Havent played in a while, whats your thoughts on Leviathan?

[Arizal]

I don't even want to play this expansion, mainly because of the natives and the monuments, but also because of the random silliness I saw. It would seem that the execution was terrible on many features I wouldn't necessarily hate, and that is rather sad.

Still, those two features I outlined, uber-natives and monuments, are strides in the wrong direction to me. The only way to really fix the situation would be to add game rules to remove those features which make the game less realistic in my eyes.

So I can't comment on the current gameplay since I never played it. Maybe my friends will manage to convince me to try it, but at this point my opinion of it is so bad that I might never buy Leviathan and heavily scrutinize the next expansion before deciding to buy it or not. Actually, since I dislike most of the changes I hear about, there is no sense in buying the next expansion while I'll stick to 1.30.4.

So I'm just hoping for EUV to learn from the mistakes of EUIV. Maybe a fresh start is what it takes to save this franchise.

That said, I'm applying my gloom to probably too many people. I'm sad though that the game isn't going in the direction I would like for it to and to witness its apparent agony. Well, there will be VIctoria 3.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

I don't even want to play this expansion, mainly because of the natives and the monuments, but also because of the random silliness I saw. It would seem that the execution was terrible on many features I wouldn't necessarily hate, and that is rather sad.

Still, those two features I outlined, uber-natives and monuments, are strides in the wrong direction to me. The only way to really fix the situation would be to add game rules to remove those features which make the game less realistic in my eyes.

So I can't comment on the current gameplay since I never played it. Maybe my friends will manage to convince me to try it, but at this point my opinion of it is so bad that I might never buy Leviathan and heavily scrutinize the next expansion before deciding to buy it or not. Actually, since I dislike most of the changes I hear about, there is no sense in buying the next expansion while I'll stick to 1.30.4.

So I'm just hoping for EUV to learn from the mistakes of EUIV. Maybe a fresh start is what it takes to save this franchise.

That said, I'm applying my gloom to probably too many people. I'm sad though that the game isn't going in the direction I would like for it to and to witness its apparent agony. Well, there will be VIctoria 3.

Ck3 was a fresh start on ck2, but few dlc mechanics were carried over and the first dlc was ebin vikings. Ck3 also lacks various game rukes ck2 had

 

[Arizal]

Ck3 was a fresh start on ck2, but few dlc mechanics were carried over and the first dlc was ebin vikings. Ck3 also lacks various game rukes ck2 had

My only problem with CK3 so far is the legacies, which feel like ascension perks for familial units and seem wrong. Otherwise, the fundamentals are solid in my mind.

With EUIV, I don’t like national ideas, missions and now apparently monuments and natives, as they are too far removed from reality as it happens in the game.

 

[holyvigil]

...

Innovative first idea group always.

 

[raikaria]

Main problem atm is that Native Development; which is lost on conquest [and redistributed to whatever province the native tribe relocates to if you don't annex everything] gives full AE.

You don't gain any of that dev; and the tribe might not even lose it [unless full annex]; but you'll get enough AE that your fledgeling CN will have a pan-america coalition.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Main problem atm is that Native Development; which is lost on conquest [and redistributed to whatever province the native tribe relocates to if you don't annex everything] gives full AE.

You don't gain any of that dev; and the tribe might not even lose it [unless full annex]; but you'll get enough AE that your fledgeling CN will have a pan-america coalition.

Why are you giving occupation to your colonial nation and not just waiting for days tick so it goes to them?

 

[BlazeKnight_]

It's garbage. Both the patch and the DLC.

Since you're asking about the DLC, lets talk about the DLC only. Do not buy it, at all. Lets take a look at the DLC's "features," taken straight from the steam page.

