Maybe you should try reading what I wrote again. You just called what I said over the top and then agreed with me. Once you are past a certain size in EUIV there is no losing that isn't true of CKII.
Number of EU4 players rapidly dropping compared to CK2
- Thread starter highsis
- 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.
Maybe you should try reading what I wrote again. You just called what I said over the top and then agreed with me. Once you are past a certain size in EUIV there is no losing that isn't true of CKII.
Thanks. And you're right, what I enjoy is the epitome of 'gamey'. I absolutely take it completely as a game, a puzzle to solve. I don't want it to be easy, I want limitations, but I can enjoy any limitation so long as resolving it feels like I solved a puzzle, like I planned and calculated and achieved a goal. Even if the planning I had to do basically involved fitting numbers into boxes and nothing that's remotely realistic. For me, it's almost superfluous that the game is based on real nations with mechanics named after real things.
That is I suppose something of an indictment of the game, that it hasn't enabled me to 'buy in' to its premise; I don't find it remotely historical, there's too much that clearly has no basis in reality and I can clearly see the 'strings' behind the mechanics. When I click a Diplomatic option, I'm not thinking "ah my diplomat is going to spread the good word about my country," I think "this is going to increase a number that's currently 27 to a maximum of 100; once that number reaches 100, this other button will be clickable then I can do that, which leads to that, which lets me do X which eventually means I can do Y."
For me that doesn't spoil it at all - and it's because those chains of cause/effect are so long and complex that I get so much enjoyment and replayability out of the game. But I can totally understand how it does spoil it for other people, who want the mechanics to have some connection to the historical premise.
I can see though how if it were more historical, if I did buy into its premise, it could be even more enjoyable. I had a moment in my current game when I watched Austria, and saw how it was going round all the nations force-converting them to Catholicism. For a moment there I thought "oh that's cool, there's some personality there - Austria is the Catholic watchdog of Europe, and trying to bring together the HRE." But it was only a moment, because the game doesn't support that for long; every other nation was still just running around pretty randomly. If I really could plan a long term game according to consistent "personalities" of different nations, I could imagine getting even more enjoyment out of that, and then it would become more than a set of numbers and puzzle pieces.
I still haven't played CK2 properly, despite having owned it for a year - I bought it at the wrong time, when I didn't have time to learn it, and have never gotten around to going back. Before long, I will. That will be interesting for me, because then I will be able to see if I still treat it like a puzzle, if I still see the strings and fail to get immersed in the meaning behind the puzzle pieces. If I find I do actually buy into its premise, and do enjoy the history and role playing, then that would certainly say something about that game versus EU4: it would prove some of the point that this thread is about.
That still wouldn't take away the enjoyment I have in EU4. But if I could get similar 'gamey' enjoyment out of CK2, AND I could get into the premise more, I could imagine that supplanting EU4 in my affections. Then again, I might well find that actually, for me, it's really the gamey puzzle stuff that I like most, and I wonder if CK2 has quite as many different aspects to that: after all, people say direct conquest is easier, when I actually rather like EU4's indirect way!
Anyway, who knows. All I was wanting to say really, in all my many paragraphs, is that there's more than one way to play a game. I can understand those who are finding EU4 disappointing, but I hope equally they can understand why so many people are defending it - there's a hell of a lot of enjoyable gameplay here, for a lot of people.
Last edited:
Of course I didn´t. You said the game punishes you by playing it - that is, actually doing actions. That isn´t true. The game actually allows ANY country to become larger than it did in real life - if you have the skill, and also a dose of luck.
And if you read my other posts, you will see I criticize the game a lot. But not everything it does.
The crux of the problem, IMO, is that Paradox made EU 4 too... Europa Universalis-like. With good reason, to an extent - they tried to to something VERY different with HOI 3. Didn´t work out well. So with this one they were conservative.
Probably, too much. Base tax, the ye olde battle screen with little boxes - all those should be things of the past, yet they aren´t. Why the game doesn´t have a better battle system (using both CK 2 and March of the Eagles as basis) is beyond me.
The battle system could be improved on, surely - letting us design the army formation, giving more units and so on - but the battle itself is way more complex than in either CK2 or MotF. What's less complex is what comes BEFORE - and after - the fight.
