Now, now! Some of the tribes had herds and farms. That´s late Stone-age, as opposed to the early Stone-age you refer to...
- 4
Forgotten & Unfun Mechanics of EU4
- Thread starter ruzen
- 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.
Now, now! Some of the tribes had herds and farms. That´s late Stone-age, as opposed to the early Stone-age you refer to...
The most forgotten and unfun mechanic of EUIV? Western European Trade Node. Let's bring it back people!
(just kidding)
(just kidding
)- 2
- 1
I don't believe people that say mountain forts were impassable, perfect chokeholders. Besides, when it comes to game, there's no risk/reward in building mountain forts, so the meta there is always fighting an enemy in mountains and avoid sieging the enemies' mountain forts as they are a death trap. I can say a lot about the current meta that has evolved from the fort change, and it certainly speaks volumes that the combat width effect was entirely removed to "balance" that out.
Last edited:
The biggest problem is that penalty to attacker rolls will not stop big boys like Ottomans or France from stackwiping your army in the mountain, while penalty to combat width can pretty much turn the tide. As for "battles in the mountains can take 7-9 months" argument, it's always helpful when you have additional armies (preferably mercenaries) standing next to province where the battle is going on. Just intercept enemy reinforcements, it will affect the length of the battle rather severely.
I understand that Paradox probably will change battle mechanics in the future, but please, remove important mechanic such as combat width only when you actually have a good concept already made and ready! You could make a beta patch with a brand new battle mechanic, which actually would give players something different, so they can compare it with the old mechanic, but nope. You remove important mechanic first and make brand new mechanic much later. Removal of combat width introduces nothing, it just removes what was in the game since it's release, and gives players no new mechanic in compensation. End of rant.
I understand that Paradox probably will change battle mechanics in the future, but please, remove important mechanic such as combat width only when you actually have a good concept already made and ready! You could make a beta patch with a brand new battle mechanic, which actually would give players something different, so they can compare it with the old mechanic, but nope. You remove important mechanic first and make brand new mechanic much later. Removal of combat width introduces nothing, it just removes what was in the game since it's release, and gives players no new mechanic in compensation. End of rant.
- 10
- 1
- 1
They didn't encounter pike squares AFAIK.
It's hard to make plausible conjecture on "what would have happened if natives had seen significant contact with Europe 100 years or more earlier". Aside from disease spread it's hard to know. A few of the surviving tribes did effectively start copying western practices, only to have the US renege on its treaties and force them out. Someone doing that centuries earlier before the foothold was so strong (or in a different political environment) could allow some pretty different outcomes.
The colon conquest stuff is its own problem. Natives as they are right now are still joke levels of easy to conquer so I don't see an issue there. The problem is the lack of a viable CB without relying on deus vult, and *that* particular problem is *worldwide*.
- 8
Not going to lie, I have no idea how they'd even fix the CB issue unless they make viable government / idea group CBs. Spitballing ideas would be: give influence a CB that gives 0 dip cost on vassalizing a country and 50% AE from a nation that borders you. Humanist a CB that gives a 0 dip cost and 75% AE for taking non-accepted religions and cultures from a nation that borders you. Government forms could be 0 dip and 100% AE for taking land from a different government type but same type (ex: Despotic Monarchy vs. Constitutional monarchy) and 85% province cost, 0 dip cost, 75% AE for nations sharing your government type (Monarchy, Theocracy, Republic) on a nation not sharing your government type but nations that share the government type on the nation you're conquering from receive 100% AE from the land taken. Advanced governments attacking less advanced governments could get a scaling 5% province war score per level. Could even throw in a CB for government level. So Duchy wouldn't have a CB but Kingdom would have a CB on duchies for 0 dip, 100% AE for conquering or vassalizing a duchy rank government, Empire for Kingdom + Duchy ranks.
- 2
- 1
I have this idea: increasing stability should be changed by spending Power Projection.
