Life after the League Wars DLC

[Lazuline]

Hello. I've been playing the game for a while now and only recently got the achievement for finishing a game all the way till 1821. Prior to that, the first thousand hours or so were done on games largely ending around ~1650 or in the modern version of the game, a bit past the Age of Absolutism.

I find that the EU4 I am playing now is a much fleshed out and polished version compared to the one at launch so I have no qualms with all the great DLC that came out (even Third Rome was ok! Though it would be great if Res Republica gets a bit of modernization to compete with estates). As I found though, the achievement title: "Just a little patience" is indeed an apt. The game past League Wars (essentially the medieval equivalent of World War 1) is just... boring?

The game starts out great and superbly exciting. Min-maxing, managing AE, taking core provinces, and building up your empire. By the time League War starts (and usually, I make a conscious effort to always make it exciting by influencing a healthy balance of power between both leagues), the player will normally be a dominant great power. Towards the end, win or lose, the game drastically changes to a blobbing contest. With Absolutism, you can cripple opposing great powers quickly, wipe out coalitions, and essentially devolve into a blobfest. It quickly becomes boring as the game loses a lot of its early game charm. There's little to no point in maximizing your empire's economic and military national power as there's nobody else left to stand in your way. No DHE or anything equivalent to another League War to look forward to.

Thus, it would be great if a DLC could be released that focuses on making the game more exciting in the Absolutism - Revolutions period. I'm not sure how exactly it could be done though. There was a good post about late game coalitions or a diplomacy update which looks promising. Hopefully, the devs can figure something out and make the end game great.

P.S., These days, I mainly play in multiplayer as having human opponents drastically changes the ballgame and makes games past 1650 remain exciting. Hopefully, single player can evolve to be just as, if not more, fun with a new DLC.

 

[hypertank]

The idea has always been to have the late game challenge be the Revolution mechanic (either becoming or having to deal with the revolution target) but for various reasons it's just never really worked.

 

[Dominion]

The game past League Wars (essentially the medieval equivalent of World War 1) is just... boring?

Half the stuff we got since 1.20 was made exclusively for you.
If you still can't find joy beyond league wars, stop playing after league wars is over.

Used to be what almost everyone did. It's a rather common sentiment, but they did react to it appropriately.
I don't like what they did, but it was appropriate.

And if your issue is that nothing can fight you anymore, try VH.
Makes playing past 1650 interesting because chances are you still won't be able to steamroll everything.

 

[cuendillar]

There's been quite a few solid arguments recently that building tall can create a nation just as objectively powerful as a blobbing one, making it a very viable but probably underexplored playstyle. A major caveat is that the blobbing style does far more to cripple enemy nations, increasing the relative power gap.

As building tall is in no way handicapping oneself, but allows AI nations to remain powerful further into the game, that might be just the thing for you to make the game essentially last longer without resorting to ie roleplaying. Learning an entirely (or largely) new way of playing can certainly both be great fun and make oneself a better allround player in the process.

 

[Dakka]

If only there were some mechanic representing a massive revolutionary change in Europe, and there were some country powerful enough to utilize this upheaval in order to challenge the entirety of the Continent...

Seriously though, I don’t think we need an entire DLC as opposed to something to make Revolutionary pop up more often. If France actually got Napoleonic once in a while, and there was some sort of mechanic involved in fighting against it militarily, diplomatically, and socially, I feel the late game would be improved a lot

 

[Lazuline]

Half the stuff we got since 1.20 was made exclusively for you.
If you still can't find joy beyond league wars, stop playing after league wars is over.

Used to be what almost everyone did. It's a rather common sentiment, but they did react to it appropriately.
I don't like what they did, but it was appropriate.

And if your issue is that nothing can fight you anymore, try VH.
Makes playing past 1650 interesting because chances are you still won't be able to steamroll everything.

I do normally stop after league wars. I've tried going for a WC game but I realize it's really not for me. I enjoy playing politics & the wars that may or may not come from it. At some point though, the relative power gap between powers becomes too wide to the point where the next 2 to 4 powers combined cannot match the top power.

