Healing the Great Schism

[Calbrenar]

From my brief 1.2 playing in multiplayer I find that the biggest changes with 1.2 are how your allies won't immediately assist you in wars. So instead of starting as a one to three province nation and immediately starting to expand you end up getting called into your allies wars instead and losing manpower and soldiers for no return.

If you play as a bigger nation this is probably not as big a problem.

 

[zodium]

I wasn't flaming anyone. I was just stating that flexibility is the key. The game itself says in the tips that if the game is too difficult, try turning down the settings. The apparent problem is that many people are unwilling to do that for what ever reasons.

As far as Ironman mode is concerned, just because one or more games are played without it, it doesn't mean every game has to be. How about starting off on easy and working your way up? That seems reasonable to me.

If someone plays a OPM, with full AI skill, lucky nations on, and just goes on a conquest spree without a concern for his or hers neighbours, I have no sympathy. A little common sense can go a long way.



Yes, but does that mean the game has to dumbed down on the default settings to cater for people who like to WC with a OPM on Ironman? Because if it does, you can count me out.

If you're really willing to accept that not wanting to do the things you've suggested is a legitimate position that simply differs from your own, then here goes:

Only ironman mode allows real permanent decisions. Choosing not to save and reload is not the same as not being able to reload, and does not yield a similarly enjoyable game experience. This precludes any settings changes and mods completely. It's not a matter of willingness or unwillingness, that's apparently just the way the good Lord put me together. If I could get the same game experience out of non-ironman, I'd do that, but I can't.

 

[Daema]

I wasn't flaming anyone. I was just stating that flexibility is the key. The game itself says in the tips that if the game is too difficult, try turning down the settings. The apparent problem is that many people are unwilling to do that for what ever reasons.

As far as Ironman mode is concerned, just because one or more games are played without it, it doesn't mean every game has to be. How about starting off on easy and working your way up? That seems reasonable to me.

If someone plays a OPM, with full AI skill, lucky nations on, and just goes on a conquest spree without a concern for his or hers neighbours, I have no sympathy. A little common sense can go a long way.



Yes, but does that mean the game has to dumbed down on the default settings to cater for people who like to WC with a OPM on Ironman? Because if it does, you can count me out.

You are flaming, of course, since you doubtless know that the difficulty settings have absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

Only ironman mode allows real permanent decisions.

That is a pretty large fallacy, every decision you make is permanent until you consciously choose to make it not so. The game doesn't force you to reload saves in any way. That said if you need Ironman to prevent you doing that, for the game to make "permanent decisions" part of its mechanics, then so be it. Ask PI to release an alternate Iroman mode.

 

[zodium]

That is a pretty large fallacy, every decision you make is permanent until you consciously choose to make it not so. The game doesn't force you to reload saves in any way. That said if you need Ironman to prevent you doing that, for the game to make "permanent decisions" part of its mechanics, then so be it. Ask PI to release an alternate Iroman mode.

I think you misunderstood my argument a bit, but close enough, I guess. "My" proposal, which I stole elsewhere on the forums, for an alternative ironman mode can be found in the OP.

 

[pac]

While I don't agree that people want it to be light and breezy, I do think that people would like it to be slightly more conquest-friendly, with less sudden alliance breaking from the AI ruining your chances for survival/expansion depending on your situation, or as was my situation with Ryukyu, suddenly having 24 000 castillians in Taiwan in the early 1500's. Those are things that if fixed don't make the game light and breezy, but make playing the smaller nations slightly more playable than absolutely impossible.

Well, by my definition, any game where Ryukyu is in a position to do anything is going to be "light and breezy".

Early 1500s is a bit early (the Spanish and Dutch established outposts there in the 1620s, IIRC?), but it's nice to hear that the Europeans are showing an interest in East Asia!

EDIT: what I should say is that everyone has their own viewpoint and opinions on what could be changed or kept, but that's exactly what this discussion is regarding. It's just asking what could be done to fairly balance the game so a majority of players enjoy it, rather than having it be so simple it's ridiculous or so impossibly hard only the best of the best could even hope to get their feet off the ground. At this moment it's skewed in the direction of harder, making many peoples goals impossible.