• Ask for Favors: Hilariously broken, bandaid patched, and put in so badly that it looks like a modded diplomatic action (and modded diplomatic actions are extremely limited).
• Regency Options: typically you won't have garbage heirs with disinheriting (another DLC feature), so not really used that much (or at least definitely not worth $20)
• Specialized Colonial Nations: only affects colonizers and does not change much, is moddable/can be outdone by mods
• Concentrate Development: Extremely overpowered and idiotic, another literal Risk-style button to press whenever possible. Benefits all campaigns of any kind and completely breaks the game, allowing you to feasibly overflow the development cost modifiers by getting provinces with 7000 development.
• Pillage Capital: similar to Concentrate, but not as barbaric since you at least have to do something (war) instead of farming territories
• Totemism: It's alright, except this is also moddable.
• Monuments: either they are hilariously overpowered (~15% effective discipline) or extremely useless (almost all of them). Another boring button press to gain modifiers.
• Unit Models: It does not even contain most of the Indochinese nations because they all got their models in the Buddhist pack from Common Sense.
• Carpet Siege, Draft Transports, Dynamic Heir Claim: Carpet Siege is QoL, Draft Cogs is too niche and also QoL, Dynamic Heir Claim is useless

Pretty much every feature of the DLC either breaks the game, is useless/poorly implemented, or is moddable. None of these are worth $20.

 

[Me_]

Might considered buying at -75% and only after more patching to bringing some sort of balance to the added mechanics.

 

[L'Afrique]

Main problem atm is that Native Development; which is lost on conquest [and redistributed to whatever province the native tribe relocates to if you don't annex everything] gives full AE.

You don't gain any of that dev; and the tribe might not even lose it [unless full annex]; but you'll get enough AE that your fledgeling CN will have a pan-america coalition.

And you'll still easily steamroll the heavily-devved reformed native coalition with one garbage stack if you need to defend your CN. Their units still suck and their tech will still be vastly less than any Old World power. The mechanics are silly but the people calling them gamebreaking seem to not have played the game recently.

edit: and I must as always lol at anyone who complains about realism. It's realistic that a Leipziger trips over Danzig and suddenly the army becomes space marines, it's realistic that a frenchman gets unconquerable élan merely by existing, it's realistic that sixteenth-century Russia can field the most troops in the world by virtue of being russian, it's realistic that Castile has more economic power than Korea in 1444, but god forbid an insufficiently euro tag gets meme buffs half as strong as what the european tags get.

 

[Arizal]

edit: and I must as always lol at anyone who complains about realism. It's realistic that a Leipziger trips over Danzig and suddenly the army becomes space marines, it's realistic that a frenchman gets unconquerable élan merely by existing, it's realistic that sixteenth-century Russia can field the most troops in the world by virtue of being russian, it's realistic that Castile has more economic power than Korea in 1444, but god forbid an insufficiently euro tag gets meme buffs half as strong as what the european tags get.

I agree with you, but I also don't like those examples, so PDX making more of those unrealistic things doesn't seem to be the right direction in which to steer the game.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

And I must as always lol at anyone who complains about realism. It's realistic that a Leipziger trips over Danzig and suddenly the army becomes space marines, it's realistic that a frenchman gets unconquerable élan merely by existing, it's realistic that sixteenth-century Russia can field the most troops in the world by virtue of being russian, it's realistic that Castile has more economic power than Korea in 1444, but god forbid an insufficiently euro tag gets meme buffs half as strong as what the european tags get.

So... Because some things are unrealistic as they are, does that mean we must now completely throw realism off the window and abandon all attempts at improving in this dimension?

What sort of moronic argument is this? Should we stop fighting crime just because it already exists?

 

[MatthewP]

So... Because some things are unrealistic as they are, does that mean we must now completely throw realism off the window and abandon all attempts at improving in this dimension?

What sort of moronic argument is this? Should we stop fighting crime just because it already exists?

I mean, if you’re on a suggestion forum for the perpetrators of the crime, it might be a bit of an uphill battle to get them on board

 

[MachopPower69]

Leviathan is basically broken. Colonisation was broken, monuments are OP, Development is a joke, and SEA is okay.

 

[Arizal]

Leviathan is basically broken. Colonisation was broken, monuments are OP, Development is a joke, and SEA is okay.

From what I read, I like the "decline of empires" mechanic for SEA, but would have liked if it could have been a proper mechanic for all empires instead of just for a few select empires who were declining in 1444.