It might be asking too much but Victoria 2 had a great concert of powers mechanic that actively used diplomacy, tensions, and crisis mechanics to make the game exciting. Maybe something similar can be implemented here in the Age of Revolutions / Absolutism? Of course, I am not too sure on the historical accuracy of this but it might be fun gameplay-wise.

If only there were some mechanic representing a massive revolutionary change in Europe, and there were some country powerful enough to utilize this upheaval in order to challenge the entirety of the Continent...

Seriously though, I don’t think we need an entire DLC as opposed to something to make Revolutionary pop up more often. If France actually got Napoleonic once in a while, and there was some sort of mechanic involved in fighting against it militarily, diplomatically, and socially, I feel the late game would be improved a lot

I am not entirely sure if Paradox can rework the revolutionary mechanic for free. Regardless though, would be happy to have more content in the latter half of the game.

 

[Dominion]

I do normally stop after league wars. I've tried going for a WC game but I realize it's really not for me. I enjoy playing politics & the wars that may or may not come from it. At some point though, the relative power gap between powers becomes too wide to the point where the next 2 to 4 powers combined cannot match the top power.

It might be asking too much but Victoria 2 had a great concert of powers mechanic that actively used diplomacy, tensions, and crisis mechanics to make the game exciting. Maybe something similar can be implemented here in the Age of Revolutions / Absolutism? Of course, I am not too sure on the historical accuracy of this but it might be fun gameplay-wise.


I am not entirely sure if Paradox can rework the revolutionary mechanic for free. Regardless though, would be happy to have more content in the latter half of the game.

Better wait for vic3 Every PDX Title has this little stylistic thing about it we have come to enjoy, an element that makes for a completely different approach.
Like how CK has barely any mechanics if you compare sheer numbers, but they go much more in depth than EU4's mechanics do. Dynasties for example.

Which leads to people coming over to EU4, asking for a certain mechanic to be just as fleshed out as they're used to from 'their' game.

You can't just implement dynasties from CK2 or instability from Vic, or similar. Not to mention that "make your game more like your other game" makes for a weird argument.

Besides, lategame got a ton of content recently. To say otherwise is disingenuous. We got a full lategame rework so to speak.
If you still can not find anything beyond league wars because you don't enjoy the balance, feel free to remember that it's a sandbox game.

Create a coalition, start global wars yourself, turn the entire HRE against you or find a roleplay approach.

Friend of mine always plays rather long campaigns because he sits down with a good Whiskey and recreates Charlemagne's borders or similar without ever being in a rush. Sometimes he doesn't reach his goal until deep into the 18th century.

Another one has started playing merchant republics and aiming to control the world's trade. Can't do that pre-1700 either. Neither of them mindlessly blobs, therefor neither of them runs out of enemies as fast as blobbers do.


Or, as mentioned earlier, upgrade your difficulty. On VH you don't get into the position of being able to roflstomp everything around you until 1700 unless you've already started as a great power and even then chances are you'll still have a few formidable foes around you.

 

[Dakka]

I am not entirely sure if Paradox can rework the revolutionary mechanic for free. Regardless though, would be happy to have more content in the latter half of the game.

Doesn’t necessarily need to be for free. It can/should probably be incorporated in Rights of Man alongside the revolutionary factions.

 

[Lazuline]

Better wait for vic3 Every PDX Title has this little stylistic thing about it we have come to enjoy, an element that makes for a completely different approach.
Like how CK has barely any mechanics if you compare sheer numbers, but they go much more in depth than EU4's mechanics do. Dynasties for example.

Which leads to people coming over to EU4, asking for a certain mechanic to be just as fleshed out as they're used to from 'their' game.

You can't just implement dynasties from CK2 or instability from Vic, or similar. Not to mention that "make your game more like your other game" makes for a weird argument.

Besides, lategame got a ton of content recently. To say otherwise is disingenuous. We got a full lategame rework so to speak.
If you still can not find anything beyond league wars because you don't enjoy the balance, feel free to remember that it's a sandbox game.

Create a coalition, start global wars yourself, turn the entire HRE against you or find a roleplay approach.

Friend of mine always plays rather long campaigns because he sits down with a good Whiskey and recreates Charlemagne's borders or similar without ever being in a rush. Sometimes he doesn't reach his goal until deep into the 18th century.