It's also a question of what goals people think are reasonable. I remember seeing a thread that opened with a screenshot and a complaint that the OP was having trouble expanding. I squint at the screenshot and see a Tuscany that rules virtually all of Italy (islands included) in the early 17th century! From my point of view, that's a whole game's worth of achievement right there! (Although some kind of end-game where a Revolutionary Italy terrorises Europe also sounds nice.)

For me as a modder (and I think this view is shared by others I work with), the aim is to make alt historical goals (like uniting Italy) more challenging, but at the same time more in-depth and more involving. No one wants to be left with nothing to do but turn the speed up to 5 and wait. (Vanilla EUIV is still more or less the same at its core as vanilla EUII was, and when it comes to domestic gameplay, both suffer by comparison with CK and, especially, Victoria.)

 

[pac]

It's your linking of historical events to difficulty that I took issue with:

"With Paradox's revival of more historical elements in EUIV, it may be that those who want a light and breezy conquest game may increasingly turn to mods"

Historical elements are a completely separate issue to difficulty. Having an easy historical game is just as possible as a difficult sandbox game.

Quite true. I was mainly contrasting the vanilla states of EUIII and EUIV.

To rephrase my general point from that sentence: In EUIII it was mainly those who wanted more historical depth and accuracy who turned to mods (which sometimes, but not necessarily, coincided with increased difficulty). In EUIV lots of other constituencies may be driven to play/create mods.

And how would those people be affected by the game having an option they can decide not to use?

Sorry, misread your earlier post!

Yes, you're quite right that an on/off button for deterministic events could be created — and as easily by a modder as by Paradox. However, going through all those events, deciding which are "deterministic" and which are not (lots of people will disagree with your assessment, of course) and adding a line to them accordingly … Well, you'd need to pay me to do it.

Plus, in the short term, all switching off those events achieves is to drain life and flavour from the game. Coupling their removal with the addition of more detailed systems: much more satisfying. =)

 

[lemonsquid]

Well, by my definition, any game where Ryukyu is in a position to do anything is going to be "light and breezy".

Early 1500s is a bit early (the Spanish and Dutch established outposts there in the 1620s, IIRC?), but it's nice to hear the Europeans showing an interest in East Asia!


It's also a question of what goals people think are reasonable. I remember seeing a thread that opened with a screenshot and a complaint that the OP was having trouble expanding. I squint at the screenshot and see a Tuscany that rules virtually all of Italy (islands included) in the early 17th century! From my point of view, that's a whole game's worth of achievement right there! (Although some kind of end-game where a Revolutionary Italy terrorises Europe also sounds nice.)

For me as a modder (and I think this view is shared by others I work with), the aim is to make alt historical goals (like uniting Italy) more challenging, but at the same time more in-depth and more involving. No one wants to be left with nothing to do but turn the speed up to 5 and wait. (Vanilla EUIV is still more or less the same at its core as vanilla EUII was, and when it comes to domestic gameplay, both suffer by comparison with CK and, especially, Victoria.)

agreed, I think some people may be expecting far too much out of their power they project compared to what a "reasonable" pace according to the game(AI) thinks it is. For me, I rarely have coalitions form against me since im not a super crazy blobber of destruction. And I do not mind watching the screen, it leaves me time to do little things outside the game or gives me a chance to scroll through the different mapmodes, and just sit back and watch history unfold(people seem to be missing that part) differently

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

Well, by my definition, any game where Ryukyu is in a position to do anything is going to be "light and breezy".

Early 1500s is a bit early (the Spanish and Dutch established outposts there in the 1620s, IIRC?), but it's nice to hear the Europeans showing an interest in East Asia!


It's also a question of what goals people think are reasonable. I remember seeing a thread that opened with a screenshot and a complaint that the OP was having trouble expanding. I squint at the screenshot and see a Tuscany that rules virtually all of Italy (islands included) in the early 17th century! From my point of view, that's a whole game's worth of achievement right there! (Although some kind of end-game where a Revolutionary Italy terrorises Europe also sounds nice.)

