Is it worth buying this game yet?
- Thread starter cacra
- 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.
- Status
No, all your preconceptions and opinions are correct. All 12000 people who played it today on Steam were doing so as a collective penance, an auto da fe, cleansing the soul.
- 35
Combat is kinda still awful, yes. You can't mix units, like having different infantry types in the frontline for example. It's also heavily RNG and uses die rolls to determine combat results.
Multiplayer is more fun than singleplayer imo, the AI is terrible with the new fort system and completely predictable in its diplomacy (COALITION ALL THE THINGS, -1k relations wants your provinces etc)
Multiplayer is more fun than singleplayer imo, the AI is terrible with the new fort system and completely predictable in its diplomacy (COALITION ALL THE THINGS, -1k relations wants your provinces etc)
- 5
- 5
Combat hasn't changed, so if you didn't like it before you won't like it now.
Multiplayer, requires a really good connection, but works.
Multiplayer, requires a really good connection, but works.
What do you mean «still»?, compared to what, or what version? This game is constantly changing, so what was true a year ago is different now. Be more specific please.
I.e do armies still march to a random province miles away when they lose a battle?
- 1
- 1
Combat is still mostly as complex as it always was (terrain got simplified at some point a couple versions ago). As for "feeling polished", that's hard to answer without knowing which parts of the game weren't to your liking before (and at which time of the game).
There were some pretty big changes over the various versions of the game, and a lot of things got added as well.
Multiplayer depends on the group you're playing with. A lot of multiplayer is in set groups playing at set times, due to the amount of time you have to invest. Also makes it easier to make sure everyone's on the same line about how you're playing, for example purely co-op, free for all, etc.
More co-op oriented campaigns play very similar to single player games, with the biggest difference probably being that you can't just pause whenever you want. More player vs player oriented campaigns require a very different mindset, due to how different human players handle things (especially warfare) compared to the AI.
There were some pretty big changes over the various versions of the game, and a lot of things got added as well.
Multiplayer depends on the group you're playing with. A lot of multiplayer is in set groups playing at set times, due to the amount of time you have to invest. Also makes it easier to make sure everyone's on the same line about how you're playing, for example purely co-op, free for all, etc.
More co-op oriented campaigns play very similar to single player games, with the biggest difference probably being that you can't just pause whenever you want. More player vs player oriented campaigns require a very different mindset, due to how different human players handle things (especially warfare) compared to the AI.
- 1
That depends. If you let your armies' morale shatter deep in enemy territory that can mean a long retreat to a home province. If you manually retreat you can choose where they go to.
Not only can you retreat halfway across the world but you can also send huge armies across the world and never have any problems resupplying them. It's pretty indefensible.
It's not actually random. If you have morale left, you can choose exactly where to retreat to. If you run out of morale, it will exactly pick the furthest province that is not adjacent to a province with an enemy unit.
edit - If the enemy is blanketing, or has sieged down, all friendly provinces, you will just retreat one province over (not sure which direction but it seems to be toward the closest fort far as I can tell, no confirmation though).
- 1
- 4
It is still in.
On your other question, the game does indeed feel more polished, especially combat with the fort rework, terrain finally means something, and changes to province development all added in the latest expansion.
That shattered retreat is great for saving your armies now, since it's harder for your enemy to walk through your territory until some forts are taken down.
On your other question, the game does indeed feel more polished, especially combat with the fort rework, terrain finally means something, and changes to province development all added in the latest expansion.
That shattered retreat is great for saving your armies now, since it's harder for your enemy to walk through your territory until some forts are taken down.
Last edited:
I don't know when you stopped playing, but recent changes have kinda taken "fun" (subjective) from some aspects.
For example, the "complexness" (it wasn't complex before) of trade and goods's price, the new fort system (a double edged sword. I kinda like it, but seems like the AI doesn't know how to properly use it), development (good on theory, bad implementation), combat (still mostly reliant on dice rolls) and HRE (Austria losing emperorship to some shitty minor because AI doesn't ally electors anymore).
Anyway, it's not a bad game per se, but the more time passes, the less "fun" and "complex" (subjective buzzwords, but I bet many agrees) it becomes.
For example, the "complexness" (it wasn't complex before) of trade and goods's price, the new fort system (a double edged sword. I kinda like it, but seems like the AI doesn't know how to properly use it), development (good on theory, bad implementation), combat (still mostly reliant on dice rolls) and HRE (Austria losing emperorship to some shitty minor because AI doesn't ally electors anymore).
Anyway, it's not a bad game per se, but the more time passes, the less "fun" and "complex" (subjective buzzwords, but I bet many agrees) it becomes.
- 2
- 1
This game isn't a history simulator, you make the history here.
As said. Terrain isn't % based anymore, so you know exactly what to expect. The new fort system is new and takes getting used to, and the weirdness of not being able to move to the next province but double back, or all the way around the enemys border to get to it. But as I said, its pretty new and new things always need to be tweaked. If you want a preview just watch YouTube for common sense. Wiz and ddrjake has an introduction video for common sense which gives you the bare bones in simple speak. Ofc its not that simple.
Coming from CK2, I first thought that the retreat to a further-away province was a stupid feature compared to the CK2's model where the remnants of the losing army simply scamper off to a neighboring province. But honestly I think EU4's model is better. CK2 way results in stupid back-and-fro chases where the loser keeps on losing without any real chance to recover their army, while the winner keeps racking kills without any real risk of anything more than serious boredom.
Of course, that's not to say that EU's system couldn't be improved. That's what the suggestion forum is for.
Of course, that's not to say that EU's system couldn't be improved. That's what the suggestion forum is for.
- 6
After having played the heavily hyped Witcher 3 for a few days and suffering from the laughably bad keyboard+mouse controls in that game, the question whether EU4 feels "polished" makes me giggle.
- Status