 

[holyvigil]

From what I read, I like the "decline of empires" mechanic for SEA, but would have liked if it could have been a proper mechanic for all empires instead of just for a few select empires who were declining in 1444.

Some fall of empire disasters can be really fun. In Anbennar a mod for EU4 the dwarven greed disaster for the dwarven empire is really intense.

 

[Froonk]

They still haven't fixed the mercenary system which hurts AI a lot, which makes the game a drag to play when AI manages to cripple itself hiring 35 infantry mercenaries and dip themselves to 0 army professionalism. Mercenaries should be of fixed, pre-determined size independent of state's force limit so AI can just hire working stacks at war then disband them after. Mercenaries also shouldn't cost army professionalism when hiring but cause a decay depending on how much of your force limit they are. Right now AI will be permanently broke with very few actual troops and 0% army professionalism. Honestly I always thought Victoria 2's war AI was bad, especially in terms of army compositions but EU4 right now feels even worse and in EU4 war is the only focus.

The other problem is natives are way overtuned and colonization speed is also still overtuned. These two issues currently somewhat "balance" each other out but they both need to be adressed.

I don't mind most of the features they added, they didn't really have the effect they intended but they do have impact in actually crippling states as well as increasing province value beyond just dev number, but force limits need to be scaled down as armies get absurd in numbers later. Concentrate development needs to be removed from the game or thoroughly changed and pillage capital should give more ducats and less development so it acts as a development deflation.

 

[MachopPower69]

Some fall of empire disasters can be really fun. In Anbennar a mod for EU4 the dwarven greed disaster for the dwarven empire is really intense.

Maybe a unique disaster for Empires or a permanent modifier where pretenders can be created that increases stability cost by 50% and makes rebellions more likely and provinces quicker to get independence or secede depending on their culture (Maybe in the 1650's and higher when nationalism is rising. For example, Ottoman Empire can have the modifier and Serbian rebels can get independence quicker in 5 years and join Serbia or become their own state, like the Decline of the Ottomans)

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Maybe a unique disaster for Empires or a permanent modifier where pretenders can be created that increases stability cost by 50% and makes rebellions more likely and provinces quicker to get independence or secede depending on their culture (Maybe in the 1650's and higher when nationalism is rising. For example, Ottoman Empire can have the modifier and Serbian rebels can get independence quicker in 5 years and join Serbia or become their own state, like the Decline of the Ottomans)

Ottomans get events when 25 provinces + iirc for heirs and succession to be more volatile. More In depth internal mechanics would be appreciated, but i agree with the others more and more every patch that the ai must be able to use these new mechanics before theyre implemented into the game.

Edit: just remembered the civil war/rebellion update imperator had, that the ai got a far more easy version to deak with than the player, with a loyalty buff whenever a single region rebelled

 

[Arizal]

@The Norman Yoke I think the idea expressed by @MachopPower69 (and the one I expressed) was that those unique events for the Ottomans would be replaced by that more general mechanic about the decline of empires, albeit they could keep the localisation for the Ottomans if, by chance, the particular of the situation match with the one said in the "decline of the Ottomans" (by the way, it's silly to get those events when you are doing fine elsewhere and dominate the whole world).

That said, I agree with you when you say that the AI should know how to react to those, especially if they were to be extended to all countries.

 

[MachopPower69]

Ottomans get events when 25 provinces + iirc for heirs and succession to be more volatile. More In depth internal mechanics would be appreciated, but i agree with the others more and more every patch that the ai must be able to use these new mechanics before theyre implemented into the game.

Edit: just remembered the civil war/rebellion update imperator had, that the ai got a far more easy version to deak with than the player, with a loyalty buff whenever a single region rebelled

Comparing EU4 AI to Imperator AI is like playing as Byzantium and the AI Ottomans declaring war on you on the 11th of December 1444. I stopped playing IR mainly because the AI expansion is so broken. As a Player, I couldn't expand Rome to eat up italy until 80 years after, but AI Rome can do so in 10 years without a sweat because it has outrageous buffs that only a few nations have