For me as a modder (and I think this view is shared by others I work with), the aim is to make alt historical goals (like uniting Italy) more challenging, but at the same time more in-depth and more involving. No one wants to be left with nothing to do but turn the speed up to 5 and wait. (Vanilla EUIV is still more or less the same at its core as vanilla EUII was, and when it comes to domestic gameplay, both suffer by comparison with CK and, especially, Victoria.)

Agreed. Double agreed. Triple agreed.

To illustrate a point here, the game depicted below is an incredibly boring game:

Spoiler

Although it isn't obvious in that picture Spain is just off to one side in the Pacific having just cored Hawaii. They proceed to take Taiwan and successfully war their way around Asia. My GB had already expanded to the point whereby I was able to shrug off anything that threatened me and I had yet to encounter a major coalition challenge. Having just dealt with a war against Spain, France, Portugal, Denmark, Huron and a few others without even seeing combat on my own soil. This was in 1.1, historical lucky, AI bonuses, hard mode.

The fact that I was able to expand to that point isn't something that anyone should celebrate as a "good way to play the game", its boring and pointless.

 

[Emre Yigit]

OP: While I definitely agree that greater flexibility might satisfy more people and therefore prevent the heated discussions we've seen in the past two days, I think the issue goes beyond playing styles and game restrictions such as ironman or whatever.

What we've seen over the past few days is an excess of ad hominem argumentation, bad language and a lack of respect. We have had virulent discussions about Paradox games in the past, but I don't believe I've ever seen it get to the point where so many people were calling each other names.

One of the central requirements for a discussion is that you follow what is being said. "tl;dr" (or some variant thereof) appeared on these forums once in 2005, four times in 2006, about 20 times in 2007 (of which about half were in the OT forum, where anything goes, really). It seems to be posted on an hourly basis in the recent past (much less so to-day, thank God).

So what we have now are not rational (or even irrational) discussions. We have ex cathedra statements from forum members who don't apparently bother to read each other's posts.

On a more purely anecdotal basis, apropos your "wall of text" I remember posting an argument across two posts (I don't remember what the word count limitation is or was) and no-one blinking an eyelid. The concept that something could perhaps be better said in more than a few sentences is one that is fast losing favour. Which is strange, given that the EU and the other series too are not what I would consider games aimed at a reflex-based audience.

I fear we are doomed to repeats of the events of this week.

 

[OhioAstro]

In most games mods are things that experienced users adopt to customize their games or to give themselves extra challenges. It's utterly backwards to make the base game difficult and to expect less experienced players to write modifications about mechanics that they don't understand well, or to have to research how to use them. Mods are very much a niche thing - in EU4, if I look at achievements, only a small minority of users have ever enabled ironman.

It's also emphatically not the case that the "easy" setting is an answer, as a single difficulty button mashes together a whole host of changes. The dispute is not "easy vs. hard", but rather is one between different game styles. A "normal" 1.1 game is not remotely the same beast as a "normal" 1.2 game. And the easy setting does serve an important and different function: it's a forgiving environment for people very new to the game. You want that to exist independent of judgement calls.

The hardcore players are also falling back on arguments that amount to "play my way or play large nations" - again, implying that the game should permit only restricted options for styles that differ from theirs. Again, this is a reversal of the normal way that games are designed and played - most of the effort and options go to where most of the people are. And, no matter what you think, EU4 is like every single other computer game ever written - the number of casual players is always higher than the number who focus on fancy tricks with obscure provinces. It's just less so than Minecraft or the like.

To be truthful, I think that EU4 would benefit if the hard and normal settings had actual gameplay differences and weren't just knobs turned towards or away from players. I'd find it really neat to have the game mechanics actually differ in substantive ways, and it'd encourage people to experiment.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

For me as a modder (and I think this view is shared by others I work with), the aim is to make alt historical goals (like uniting Italy) more challenging, but at the same time more in-depth and more involving. No one wants to be left with nothing to do but turn the speed up to 5 and wait. (Vanilla EUIV is still more or less the same at its core as vanilla EUII was, and when it comes to domestic gameplay, both suffer by comparison with CK and, especially, Victoria.)

