Is CoC DLC a total mess?

[Snowcrisp]

It bother me too. Small or non existed countries (in current time frame) recieve better NI than majors. Looks like devs thinking it's only way to make them interesting.

Perhaps when paradox looks towards the brittish isle again they will rework the NI of brittain and maybe english/irish/welsh and scottish NI too,or just the brittish ideas so it takes a little while to get good NI since you need admin 10 which can take sometime for england and scotland to reach.

 

[holyvigil]

The problem with EU4 is several elements are neither historical nor balanced

For example governments, from both a historical and a balance perspective lategame governments should be more powerful than earlygame governments

Yet, if we leave revolutionary governments aside, for some reason horde government is clearly the best, 2nd place? Tribal Despotism (coring cost reduction). Best regular monarchy? Despotic monarchy (no later monarchy has bonuses that beat -unrest and -unjustified demands). In the new patch they are buffing tribal federation, iqta and adding the mamluk government - all early game governments that are now more useful than most lategame governments

I think that hordes and tribals should get better cbs, but inevitably crash if they don't reform. Bonuses on later governments should be clearly better than earlier ones. Unique governments should be different, not better, than regular ones

That is the stuff that really annoys me. If they go historical fine, if they go for balance, also fine. If they do random stuff for the "cool factor", not good

Same thing with the national ideas, why does a nation like the Rassids in the new patch get Prussia tier ideas, they left no leaving mark on world history. Yet Britain has embargo efficieny, sailor maintenaince and so on.

I agree with the first point. The weakness of having expansions focused on areas is that the overall game lags behind and governments have been buffed the most recently with later governments becoming useless as a result.

The last point I heartily disagree with. If you do play a country that is a opm that doesn't survive the century and then you turn it into juggernaut history is quite different in your world than the real world and I think having good ideas is a good reward for picking small flavorless countries. It doesn't affect the normal game at all since the countries don't make it past the century so they don't unlock their ideas.

 

[Benghi Bon]

Dear lord, some variety? Mamluks is now a powerhouse? Looks like I'll enjoy the spicy new DLC after all.

 

[Mortheim]

The problem with EU4 is several elements are neither historical nor balanced

For example governments, from both a historical and a balance perspective lategame governments should be more powerful than earlygame governments

Yet, if we leave revolutionary governments aside, for some reason horde government is clearly the best, 2nd place? Tribal Despotism (coring cost reduction). Best regular monarchy? Despotic monarchy (no later monarchy has bonuses that beat -unrest and -unjustified demands). In the new patch they are buffing tribal federation, iqta and adding the mamluk government - all early game governments that are now more useful than most lategame governments

I think that hordes and tribals should get better cbs, but inevitably crash if they don't reform. Bonuses on later governments should be clearly better than earlier ones. Unique governments should be different, not better, than regular ones

That is the stuff that really annoys me. If they go historical fine, if they go for balance, also fine. If they do random stuff for the "cool factor", not good

Same thing with the national ideas, why does a nation like the Rassids in the new patch get Prussia tier ideas, they left no leaving mark on world history. Yet Britain has embargo efficieny, sailor maintenaince and so on.

True. But it is mostly not about the governments, but development of different aspects of country.

You say that horde is the best and then offer to buff them. Wut.

Tbh government ranks cover it somewhat.

True, just "cool factor" is bad. But the problem - EU4 is sandbox. There is a lot of examples when wars throwed back countries and drastically changed their path. And, at the same time , EU4 is already streamlined using those ideas but lacking events corresponding to them. As a guy who read a lot about Russian history i can take one example from my head really fast: serfdom won't be that harsh without Livonian War and Time of Troubles (main reason: land won't be ravaged and their would be enough peasants for all). They could use some important events to represent through government, for example (i offered one idea in my thread). But, later, it will backlash you.

Egh, because reasons. For fun of gameplay i guess...

