Could you even make it so that a country starts out with a free 25% so that something beyond core territory exists right off the bat? Maybe even make it so some countries get national ideas to lower over extension?
For the love of god, lower the coring costs.
- Thread starter Bagfisch
- 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.
Could you even make it so that a country starts out with a free 25% so that something beyond core territory exists right off the bat? Maybe even make it so some countries get national ideas to lower over extension?
I've got to admit that the coring cost is more likely to decrease instead of increasing during the game except for trade center so i think it could be recalculate with a 0.8. modifier but i really like the game the way it is right now. All i need now is espionnage rework ,some end game buildings, new groups ideas and a better AI, the rest doesn't matters. (Except Misc optimisations and multiplayer fixs)
- 1
Paint map red?
PDX; NO BAD PLAYER!!!
Player who likes blobbing; Paint map AI BBB Blue?
*AI refuses to pay dip and adm costs to blob*
Player who likes blobbing; So how do I RP with no dynastic mechanics?
PDX; BAD PLAYER. PLAYER MUST RP BY SITTING AROUND AND PUSHING BUTTONS.
*Player who likes blobbing gains +5 consciousness, +10 militancy*
*PDI gains 24.9 infamy*
- 9
- 1
and what should we do for fun until then. (Better idea, spread those out gain 2% efficiency every tech after tech 3)
- 2
You're right. Today I played Wurzburg and took a province from Hessen. I then proceeded to get like 10 loans because I couldn't raise the money with taxes to pay for the army of 7 and it took me to lower it to an army of 4, almost 3. I then just dealt with getting 0 income for a while until I got more tech and didn't really have much to play because I had to wait. Starting doesn't matter if I lose it all within the first few months trying to expand to pay for my army. Almost like the new start didn't matter at all. It's already hard out there trying to get past the aggressive expansion.
Last edited:
Coring costs seem fine to me, wouldn't even mind a further increase. I'm used to playing with M&T mod though where costs are 2-4 times larger than they currently are.
- 9
- 1
Yes but people keep playing new campaigns currently and still have fun.
The issue is not really Mana point spend per province but real life time spent per province. If things become more expensive then you must spend longer waiting for Mana (The part people are complaining about) and less time playing the game (The fun part).
This is not a glaring problem in Mulity player games that have 15+ people in it (What Paradox is seemly building the game around) but it is a massive draw back in:
- Casual mulity player games (that only one run for one 3-7 hour session)
- Muilty player games with only a few people in them (2-6)
- Single player games.
Why?
We love the game not the waiting. If I only needed to spend 100 hours on a single campaign before if I now need to spend 200 hours to achieve the same outcome. Then the patch has halved my fun.
- 8
- 2
There are war goals besides annexation you know... true story. Hopefully P'dox will flesh those out instead of pacifying the map painters.
- 9
- 4
You need to stop derailing the conversation into 'what is fun'.... for some it is WC and for others it is the other aspects of the game.
I find this idea that peace is boring and just waiting ridiculous, peace is the most interesting part of the game. In peace you analyse the map and your situation to decide what to do. In war you are doing all the waiting.
In war you are just sitting there waiting, there are no decisions to be made.
Waiting for siege 'mana points' to accumulate.
Waiting for the war % 'mana points' to increase.
Waiting for the enemies morale 'mana points' to decrease.
So stop with this arrogance that war is the most interesting and 'real' part of the game. Honestly I always have a vassel just so I can do the least fighting possible, it's just tedious.
Also, the game changed, deal with it, accept the challenge.
Anyway... as I said before, I think there needs to be a separate mechanic for rapid expansion. EU4 is obviously aimed at simulating the careful political environment of the Ancien Regime, which the core mechanic describes well. But there were times and people when this system was ignored and they just went for it... conquering like crazy.
What if the core cost was lowered by your aggressive expansion points against you by the old owner of the province?
Or if power projection lowered coring costs?
I think this would simulate the 'steamroller' effect that rapidly expanding (And rapidly coring) countries had that others did not.
I find this idea that peace is boring and just waiting ridiculous, peace is the most interesting part of the game. In peace you analyse the map and your situation to decide what to do. In war you are doing all the waiting.
In war you are just sitting there waiting, there are no decisions to be made.
Waiting for siege 'mana points' to accumulate.
Waiting for the war % 'mana points' to increase.
Waiting for the enemies morale 'mana points' to decrease.
So stop with this arrogance that war is the most interesting and 'real' part of the game. Honestly I always have a vassel just so I can do the least fighting possible, it's just tedious.
Also, the game changed, deal with it, accept the challenge.