Perhaps this is part of it: the relative lack of player actions available in EU4 (and 3, and 2, and 1) if there are no wars going on. In CK and Victoria I can be quite happy fiddling with internal domestic issues for my country for some time. In EU games you can build buildings and colonize, but neither is as excitingly dynamic as the interpersonal scheming in CK (for example). The end result, then, is that without warfare playing an EU game will always tends towards watching the game flow by at speed 5.

As an example of what could be done, I would be interested to see EU:Rome's political system (probably in some simplified version) grafted onto what we currently have for EU4. I think there is a historical case for most of the mechanics there, though I don't see how this would work without some major work on the game engine.

 

[pac]

On a more purely anecdotal basis, apropos your "wall of text" I remember posting an argument across two posts (I don't remember what the word count limitation is or was) and no-one blinking an eyelid. The concept that something could perhaps be better said in more than a few sentences is one that is fast losing favour. Which is strange, given that the EU and the other series too are not what I would consider games aimed at a reflex-based audience.

As someone who (I assume, like all EU players) has an interest in history, you should know that the death of the written word has been being proclaimed as long as there's been a written word (and the death of civility on the internet about as long as there's been an internet). In 18th century London, there were those mourning that the political views of so many were being led by the cartoons, not the editorials.

Being prone to the occasional wall of text myself: they're fine for exchanging ideas among other people prone to them, but a complete waste of time if you hope to address a larger audience. That's always been the case. If you want to overturn the odds on that, you'd better be a pretty spellbinding writer.

 

[jonman122]

Perhaps this is part of it: the relative lack of player actions available in EU4 (and 3, and 2, and 1) if there are no wars going on. In CK and Victoria I can be quite happy fiddling with internal domestic issues for my country for some time. In EU games you can build buildings and colonize, but neither is as excitingly dynamic as the interpersonal scheming in CK (for example). The end result, then, is that without warfare playing an EU game will always tends towards watching the game flow by at speed 5.

As an example of what could be done, I would be interested to see EU:Rome's political system (probably in some simplified version) grafted onto what we currently have for EU4. I think there is a historical case for most of the mechanics there, though I don't see how this would work without some major work on the game engine.

I haven't slept in a long time and was having trouble getting my point down comprehensively but this sums it up nicely, there really isn't a lot to do other than conquer, vassalize, PU or colonize. With the conquering getting much more difficult with 1.2, it's made it so the game includes a lot more speed 5 time passing. I like to be involved and do many things, when I'm done waiting for cores I like to find another direction to push, but eventually I'm surrounded by countries on both sides of me that want blood for some reason or another. As Byzantium I've gone cruising out of Anatolia towards the Mamluks and suddenly Hungary and Poland are in a coalition against me because they have rivaled me. Now I can't push in any direction and it's on to the 5 speed cruise control.

 

[Moltke]

I don't think it really matters how well the forum is getting along, the fact is Europa Universalis is no longer as fun as at release. It's a different game now and should have its reviews reevaluated.

 

[jonman122]

I don't think it really matters how well the forum is getting along, the fact is Europa Universalis is no longer as fun as at release. It's a different game now and should have its reviews reevaluated.

If every game that was released and changed had it's reviews re-evaluated, all reviewers would be doing is reviewing the same game all day every day. No, this discussion is here to try and get some cohesive arguments and points together so that we can come to some kind of agreements on what we'd like to see changed in the game to make it more exciting and engaging for a vast majority of players.

 

[pac]

As an example of what could be done, I would be interested to see EU:Rome's political system (probably in some simplified version) grafted onto what we currently have for EU4. I think there is a historical case for most of the mechanics there, though I don't see how this would work without some major work on the game engine.

Lack of visibility of these mechanics via the interface remains an issue, but (within the constraints of country modifiers, province modifiers, etc.) the only other limit on what you can do with internal politics is modder ingenuity.