CK2 has had over 9000 expansions and the number rises every few months. EUIV is still in its infancy, so colonization and internal management during peacetime are admittedly pretty boring, and coalitions need a bit of tweaking. I've put 270 hours into EUIV, but the new game appeal has started to diminish for me and I have a hard time playing it nowadays. CoP will make things a lot more interesting, though, and I'm sure the devs will refine peacetime gameplay eventually as well. Come mid 2015, EUIV will easily be as fun and diverse an experience as CK2. It's just a waiting game.
"Nothing to do during peace time"
I really think the foundation of the conflict between players is that some players have long drawn out plans and others get very focused on the immediate problem at hand. I usually don't get bored, because I feel that every action I take in peace time is to make my country stronger and better prepared for the next conflict, and thus is part of the next conflict. I don't even share a border with most of my enemies, thus making expansion at their expense pointless.
Then Again, so far I've only played the Majors of EUIV, and those games are naturally more concerned about geopolitical strategy than survival. It seems that If you play any country besides one of the lucky nations you may be forced into fighting for survival so much that you don't feel like there is anything else to do. For instance, as England and France I've had an incredible time creating/balancing/maintaining alliances against one another.
I really think the foundation of the conflict between players is that some players have long drawn out plans and others get very focused on the immediate problem at hand. I usually don't get bored, because I feel that every action I take in peace time is to make my country stronger and better prepared for the next conflict, and thus is part of the next conflict. I don't even share a border with most of my enemies, thus making expansion at their expense pointless.
Then Again, so far I've only played the Majors of EUIV, and those games are naturally more concerned about geopolitical strategy than survival. It seems that If you play any country besides one of the lucky nations you may be forced into fighting for survival so much that you don't feel like there is anything else to do. For instance, as England and France I've had an incredible time creating/balancing/maintaining alliances against one another.
A viewable dynasty trees would be a good addition but I would hate for the individual character management of CKII to be introduced.
Keep the games different. If I want to play Crusader Kings I can go play it.
Keep the games different. If I want to play Crusader Kings I can go play it.
Good point, the people are finding nothing to do during peace time are just doing it wrong.
You make some good points in parts I cut out but I can't stomach all this "Let meeee conquer ze world!!!" crap.
Sure - some people find enjoyment in micromanaging 1000 provinces but I believe it's very small (but vocal) group.
I really hope that paradox will ignore this line of complaints and focus on making improvements when they are needed.
Lack of silly snowball mechanics ain't one.
Nah, those people do have a point. It is not only about being simplistic, but also WAY too abstract.
I think people play computer games because the processing power allows those to break away from abstractions. Chess is superb as a game? Sure, but it was designed that way because of, well, technological limitation. I don´t think that having a game in 2014 that simulates the economy of a region with a number and a trade good is satisfactory.
A shift to a more population based system would simulate things like Eastern Europe being ravaged much better - yet here, we are stuck with a Hungary full of base tax 2 provinces, and even those won´t change even if sieged 10 times in a century and had some 5 wars where 100k turk armies marched across them.
To me it's less of "not having anything to do" and more "there is no challenge left" once my army will match armies of the largest countries in my region/continent. Sure, you can be occupied with things to do until the end of the game, but with no concerns other than foreign powers I find it pretty easy and unchallenging to play again. Especially when many factions in the region are so similar to one another that makes experience too generic (technologies are the same, etc.). I'll probably try to play in different part of the world (the Far East), because I don't find it fun to play in Europe anymore and I think the problem will repeat itself once I'll play outside Europe too much as well. In CK2 each experience was unique to me, even if I played in similar region of the world, because circumstances were more dynamic and holding power was more challenging, even as a large country.
The trouble is, Pdox now has two very different parties in its player base. On this forum there are threads complaining about the fact they can not easily do a WC, there are others on the same page, claiming the game is far too easy once you get to a certain level.
Some people are liking the planning aspect, others just want constant war. War I might add that results in them gaining a huge chunk of land - they dont like they current system as it undoubtedly slows this down to in their eyes a crawl.
Others (Myself in this group) Will wage a number of wars happy to take just ducats, weakening enemy alliances or the enemys themselves, taking maybe 1 or two provinces.