Anyway... as I said before, I think there needs to be a separate mechanic for rapid expansion. EU4 is obviously aimed at simulating the careful political environment of the Ancien Regime, which the core mechanic describes well. But there were times and people when this system was ignored and they just went for it... conquering like crazy.
What if the core cost was lowered by your aggressive expansion points against you by the old owner of the province?
Or if power projection lowered coring costs?
I think this would simulate the 'steamroller' effect that rapidly expanding (And rapidly coring) countries had that others did not.
Last edited:
- 8
- 5
- 1
No, the core cost is perfectly fine. Strategy game is good when choices are offered in even balance. You either conquer, or play tall.
Low coring cost forces you to play conquering.
Low coring cost forces you to play conquering.
- 7
- 7
There is a lot more resource management involved in executing wars of expansion than in economy management.
In most cases there is generally a mathematically defined solution to optimal infrastructure builds (in some respects Common Sense makes this easier, since it practically tells you where you should be developing). When you're at the point you can fight multiple wars, there's almost always something you can be doing better in terms of expanding faster. It is (in my opinion) the true test on understanding game mechanics.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
My own experience in Italy, playing as Mr. Pope on ironman, I have conquered almost all of Italy within 100 years (current date 1547, but I haven't taken anything in Italy for a decade), have kept up on time with admin (albeit with admin focus), took Administrative ideas as my first group, followed by Influence and Aristocratic, and am now the largest nation in Europe by development. I do not have a coalition, although this is due to outraged nations fearing my overwhelming power too much to try to fight me. I have Byzantium and Albania as vassals, Albania having been fed Hungary and any Balkans minor I could attack, and Byzantium about to get all of its cores back in five years when I invade the Ottomans. All in all, I feel I could have done all of this slightly faster, since I am ahead of time, but I did want to avoid that coalition as well.
I would say that Italy has become much easier to play, especially if you hate coalitions wars (I do), since most of the states remove themselves from the HRE, making them easy pickings.
I would say that Italy has become much easier to play, especially if you hate coalitions wars (I do), since most of the states remove themselves from the HRE, making them easy pickings.
- 1
- 1
It only forces you to play conquering if tall wasn't adjusted to compensate. There's absolutely no reason tall couldn't have been viable with the previous core prices, they just would have needed to either reduce the price of development or increase its bang per buck. People are trying to make the coring cost issue into a tall vs wide debate when it's not. The coring cost change is entirely about how fast the player can acquire power. If development had been a thing in 1.11, it would have been made more expensive too.
- 3
- 2
This type of argument appears quite often and I can't quite agree with it. It assumes that a players fun is 100% determined by the final outcome or how much of the map he controls. Of course I'm not denying that having painted the map entails. I enjoy that, too. But come on, that's not all the fun too be had. Forging alliances, breaking rival alliances and fighting wars is still there and still fun. You will get less land per war (probably humiliate and release nations more often), but unless having provinces is the one thing that you enjoy, that doesn't mean all the fun is gone.
I'm not completely sold on the exact values either and I agree that the limiting mechanic is quite inelegant. But I cannot agree with all the hyperbole that map painting was all the fun in this game and that limiting it (at least making it harder) is ruining this game.
- 6
- 2
I don't see what the problem is. So what if my blob can't be as swollen as my Russia game where I controlled Anatolia, Sweden, and East Asia or my Germany game where I controlled everything from the lowlands to the Urals? I don't mind the challenge.
Also, I always thought the vassal feeding strategy to be very gimmicky and gamey.
Also, I always thought the vassal feeding strategy to be very gimmicky and gamey.
- 2
- 1
And make the AI use them. Just saw the hansa try to annex holstein from denmark three times against a united Kalrmar Union. Sweden meanwhile with the same period but phas shifted tried to get it's independence and now stockholm is the southernmost city in sweden. If they had worked together sweden would have been free and the hansa would've held holstein.
It would still leave us with the problem of a decently sucessfull france conquering all of europe, while in reality a hugely sucessfull france would have been one that conquered most of the HRE.
- 1
And blobbing before was anoying since it was the only strategy, I remember the first game of EU4 I played (sucessfully). I played as Sweden, I had heard that I needed to deal with russia as soon as I became independant, so I did. After a couple of wars with them I found myself in controll of russias european territories, so I picked up the exploration ideas and started to colonise siberia. Then I relaised I basically had become russia. That's not what I wanted, I had wanted to fend them of but this blobbing thing was meaningless.
I haven't played a game as sweden since. But after art of war and common sense perhaps I should give it a try again.
I haven't played a game as sweden since. But after art of war and common sense perhaps I should give it a try again.
Last edited:
- 1