It's understandable in many ways that Paradox itself has not done that much about this, because — whereas in CK you are (almost) all dynastic feudal monarchies; and in Victoria you are all countries with the common socio-economic challenge of industrialisation — EU embraces a far wider range in terms of governments or geography, social structure or state ambition. A cookie-cutter system would be unsatisfying when, during the period, the English monarchy was so different from the French monarchy, which was in turn different from the Spanish monarchy — and all three were vastly different from the arrangements in Germany. And we haven't even begun to bring in non-monarchies or the role of the church across Europe, for example. The EU period is as long as the (pre-Old Gods) CK period, but with far more change and variety in terms of state, administration and government (and that's just in Europe).

For a taster of what can be done with internal politics in EUIV, try a Venetian game with Serenissima mod.


See? I don't just come here to advertise my own mod! Sometimes I come here to advertise my friends' mods!

 

[zodium]

I can't respond to everyone, but I think there's a good back and forth going on, so I'm pretty happy with how the thread has developed after page 1. Major kudos to the mods for keeping things on track!

I haven't slept in a long time and was having trouble getting my point down comprehensively but this sums it up nicely, there really isn't a lot to do other than conquer, vassalize, PU or colonize. With the conquering getting much more difficult with 1.2, it's made it so the game includes a lot more speed 5 time passing. I like to be involved and do many things, when I'm done waiting for cores I like to find another direction to push, but eventually I'm surrounded by countries on both sides of me that want blood for some reason or another. As Byzantium I've gone cruising out of Anatolia towards the Mamluks and suddenly Hungary and Poland are in a coalition against me because they have rivaled me. Now I can't push in any direction and it's on to the 5 speed cruise control.

Anecdotally, my most fun period of game-time (not my most fun game overall, of course) so far was actually my 1.1 full-on-exploit Austria game. I'm definitely a flexibility player, in that I just like having stuff to do all the time, and the fact that I was literally constantly in action, speed 2, managing diplomats and wars and missionaries while I seized power by a hair's width as fast as possible abusing the hell out of PU and electorate mechanics.

It wasn't fun because it was historical or risky, it was fun because I was constantly in action and had to make month to month (or even week to week) decisions. Of course, I was "done" by about 1485, but what a jolly old time those 40 years were. Other games were fun because they were risky, and one game I set out to engineer a historically accurate European development.

 

[Varyar]

OP: While I definitely agree that greater flexibility might satisfy more people and therefore prevent the heated discussions we've seen in the past two days, I think the issue goes beyond playing styles and game restrictions such as ironman or whatever.

What we've seen over the past few days is an excess of ad hominem argumentation, bad language and a lack of respect. We have had virulent discussions about Paradox games in the past, but I don't believe I've ever seen it get to the point where so many people were calling each other names.

One of the central requirements for a discussion is that you follow what is being said. "tl;dr" (or some variant thereof) appeared on these forums once in 2005, four times in 2006, about 20 times in 2007 (of which about half were in the OT forum, where anything goes, really). It seems to be posted on an hourly basis in the recent past (much less so to-day, thank God).

So what we have now are not rational (or even irrational) discussions. We have ex cathedra statements from forum members who don't apparently bother to read each other's posts.

This.

I don't think there's something inherently bad about having strong opinions or heated discussions, however divisive they might seem. What truly poisons community relations is the lack of manners and decency all too often displayed in discussions of late (and indeed, to some extent, since the release of EU IV). At times it seems that there's not even an intention of making an argument, merely a desire for name-calling and rage-venting.

There is no "schism" at all. Just a bunch of nerds pro-1.2 who wants to look smarter than others but obviously lack common sense.

One claim without supporting facts (opinion), and three ad hominems. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that degenerates discussion on these forums, and in a thread intended to calm feelings down to boot.

 

[Emre Yigit]

As someone who (I assume, like all EU players) has an interest in history, you should know that the death of the written word has been being proclaimed as long as there's been a written word (and the death of civility on the internet about as long as there's been an internet). In 18th century London, there were those mourning that the political views of so many were being led by the cartoons, not the editorials.

Being prone to the occasional wall of text myself: they're fine for exchanging ideas among other people prone to them, but a complete waste of time if you hope to address a larger audience. That's always been the case. If you want to overturn the odds on that, you'd better be a pretty spellbinding writer.

Oh, I know I'm sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, but, given the tl;dr stats, there is, I think, a germ of truth in what I wrote.