Clickbait, hyperbolic thread titles are pretty irritating too.
There is nothing about the title that is an exaggeration or clickbait as I wrote a very long post explaining my reasoning. The title is obviously an opinion and if it annoyed you so much, why would you make your very first post just to say that?
The number one problem with the game,in my opinion:
The devs and some players (myself included) want a more peaceful game where the focus isn't on just conquering everything. However, instead of adding fun mechanics to make peace gameplay interesting , they add mechanics that make expansion annoying.
This is why I think we need an EUV, they should go back to the drawing board and rethink the game from the ground up.
Also the game needs a historical game mode, because the devs can't seem to decide if they want a historical game , or a competitive sandbox multiplayer.
I think you hit this pretty well on the head. I am alright with more peacetime mechanics, but I don't like expansion to be nerfed either. It is not realistic that 99% of these nations could blob like they do. Norway was never going to conquer all of Europe and form large colonies. Just as Bohemia never was either. Same is especially true for some non-western nations that people play as. But that is what makes the game fun. I've heard some people try to do historical run-throughs like forming Prussia and keep borders pretty similar to what they were historically. But for most people, what fun is that? Even on speed five that is a long time just staring at a screen and watching nothing happen.
I like your idea of both a historical game mode and a sandbox mode. The difference is, I'd have ironman and separate leaderboards (if they ever fix them) which work for both options. That is perhaps the best idea I have heard so far. Can I make a new suggestion, however? How about scenarios which have say a 30-100 year timeline to achieve? For example, how about England where the nation is split into two and you take over as either the House of York or the House of Lancaster and you have say 30 years to unite the nation and in this example, have the entire rest of the map disabled except Scotland and Ireland.
What they need rethink is whether they want game look like initial version where everything outside Westerners were trash(anyone remember Chinese tech upgrading units only to 20 lvl?) or they want to give justice to ROTW. Cause now it looks like evertime they give something to ROTW in next patch it's nerfed to the ground and this how it goes since AoW. If latter than they need to buy for themselves hammer to hit head when someone suggest trying new features with OP European countries instead of those countries who can be greatly affected by it vide country with Religious Disunity and Corruption.
They always talk about being able to develop tall or wide. I think that's the perfect analogy for this game. I think the game should be built tall, but instead, they are building it wide. I would rather rest of the world not be worked on and instead focus on features for Western nations. Many people will disagree with me on that one. But I think this particular game should focus on the West while the rest of the world could be the focus of a different brand altogether. By making it wide, you generally only appease the people who have well over a 1,000 hours in this game. Seriously, The Barbary states being able to raid for slaves? How many will actually ever use that feature?
