So, I have only played the new patch for a short time, but already I can see the implications and first impressions of the patch and their effect on EUIV and, tbh, all of Paradox's games. I am going to list them below and see if anyone else agrees with me and I will explain some stuff.
1. The Influence of Sea Power upon History: It has occurred to me that the build time changes for navies in Common Sense are, to be honest, STAGGERING: where before losses in your navy's ranks could be replaced in a relatively short time (while at war and especially during peacetime), now players must be all the more careful to preserve their naval strength because, put simply, ships take a long time to build. For navy-heavy countries like the Scandinavian countries, Merchant republics, Mediterranean powers like North Africa and Anatolia, and the Iberian kingdoms, maintaining an efficient and large navy and keeping it alive is absolutely key, if not the most single important factor, in maintaining hegemony across the globe or even in your local sphere. I am playing Genoa currently and it is difficult to maintain hegemony because of my small naval force limit but more so because I know that one decisive naval battle can destroy my empire.
2. To the Forts!: The fort system and the new ways in which wars must be fought is absolutely brilliant; it combines the depth of MotE without going too far in that direction or even to HoI-levels (some of us wish for more MotE influence, but what can you do?)
However, the system does have its kinks and in time can be perfected, but I should note that forts perhaps need to serve more of a civil function in addition to being military strongholds; often forts and castles were built primarily as deterrents against rebellion and not always for war, and in the current version of Common Sense they do nothing to local unrest (perhaps this should be remedied).
3. Might makes right.. oh wait.. it doesn't: The tall vs. wide mechanics are ABSOLUTELY refreshing, and it really changes the game of EUIV forever. Any country has a chance now, and it is absolutely amazing to see new countries like Albania and Trebizond, Ragusa and Mantua actually survive and be able to compete with surrounding powers. It also makes the player appreciate small powers like Genoa who aren't powerful, must be tactical, and never are really boring because they can be annihilated instantly: it keeps the players thinking and on their toes.
I must say that Paradox has also set a precedent for any future grand strategy game it makes: development and internal tall vs wide balancing must be included in all future games. I fear that if it is not, other grand strategy games will meet the same fate EUIV was meeting: being boring and becoming a blobfest. I must admit that Victoria 2 was an early champion of its time: its population and economy mechanics are refreshing to this day, and many of us play that game because of its freshness every single time you load it up.
EUIV now has this medal: its refreshing. I can see how every game is different and how every move can lead to ones that the player has never seen before. This would be nice to see in HoI IV and beyond where the internal development of countries leads to outstanding and challenging games every and all times that the game is played. Paradox has proven with EUIV and Vic2 that this system of internal development is possible and that it DOESN'T want its game to be a blobfest, so in truth, to make a grand strategy without internal development may just not be worth the name of grand strategy. CK2 to a lesser extent has this system of development (not like Vic2 and EUIV though) and I must admit that there are recent comments in the past six months that state CK2 is a blobfest (I must agree).
4. Time is everything: In CS, the time to build things and for basically everything is different (usually increased). Manpower takes longer to recover, coring takes longer, points take longer to rack up because you're spending it on other things, everything eventually depends on time. I feel this is a good shift in the direction of balancing because time cannot be bought, bullied, reasoned, or bargained with: it just is. Coalitions need time to disperse, rebels need time to settle, men need time to grow, and countries need times of peace. While time was a factor in EUIV before, I feel that with CS time is much much more important.
5. Bugs and Performance: You may have heard this already, but there is a performance and bug problem going on right now with CS. It's not terrible, but could be addressed. But we have faith and patience, don't worry. =)
--------------------------
In conclusion Paradox, bravo. You have outdone yourself. I am going to go build a Genoese empire now (I want to take Malta and go into North Africa too). Wish me luck, and thank you for the DLC and listening to our concerns. Please take our money =)
1. The Influence of Sea Power upon History: It has occurred to me that the build time changes for navies in Common Sense are, to be honest, STAGGERING: where before losses in your navy's ranks could be replaced in a relatively short time (while at war and especially during peacetime), now players must be all the more careful to preserve their naval strength because, put simply, ships take a long time to build. For navy-heavy countries like the Scandinavian countries, Merchant republics, Mediterranean powers like North Africa and Anatolia, and the Iberian kingdoms, maintaining an efficient and large navy and keeping it alive is absolutely key, if not the most single important factor, in maintaining hegemony across the globe or even in your local sphere. I am playing Genoa currently and it is difficult to maintain hegemony because of my small naval force limit but more so because I know that one decisive naval battle can destroy my empire.
2. To the Forts!: The fort system and the new ways in which wars must be fought is absolutely brilliant; it combines the depth of MotE without going too far in that direction or even to HoI-levels (some of us wish for more MotE influence, but what can you do?)
However, the system does have its kinks and in time can be perfected, but I should note that forts perhaps need to serve more of a civil function in addition to being military strongholds; often forts and castles were built primarily as deterrents against rebellion and not always for war, and in the current version of Common Sense they do nothing to local unrest (perhaps this should be remedied).
3. Might makes right.. oh wait.. it doesn't: The tall vs. wide mechanics are ABSOLUTELY refreshing, and it really changes the game of EUIV forever. Any country has a chance now, and it is absolutely amazing to see new countries like Albania and Trebizond, Ragusa and Mantua actually survive and be able to compete with surrounding powers. It also makes the player appreciate small powers like Genoa who aren't powerful, must be tactical, and never are really boring because they can be annihilated instantly: it keeps the players thinking and on their toes.
I must say that Paradox has also set a precedent for any future grand strategy game it makes: development and internal tall vs wide balancing must be included in all future games. I fear that if it is not, other grand strategy games will meet the same fate EUIV was meeting: being boring and becoming a blobfest. I must admit that Victoria 2 was an early champion of its time: its population and economy mechanics are refreshing to this day, and many of us play that game because of its freshness every single time you load it up.
EUIV now has this medal: its refreshing. I can see how every game is different and how every move can lead to ones that the player has never seen before. This would be nice to see in HoI IV and beyond where the internal development of countries leads to outstanding and challenging games every and all times that the game is played. Paradox has proven with EUIV and Vic2 that this system of internal development is possible and that it DOESN'T want its game to be a blobfest, so in truth, to make a grand strategy without internal development may just not be worth the name of grand strategy. CK2 to a lesser extent has this system of development (not like Vic2 and EUIV though) and I must admit that there are recent comments in the past six months that state CK2 is a blobfest (I must agree).
4. Time is everything: In CS, the time to build things and for basically everything is different (usually increased). Manpower takes longer to recover, coring takes longer, points take longer to rack up because you're spending it on other things, everything eventually depends on time. I feel this is a good shift in the direction of balancing because time cannot be bought, bullied, reasoned, or bargained with: it just is. Coalitions need time to disperse, rebels need time to settle, men need time to grow, and countries need times of peace. While time was a factor in EUIV before, I feel that with CS time is much much more important.
5. Bugs and Performance: You may have heard this already, but there is a performance and bug problem going on right now with CS. It's not terrible, but could be addressed. But we have faith and patience, don't worry. =)
--------------------------
In conclusion Paradox, bravo. You have outdone yourself. I am going to go build a Genoese empire now (I want to take Malta and go into North Africa too). Wish me luck, and thank you for the DLC and listening to our concerns. Please take our money =)
Last edited:
- 79
- 4
- 2