Therefore, power projection could be more valuable and It would decrease Admin Point dependence all the time and humiliating rivals could be more useful. Also, It promotes spending on development more freely.
Side note, spending (aprox)100 admin points to stabilize all country is equal to increasing 1 development (tax gold) in a single province, doesn't sounds "logical" to me.
Last edited:
Yeah, historically natives in the Americas "westernized" militarily extremely rapidly and were a pretty credible threat to the colonists throughout most of the game's period.
It's just- that didn't suddenly mean the Europeans felt any compunctions about attacking them now that they were more westernized. It'd make sense for the CB to still apply to native tech groups, even when they're up to date on institutions. Whether that'd be fun as a native, well I dunno.
Honestly it might just make sense for all tags in the Americas to have a CB on each other at all times. The colonists weren't exactly shy about conflict with each other either and it'd make things much more dynamic there, force their overlords to intervene etc which might break the alliance hugboxes that are so common in Europe in the game these days.
- 5
- 1
Europe having CB on natives constantly would be fine, especially if natives taking them could do something similar in return. It's not like colonizers play nicely anyway if you're a new world native.
These would be a nice start
.- 1
It does apply to them, in the sense that having full Exploration lets you fabricate claims in the New World and doesn't care whether your target is westernized as far as I know.
Here's another thought of something cool that hasn't really been tapped into: Dynamic Idea Groups. I'm thinking on the lines of Plutocratic/Aristocratic ideas. Different idea groups available to different regions of the map, cultures, tech groups, religions, or governments just as a few ideas. It would certainly add a lot more depth to each part of the world/government and give a few more choices and strategies aside from "always pick Admin/religious/etc"
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
You know what isn't fun? Remembering to manually set embargoes to your rivals and unembargoing them when you eclipse them.
You can order your vassals to automatically embargo rivals. Why isn't there a button to do that yourself?
You can order your vassals to automatically embargo rivals. Why isn't there a button to do that yourself?
- 2
These are some very good ideas.
There are already regions and state map mode. Current states could merge together to make bigger size states, so we could have bigger and fewer states. Maybe even throw 1-2 fort per state idea too. But taking from a state-owned or same region province could give less AE as well. Rather than they just borders you.
Favors and stability are my only issues with the game at the moment, and maybe combat width, but if they are revamping the combat at some point then that is fine.
Seemingly disabling Cossacks DLC to remove the ghastly favors has also resolved my continual negative stability events. No matter what nation I chose I would get constant events giving negative stability and so ended up just playing with -3 stability the whole time. Turning off Cossacks has stopped that happening though for some reason.
The favors could be an okay mechanic, but the AI would need to abide by the law as well, which currently it very clearly doesn't. I had completely lost the fun in the game when playing with the favors system active, yet I am not a type of player that relies on the larger nations to fight my wars. Very disappointing.
Seemingly disabling Cossacks DLC to remove the ghastly favors has also resolved my continual negative stability events. No matter what nation I chose I would get constant events giving negative stability and so ended up just playing with -3 stability the whole time. Turning off Cossacks has stopped that happening though for some reason.
The favors could be an okay mechanic, but the AI would need to abide by the law as well, which currently it very clearly doesn't. I had completely lost the fun in the game when playing with the favors system active, yet I am not a type of player that relies on the larger nations to fight my wars. Very disappointing.
The Wool Problem
Wool goods now giving-10% local ship cost. What about the ones don't have seashore?
Now that I come up with an idea about the trade I would like to share and It may correct trade good bonuses. and also introduce new gameplay & diplomatic options.
---------------------------
Trading Trade Goods Bonuses @Johan
Rather than having too micromanaging gameplay ( Trade goods giving local bonuses) and causing unintentional errors, All specific trade goods can give their each bonus to the country. Regardless of production leader or anything a country should be rewarded by how many units they are producing. Think It's like the patriarch authority bonus. The more you have the more you get and If a country production leader maybe they could get even more bonus. Example: If a country produces 1 amount of wool (total) they get -1% ship cost but If they produce 10, then the bonus become -10% ship cost. Of course, the numbers can change. I've put them just to give the idea If I didn't explain clear.
