how YOU want it to be played but instead how the gamers themselves play it.
Try designing streets how YOU want people to drive instead of how people actually drive.
Software interfaces which emphasize what YOU want people to do versus persons natural inclinations or what they want.
Telephone answering systems: Ever call one trying to get to X place/person but instead go through the maze the company want you to? Often its because they don't want you to get to your desired destination without lots of in between steps but yet how do you feel as the caller? Tell people what to do - often resentment and rebellion - give people tools - they think of what they can and cannot do with them.
Best recent history game example: Minecraft. It went so far beyond what the designer originally conceived/thought of how people would play it. But instead of lecturing them and locking it down to only how he thought it should be played he kept it open and malleable.
No you design a game based on what you want it to be to cater to the market that you are intrested in. If not every RTS would be the same trying to sell to the largest demographic there is, which is the casual social gamers if you're intrested so be carefull what you wish for.
Supply and demand is important ofcourse but your custommer can't desire things before they exists and they don't have the skillset to see what has the potential to exist, I think Steve Jobbs said somethign along those lines.
Why, exactly, do we need early expansion to be slower? We already have expansion ramp up with later tech due to ADM efficiency, and there is still nothing to do in this game except expand. Development is not a mechanic of fun - you click a button, a number goes up, woohoo! It isn't the same as wars. If you aren't colonizing, you have to go to war, and so you'll either have everyone no-CBing, or beelining for the idea groups that give CBs. Which reduces strategic thinking - we're given a massive new point sink (stab hits from basic war dec), so large that it's a no-brainer to prioritize solving it over almost all other concerns.
Again you are getting wars and expansion mixed up. Most wars werenät fought for expansion, atleast not as the primary goal, nations expired for wealth they did not expand for expansions sake. Alteast not until imperialism.
Why is nerfing one of your weakest options possible and squeezing monarch points further considered desirable?
If stacking with corruption this just lengthens the timer, it doesn't add any new decision-making to the game. If the goal is to simultaneously make the game easier and slower, this is a good way to do it, but I struggle to conceive why someone would set that as the goal.
Because world conquest is still possible in a game about an era where european conquest really wasn't.
Yes, with 20 AE right off the bat, which means you probably can't even take a single province without a massive coalition.
And that's a problem why? That coalition wonät last a long time and most real wars just took a few provinces unlike wars in eu4 right now that take half a country.
Expansion will not be harder, it will be slower.
This is always harder on the AI than on the player, unless the timers are relaxed on the AI over the player. And then all the difficulty coming from it would be from making the player wait longer between doing interesting things.
You could still wage wars with the trade CB, what you couldn't do is expand. I udnerstand you wanting to wage war, but this doesn't prohibit that only blobbing.
Tech 7 as the earliest option?? That will sure make the first 50 years of the game incredibly boring
You stil usually have the trade conflict CB against your rivals. Sure you can't take provinces but you cna wage war just fine.
*make the first 100 years of the game incredibly boring (if you're in RotW)
That's the biggest problem with this. It is making expansion take much longer in the RotW than in Europe, while in real life, you saw more blobbing in the RotW than in Europe.
Yeah ROTW could use their own CB. SOme like Japan already do. Aside form that you do have the trade conflict CB again. And ROTW is way to blobby in places right now, every time I discover the great lakes region there is only one guy still standing.
What goal are you accomplishing, what problem are you fixing?
"Until dip tech 15, you can't use development"
"Until ADM 23, you get 50% less AE"
"Until dip tech 17, boats move at 1/4 speed"
So many possible changes we can toss into the game. So, what reasoning are we using to separate one from the others? Is it consistent?
Fixing the fact that the game as it is now is a blobby nightmare.