There are people declaring they are bored with the game, despite addmitting they have played for 250+ hours (Im among them) since September, thats 4 hours every day on average. I would be getting bored of even sex if I was doing it for that many hours a day, and im not bored of EU4.........im clearly doing it wrong, take your pick which.
My point is, no matter what they do, they can not possibly make everyone happy. Its as an impossible task as the 3 mountains achievement currently.
Oh and I dont agree that dwindling numbers since release mean that the game is failing, its a fact of gaming life. I dont think it will trouble Pdox one Iota, sales of the exansion will show how succesful this itteration of EU is, my guess is very.
Some people are liking the planning aspect, others just want constant war. War I might add that results in them gaining a huge chunk of land - they dont like they current system as it undoubtedly slows this down to in their eyes a crawl.
Others (Myself in this group) Will wage a number of wars happy to take just ducats, weakening enemy alliances or the enemys themselves, taking maybe 1 or two provinces.
There are people declaring they are bored with the game, despite addmitting they have played for 250+ hours (Im among them) since September, thats 4 hours every day on average. I would be getting bored of even sex if I was doing it for that many hours a day, and im not bored of EU4.........im clearly doing it wrong, take your pick which.
My point is, no matter what they do, they can not possibly make everyone happy. Its as an impossible task as the 3 mountains achievement currently.
Oh and I dont agree that dwindling numbers since release mean that the game is failing, its a fact of gaming life. I dont think it will trouble Pdox one Iota, sales of the exansion will show how succesful this itteration of EU is, my guess is very.
Yeah I don't know if people get the irony of this sort of statement.
And I hope anyone who is knocking Paradox for anything, considers such a statement - people complain hard when the game gives them 'only' 250 hours total play time! That's how engaging and long-lasting Paradox games are, that 250 hours is considered 'poor'!
Actually of course, 250 hours is not poor by any possible estimation. $40 for 250 hours? What else gives you that kind of return? Nothing at all.
Of course people have a right to be disappointed if it's not what they were hoping for, no-one can take that away from them. But equally I don't think anyone has a right to be disappointed, and complain, in a nasty/angry/aggressive way. Because you already got far more than your money's worth, and it's very likely that even if you are totally bored with the game right now, you'll get further enjoyment again in future because it will continue to be patched and expanded.
Hell, even if you only played 10 hours and didn't get your money's worth, that's still no right to be angry. There's no conspiracy here, no-one is trying to make you not enjoy the game or spoil your fun. Sometimes it happens, and for every person bored of the game, there's two who are still loving it. Constructive feedback is always the only acceptable way to discuss things.
Have some sense of perspective, people. The very fact that you're here writing and discussing the game means it's important and valuable to you, and that Paradox are doing a good job; no-one goes to forums to write repeatedly about products that have no worth and no future.
I definitely got my value out of EU4; among other things I got CK2, which I didn't get on release and like. I also liked the release version of EU4. FYI I don't have any CK2 expansions, and prefer it to the current EU4. So "better play with expansions" isn't the answer.
The anger comes from the fact that they drastically changed gameplay with patches. In my opinion they turned it into a sour, "thou shalt not" exercise in stagnation. And the crippling limits on growth laid bare a shallow peacetime game. The designers apparently don't see this as a problem; big nations are apparently supposed to be boring and static. The community here also has its share of fans who get unpleasant and arrogant when anyone dares to critique the game.
The anger comes from the fact that they drastically changed gameplay with patches. In my opinion they turned it into a sour, "thou shalt not" exercise in stagnation. And the crippling limits on growth laid bare a shallow peacetime game. The designers apparently don't see this as a problem; big nations are apparently supposed to be boring and static. The community here also has its share of fans who get unpleasant and arrogant when anyone dares to critique the game.
Umm.. i'm enjoying all 600+ hours what i have played, yet i have not ended one game.. and that's a bit frustating :huh:
I'll return to that game when vassal cheese is just as viable as proper conquering...
also ai japanese hokkaido, almost never.
also ai japanese hokkaido, almost never.
Sweet Mother of mercy. Thats 8 hours a day on average. Thats my working day. You have an addiction, you need to face up to it. Repeat after me "my name is Ozonns and I am an Euaholic"