 

[Novacat]

Yet, if we leave revolutionary governments aside, for some reason horde government is clearly the best, 2nd place? Tribal Despotism (coring cost reduction). Best regular monarchy? Despotic monarchy (no later monarchy has bonuses that beat -unrest and -unjustified demands). In the new patch they are buffing tribal federation, iqta and adding the mamluk government - all early game governments that are now more useful than most lategame governments

I have not played Hordes in years, but I am pretty sure that Hordes lose a ton of horde unity as they grow bigger (-5 horde unity/year), thus necessitating reform?

Outside of that, the only huge issue I see is that advanced standard governments are not straight upgrades of earlier standard governments. What is the point of unlocking new government forms via technology if they are, for most players, inferior to the starting Despotic monarchy?

 

[ElGranCapitan]

I agree with the first point. The weakness of having expansions focused on areas is that the overall game lags behind and governments have been buffed the most recently with later governments becoming useless as a result.

The last point I heartily disagree with. If you do play a country that is a opm that doesn't survive the century and then you turn it into juggernaut history is quite different in your world than the real world and I think having good ideas is a good reward for picking small flavorless countries. It doesn't affect the normal game at all since the countries don't make it past the century so they don't unlock their ideas.

My problem with it is that the only reason for it is favouritism and power creep - "look our new cool stuff is totally better than the old stuff, we now have morale, discipline and shock damage dealt and received"

But Ardabil, yeah that OPM that formed Persia, it's new ideas are bad in comparison..because reasons

True. But it is mostly not about the governments, but development of different aspects of country.

You say that horde is the best and then offer to buff them. Wut.

Tbh government ranks cover it somewhat.

Government was just one example of many things. I wouldn't buff hordes, their expansion is fine (by "better cbs I meant the current one, which is better than regular conquest, not an additional buff), but they are too stable. I'd like to see them explode more often, maybe make tribes create their own countries like cossacks do?

I have not played Hordes in years, but I am pretty sure that Hordes lose a ton of horde unity as they grow bigger (-5 horde unity/year), thus necessitating reform?

Outside of that, the only huge issue I see is that advanced standard governments are not straight upgrades of earlier standard governments. What is the point of unlocking new government forms via technology if they are, for most players, inferior to the starting Despotic monarchy?

You can out-conquer that if you create enough bordergore. And if you really need it use strengthen government

That is exactly my point (and the fact that tribals are better than standard governments). An easy solution would be to put the admin efficiency from admin tech into the governments instead, that would kill 2 birds with one stone as it simultaneously creates the need for tribals/iqtas to reform (so tier 2 governments like administrative and constitutional monarchy would get 15% and tier 3 governments like revolutionary and enlightened despotism 30%)
Extra conditions would be needed for special governments.

Oh and Enlightened Despotism should be available earlier at the same time when the Revolution is, because both were born out of the Enlightenment

 

[Dakka]

>Patch alters nothing in regards to Central/Western Europe balance of power
>blames patch after witnessing one fluke game

Seems legit

 

[Me_]

If I were to make a wild guess I would suspect that the AI Ottos may overcommit on the Janissaries and bankrupt themselves if they don't manage to get a steady supply of cash early.

 

[Mortmal]

Weird stuff can and always happened before that dlc. Last time i played ming for exemple, i focused on colonization and not conquest, when i finally reach europe, i found spain annexedby morroco allied with mali.Fun stuff can happen just with the right push and alliances combos .

 

[magni_]

I have not played Hordes in years, but I am pretty sure that Hordes lose a ton of horde unity as they grow bigger (-5 horde unity/year), thus necessitating reform?

Outside of that, the only huge issue I see is that advanced standard governments are not straight upgrades of earlier standard governments. What is the point of unlocking new government forms via technology if they are, for most players, inferior to the starting Despotic monarchy?

for your first question: horde unity lose from size is caped at -5/J even though that makes no sense
Ans since once u are a great power u have no problem with geting 5 per jear from wars (u u probobly get way more) there is no need to reform
Also horde goverment has infinite diplo and mill afther some point in the game (around 10 jears afther you become a GP)

 

[Badesumofu]

My brief experience of playing a Horde was that keeping unity up was pretty trivial. Looting meant that I finished most wars with close to 100 and since I razed anything I wasn't going to make a state which was nearly everything, it just wasn't remotely an issue.