The new system is much better though. Honestly they need to make this a patch feature not a dlc feature.
Manual Exploration gone? If so why?
- Thread starter AdAstra
- 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
.png){kind=avatar}
The main problem, for me at least, is not the lack of manual exploration but the new prerequisites to explore (colonial range and QFTNW). With the custom nation, a lot of people want to build empires in south america, africa and Oceania. But, this new feature (the main feature of this exp) is almost useless for early starts because theres nothing to do in this continents for 100 years.
This is from another thread, but its a example of what I mean:
Last edited:
Does the lack of ability to explore beyond colonial range mean that a nation with large colonial range can discover a nation with low colonial range and then declare war and win because the nation with low colonial range has no way of finding it? Or does being at war allow you to manually explore TI?
I actually love the changes.
1 They are more realistic
2. It gives the Iberian nations much needed breathing room to expand a little faster than everyone else. Real life Iberia had 100 years of a head start on the rest of the world in game it is much shorter.
3. I'll always vote in favor of more realistic mechanics than gamey mechanics. Kings of Europe had no communication or control over explorers they were literally shooting in the dark. Before we had stupid fast colonization times because we had a divine being (the player) guiding everyone straight to the fastest to colonize provinces.
1 They are more realistic
2. It gives the Iberian nations much needed breathing room to expand a little faster than everyone else. Real life Iberia had 100 years of a head start on the rest of the world in game it is much shorter.
3. I'll always vote in favor of more realistic mechanics than gamey mechanics. Kings of Europe had no communication or control over explorers they were literally shooting in the dark. Before we had stupid fast colonization times because we had a divine being (the player) guiding everyone straight to the fastest to colonize provinces.
So if I want to make another early colonizer with the nation creator should I start in Iberia?
Actually it isn't more 'realistic'. Portugal was exploring South America long before they were colonizing the region. Tying exploration to colonial range makes no sense. I'm not saying I hate the idea, but saying it is 'realistic' is awkward.
does this mechanic count for the AI? I gave Cusco a try and was DOWed the first time by Castille and Portugal in 1502 (Ironman)
Anyone know if you can manually explore TI during a war? How does that work if you are fighting a country that has provinces you can't see?
You can start anywheres, but you will have to either wait for CR naturally, or fight your way to Iberia or Ireland.
1. This is objectively wrong. These nations managed to explore well past what their in-game colonial range would be. It's not even close. It completely falls apart outside of the new world, where it still doesn't work from a realism standpoint, as if realism were the goal here.
2. is wrong on several levels, not the least of which is their starting exploration as 1st group and having range to reach new world at 3 while everyone else (that takes exploration) can't reach until 7.
3. You are self-contradicting, which is kind of amusing.
Manual exploration should be enabled again. I like to have control over things. Now I can only do that if I disable ED.
Agreed,
Ferdinand Magellan's crew circumnavigated the world in 1520 something. What is the CR in EU4 in 1520, I wonder?
True, but many things about Eu4 is unrealistic. I would not count this as one of the major ones, or at least not more so than any other area. Imo the simplified terrain traversing by armies is a far bigger offender of realism.
This thread really is a testament to how well PI usually communicates with us players.
Essentially all they did here was neglect to tell us about the exploration being tied to colonial range as well as use the word "added" instead of "reworked" in a DD, and suddenly there was 5 pages of forum outrage.
Essentially all they did here was neglect to tell us about the exploration being tied to colonial range as well as use the word "added" instead of "reworked" in a DD, and suddenly there was 5 pages of forum outrage.
I think you are confused as to what I wrote. I was responding to another poster who is using the 'realism' example as justification for a mechanic. I am not doing that. I am saying it is silly to claim it is more realistic, when it isn't the case. Those players who love to rant all day about their latest wikipedia find to justify game changes are lost causes in my opinion.
Personally reading and following everyday this forum I never understand they reworked totally the naval exploration, I have to say that
However I like this method, and I think should be a patch thing, also becouse actually is like have a feature by not having the DLC. However I think that should be tweaked a little, all mission should be showed with clear prerequisites (yes i know mystery, but here we all know geography) and not should be asked diplomacy for everything. Diplomacy to growth the diplomacy tech level, diplomacy to have explorations, diplomacy to choose exploration routes etc... so much diplomacy lost is too complicate in my opinion. Also something better should be done about colonial range, exploring is not colonizing, and sometimes you discover things for trade. Sometimes you go more than what you can supply with certainty. This should be rapresented.
No it's not. It's a testament to how Paradox can't advertise or make patch notes correctly.
- Status