Another one has started playing merchant republics and aiming to control the world's trade. Can't do that pre-1700 either. Neither of them mindlessly blobs, therefor neither of them runs out of enemies as fast as blobbers do.


Or, as mentioned earlier, upgrade your difficulty. On VH you don't get into the position of being able to roflstomp everything around you until 1700 unless you've already started as a great power and even then chances are you'll still have a few formidable foes around you.

Vicky 3 is a dream.

Well, while it would be difficult to implement everything on a as is-where is, it shouldn't be difficult to borrow some concepts and implement it in some form such as the new mission system being a feature based on Focus Trees from HOI4. Stellaris, in its upcoming 2.0 update, will borrow heavily from EU4 features as well. I believe that the game can be even more polished if Paradox continues on its path of cross-learning across its games.

These days, I do roleplay a lot and while I acknowledge all the additions in the recent patches for the mid-late game, it will not change the fact that the late game is where EU4 is weakest. Well, it is not necessarily weak or bad per se, it is just that the early to mid game is done so well that it leaves much to be desired as time transitions on.

Doesn’t necessarily need to be for free. It can/should probably be incorporated in Rights of Man alongside the revolutionary factions.

Happy to pay for more DLC. My $/hour for EU4 is probably the lowest amongst all my games despite all DLCs the past few years. Good room to spare haha.

 

[Dominion]

Of course lategame is a weakness to a certain degree. I was merely pointing out that they have been adressing this issue on recent patches and have moved from absolutely nothing to quite a bit.

Definitely doesn't feel like a dead game after 1650 anymore.

 

[Dokar]

There's been quite a few solid arguments recently that building tall can create a nation just as objectively powerful as a blobbing one, making it a very viable but probably underexplored playstyle. A major caveat is that the blobbing style does far more to cripple enemy nations, increasing the relative power gap.

As building tall is in no way handicapping oneself, but allows AI nations to remain powerful further into the game, that might be just the thing for you to make the game essentially last longer without resorting to ie roleplaying. Learning an entirely (or largely) new way of playing can certainly both be great fun and make oneself a better allround player in the process.

I do find that when I choose to play tall, e.g. semi-historical Netherlands, I find myself getting bored with the campaign less quickly.

 

[Dakka]

I do find that when I choose to play tall, e.g. semi-historical Netherlands, I find myself getting bored with the campaign less quickly.

It’s because the AI can flourish better and pose a challenge for longer

 

[petertel123]

The AI should do much more to maintain a balance of power. The coalition mechanic fails spectacularly at this.

 

[Dominion]

The AI should do much more to maintain a balance of power. The coalition mechanic fails spectacularly at this.

Because religion as a modifier is badly balanced.

Start surrounded by nations of the same religion > deathsquad
Stomp multiple different religions > nobody cares

 

[petertel123]

Because religion as a modifier is badly balanced.

Start surrounded by nations of the same religion > deathsquad
Stomp multiple different religions > nobody cares

It kinda makes sense in a way. You don't want loads of European countries stopping the Ottomans from taking Egypt in 1500.
Problem is that coalitions are a pretty anti-fun mechanic. Nobody wants to face a huge coalition to take 2 provinces. It would take some fundamental changes to the design of the game to make coalitions both useful and not terribly frustrating.
Another huge problem is that the very nations that should be the target of frequent coalitions (france, spain, ottomans, russia) are lucky nations that almost never face a coalition due to the reduction in agressive expansion.

 

[Dominion]

It kinda makes sense in a way. You don't want loads of European countries stopping the Ottomans from taking Egypt in 1500.

Regional modifier suffices.
I can take all of Britain and nobody in Europe bats an eye even though they're all christians.

Problem is that coalitions are a pretty anti-fun mechanic. Nobody wants to face a huge coalition to take 2 provinces. It would take some fundamental changes to the design of the game to make coalitions both useful and not terribly frustrating.
Another huge problem is that the very nations that should be the target of frequent coalitions (france, spain, ottomans, russia) are lucky nations that almost never face a coalition due to the reduction in agressive expansion.

Take both provinces and throw money in their face. Coalitions aren't an issue most of the time.
They can even be useful if you do some coalition smashing. Taking out 20 nations simultanously can be a tremendous time saver lategame.