Hands-on video preview for Europa Universalis IV by Quill18
- Thread starter Regina
- 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.
How weird is that. I got a price drop alert from Gamersgate telling me I could get EUI for £0.50 so I got it with blue coins from EUIV pre-order and messed about with it. I wake up today to see Quill had released video of same thing.
Finally some colonization!
[video=youtube;9493KbLBkdI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9493KbLBkdI&feature=youtu.be&a[/video]
[video=youtube;9493KbLBkdI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9493KbLBkdI&feature=youtu.be&a[/video]
That colonization video... is he starting in 1508, or is that a save game? I see pre-unification Spain is now (correctly) Castile, so is that a change in the beta? It was definitely Spain in 1492 or so in a previous version, so if that's been fixed then great.
Lol, if only, it seems that minting and loans are enough to repay a 700 % deficit, lol.
Taking out 10+ loans per month isn't something you can actually maintain.
Btw. it seems that it does not pay off to take colonial NI's before goverment tech 7. Unless you would use quest for the new world, to conquer natives. Why didn't you just used quest to conquer natives in america? As there are no one in americas, you could get all that land, and most propably get it without any penalties for relations(or for realy small ones)? Most of experienced MP players do so, because having cores on native provinces extend your colonial range.
The effects of positive prestige in EU*4* are as follows:
Bonus Global Trade Power
Bonus Morale (both armies and navies)
Decreased Mercenary cost
National Spy Defense
Fort Defense
Yearly Legitimacy
Better Relations over Time
Some of these are very important and/or are MASSIVELY affected by prestige. The way I looked at it, 10 Prestige represents 2+ years of peace decay. Since a "normal" nation (i.e. with a proper king) would generate 50 Admin Power in around 7-8 months, I figured that it was an acceptable valuation.
I'm not saying that it's the optimal choice. To be honest, a lot of it simply came down to e-Peen. In all my Paradox playthroughs, you'll see that I value Prestige far more than is called for. It's the role-player in me. I can't turn down Prestige.
Prestige is not increasing your tech, and will not give you cores. Tech and cores are more important that the little value of those modifires offer. Also, buildings require admin power. Prestige is quite easy to get, there are lot of ways to increase it. Take this 7-8 as 7-8 month in which YOU WON'T get new tech level, or 7-8 months in which YOU WON'T get new core, or 7-8 month you won't build new buildings. While the prestige you get is good that is easily get and easily lost. You shouldn't care about prestige, unless it is very low.
Believe me, that most of the experienced players would agree with me. The modifires it offers, barely influence your overall economy, and don't influence your technology. They won't decrease your revolt risk, they barely make your army stronger(10 prestige, is 0,05 morale bonus...).
And sorry that i got such violent manner on you, just take it as advice - unless your prestige is very low, it is better to take prestige hit, than other negative value - unless it is legitimacy, while you have it quite high.
But you missed the part where he said he was NOT min/maxing and was instead trying to "role play" a bit.
I find it amusing that folks get so angry at terrible "mistakes" in a game they have never played. I'm going with, Quill -- who has, you know, actually logged a few hours on the game -- for knowing what he's doing over some random Internet critic.
Frankly, other than the accidental loans, the brief trade node system mix-up, and debatable questions about what was the best deal to demand from France after their total defeat, sure seems to me he's played pretty expertly. Most of the complaining is from folks assuming with no basis that everything must work exactly the same as EU3 when, you may have noticed, this is the sequel. Even when mechanics look similar, the balance is now different.
Plus he's doing a great job both explaining how the mechanics work, and demonstrating how to think about the strategic choices available.
Hope you keep the England game going a little longer Quill. It's been great entertainment for me and I appreciate it. I feel as invested in your game as if I had played it myself.
Frankly, other than the accidental loans, the brief trade node system mix-up, and debatable questions about what was the best deal to demand from France after their total defeat, sure seems to me he's played pretty expertly. Most of the complaining is from folks assuming with no basis that everything must work exactly the same as EU3 when, you may have noticed, this is the sequel. Even when mechanics look similar, the balance is now different.
Plus he's doing a great job both explaining how the mechanics work, and demonstrating how to think about the strategic choices available.
Hope you keep the England game going a little longer Quill. It's been great entertainment for me and I appreciate it. I feel as invested in your game as if I had played it myself.
Assuming prestige is not infinite, I believe no.
I think score is made of a lot of different values we don't know yet.
I am really scared by what I saw. I saw the database team doing its usual magnificent job at getting historical provinces set correctly and I saw the design team screwing that up so badly that Portugal's colony maintenance cost is off by at least 10 fold in sustainability terms!
May I suggest some sort of reduction in colonial maintenance costs being offset by an "Early colony" percentage penalty, instead of having all the colony maintenance costs disappearing once the colony reaches 1000 population? Would this help simulating Portugal and Castille's early land grabbing while keeping things manageable, regardless of which year we start playing?
I did not even started to play divine wind, i already knew that hordes will be bad idea. They were removed in eu4(in the way they were done in eu3). I know what i am talking about.
I'm sorry but unless you only play with nations bordering hordes your point not only is invalid, you can't imagine how much your loss is. I feel sorry for your stubbornness.
Wtf are you talking about?
Hordes are gamebreaking for whole europe, because they either fall quickly(in earlier patches) or reach vienna, and sometimes even conquer it - or get conquered by HRE, making it totaly flawed and unhistorical mechanism. They screw up whole eastern europe, and are one of the reasons why russia almost never forms in single player. They allways make ottoman empire fail in long term, and are most unbalanced and bugged game mechanism i know. This is first thing.
Second thing : How am i being stubborn here? I may be stubborn, it doesn't matter, i just asume that having information about game, gives me general concept of how game should be played, knowing current mechanics of the game, so why cannot i have my own mind in this matter? How am i being stubborn by not agreeing with you, because i have my own experience in the game?
Prestige, in EU3, was allways abundant resource, you frequently had too much of it, it was common to have 100 prestige most of game, if you played single player. This ONLY CHANGED when the SOI mechanics came up, and made it that you actualy need prestige, because you spend a lot of it. But in Eu4, i don't realy see much ways of spending prestige, and the positive effects of pretige, are realy not gamechangers, if you are going to die, prestige rarely can save you from it - unless you got PU's, but in this gameplay preview, it is not a case. Also i don't realy get your point at all - but whatever. I told my argument here and now. I propably will go to sleep after posting this.