The second step of this idea is Trading Trade Goods Bonuses and I believe this could be the most fun part! With all these bonuses you can have the production could be more meaningful but If a country has lots of wool but don't have use for It's bonuses? Well, he/she can easily trade them with a country (by another trade good) or maybe even force to give by peace deal. This could have effect on colonialism too. Let's say rather than conquering China/Afrika/India and dealing with lots of rebels and making ourselves valuable, you can just grab their production and enjoy the bonuses.
The third part of the idea is production leader bonus. With some cooldown and technological threshold, the production leader can change the goods bonus! Maybe some manufacturing buildings are needed as well! Just like in new Cults system in Afrika Fetishes. Production leaders could alter the bonus with current technology and of course not all bonuses could any bonus you desire. These bonuses is going to be pre-determined but the player is making the decisions. Example: Wool can give shipping cost reduction, naval upkeep reduction, settler bonus. Of course these are just to clear the idea.
This is just an idea that I come up with as I play and you can see my all references look a like some current mechanics It won't even look alien. You can even go bold with trade goods bonuses which effects combat as well. From decreasing siege times to bonus to cavaliers. I just want to have something to play with these goods. Normally I never tag devs but I wanted to do this time.
Wool goods now giving-10% local ship cost. What about the ones don't have seashore?
Now that I come up with an idea about the trade I would like to share and It may correct trade good bonuses. and also introduce new gameplay & diplomatic options.
---------------------------
Trading Trade Goods Bonuses @Johan
Rather than having too micromanaging gameplay ( Trade goods giving local bonuses) and causing unintentional errors, All specific trade goods can give their each bonus to the country. Regardless of production leader or anything a country should be rewarded by how many units they are producing. Think It's like the patriarch authority bonus. The more you have the more you get and If a country production leader maybe they could get even more bonus. Example: If a country produces 1 amount of wool (total) they get -1% ship cost but If they produce 10, then the bonus become -10% ship cost. Of course, the numbers can change. I've put them just to give the idea If I didn't explain clear.
The second step of this idea is Trading Trade Goods Bonuses and I believe this could be the most fun part! With all these bonuses you can have the production could be more meaningful but If a country has lots of wool but don't have use for It's bonuses? Well, he/she can easily trade them with a country (by another trade good) or maybe even force to give by peace deal. This could have effect on colonialism too. Let's say rather than conquering China/Afrika/India and dealing with lots of rebels and making ourselves valuable, you can just grab their production and enjoy the bonuses.
The third part of the idea is production leader bonus. With some cooldown and technological threshold, the production leader can change the goods bonus! Maybe some manufacturing buildings are needed as well! Just like in new Cults system in Afrika Fetishes. Production leaders could alter the bonus with current technology and of course not all bonuses could any bonus you desire. These bonuses is going to be pre-determined but the player is making the decisions. Example: Wool can give shipping cost reduction, naval upkeep reduction, settler bonus. Of course these are just to clear the idea.
This is just an idea that I come up with as I play and you can see my all references look a like some current mechanics It won't even look alien. You can even go bold with trade goods bonuses which effects combat as well. From decreasing siege times to bonus to cavaliers. I just want to have something to play with these goods. Normally I never tag devs but I wanted to do this time.
Last edited:
I don't agree with you. Favors forces you to ally weakers nations first, which tends to lead to more interesting starts, and allow you to enchain wars at the end when you have a lot of favors. And I feel like that somehow AI follows the same rules (Even if I'm not sure?) because I've already noticed some wars in which my allies needed some help but couldn't call me because they didn't have 10 favors
However, stability mechanics should have a rework yes I think
- 2