Hah, true enough. This isn't a thread for "historically valid, logically consistent gripes that satisy the criteria of others", just for gripes. You don't need any basis for sheer preference. My apologies on pressing that.
Okay, small gripes thread. Here are my two small gripes, other free to gripe.
- Thread starter hashinshin
- 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.
Hah, true enough. This isn't a thread for "historically valid, logically consistent gripes that satisy the criteria of others", just for gripes. You don't need any basis for sheer preference. My apologies on pressing that.
Biggest gripe at the moment stems from the magic colonial floor that CNs are exempt from. Really makes playing a nation who needs to colonize a lot of land around him for various reasons (land bridging to new conquests, for example) feel terrible, even if they're not.
Sure, okay. We're all okay with Poland getting nuclear weaponry at Tech 28, right? I mean, after all, none of us have the necessary historical understanding to say it couldn't have happened, right? And even if it couldn't have, this game isn't about immersion, so really, Poland should get nuclear weapons and also hoverboards for good measure because after all, as we don't value immersion that wouldn't make us feel like the game was worse, right? In fact, like, why should we even call this Europa Universalis? I'm not here to be immersed, I'm just here to manipulate Diplomatic Tech to arbitrary values. Let's call it Blobtopia Universalis, in which I manipulate Bird Mana, Sword Mana, and Paper Mana, in an attempt to add extra shapes to my blob, as those shapes generate splongles and with more splongles I can purchase nuclear weapons and hoverboards which allow me to conqu- I mean, absorb even more new shapes into my blob. After all, this will be equally as interesting as the current game, right, because the immersion is just not important.
Clue: this is obviously a game about immersion, which is why we're playing with "England" and "France" and "Qara Qoyunlu", in a relatively well-replicated model of the earth, in an actual time frame, using mechanics which at least approximate very roughly the development of historical narratives. If it wasn't about immersion, then we'd be equally happy playing with nameless blobs on a random map where the date didn't matter; I suspect very few EU4 players would find that enjoyable.
Last edited:
I think Paradox did well by removing those cores, it makes the Ottos weak. Enforcing their warning seem WAD. Mamluks guaranteeing was there before AoW too. AI building more ships is also a good thing
Also:Hmm, good idea.
even Nubian is unique so I don't get why Basque was lumped in with the Iberian cultures.
I'll assume this post is a joke. Otherwise I'd have to assume that you're extremely dense and/or entirely insincere.
The meta here is ridiculous. You're calling me out for use of an "ad hominem" instead of a serious argued response, when you haven't made a serious argument either and have responded to two of my posts with snarky/sarcastic personal attacks as well.
I don't have a problem with an ad-hominem (a stupid argument is the result of stupidity or insincerity, after all), but you can't engage in the same unless you get off your high horse.
Since you so desire though, I'll respond seriously:
I'm not sure how you got this from my post; the absurdity of somehow drawing that conclusion is what actually made me consider the possibility of your post being a parody of some members of the forum (especially the oft used "Why not give X nukes/tanks/bombers").
The poster I responded to said that for immersive purposes, Tuscany (Firenze) dominating Italy is less jarring than a modernized, colonizing berber state. This implies that he believes that the odds of the Tuscany scenario are better than the Berber scenario, though he hasn't explained why. I've studied firenze fairly extensively, and couldn't imagine them actually dominating the region. The government had difficulties collecting sufficient tax revenue throughout the period in peacetime and even small expeditions devastated their public finances for decades. The Berbers, on the other hand, I know little about, so to my knowledge that scenario is anywhere from impossible to probable, so the result doesn't test my immersion.
The point of course being that your immersion is relative to your knowledge base, with things you're well knowledgeable about (or woefully ill-informed about) often straining it.
Re-reading my point at the end, you're right, I expressed myself quite terribly. In my defense, I'm still quite peeved about a number of changes, which are quite unrealistic/immersion-breaking, yet PI did anyway (colonization, hordes, etc.), stating that they were necessary for gameplay/balance purposes.
What I should have written is that the primary focus of the game isn't immersion. Immersion does, obviously, play an important role. However, that doesn't mean it's the foremost driver of design changes. Awhile back, Johan stated the design goal was to be a competitive game, and this has played out through the updates. If you read through the dev diaries and patch information, this distinction is quite clear. Some changes are made for realism/immersion, but most are made with the intent of enhancing gameplay experience or improving competitive balance (not always successfully), often at the expense of realism/immersion.
An easy example of this is the change to colonized provinces. It's quite unrealistic/immersion-breaking that a Colonial Nation would be vastly more efficient in colonized territory than a same-continent native or that an uncolonized province right next to a Russian province with no LA floor will have a 50% floor when Russia colonized it. In spite of this, the change was made for competitive balance purposes (Asian countries could reap more from Asian colonies than Europeans quicker, full income with capital move to America, etc.)
So if someone has an issue with something being immersion breaking and desires design change, it's far more effective to argue from a gameplay perspective. If something would be more immersive but hurt gameplay/balance, good luck getting it implemented.
My small gripe is some people having to pick a fight and derail the thread in every single thread.
But nah, more seriously, the annex vassal button in diplomacy not showing the earliest date you could start annexing your vassal. Turns out it's still buried somewhere (your vassal's diplomacy tab, hover over the vassal icon), it's just annoyingly counter-intuitive. The transfer occupation mechanic is also not very obvious, I had to ask on the forum, and I wouldn't even have known it was something I could do had I not been following the dev diaries.
I also think the criteria for valid rivals is too rigid, but I don't think that's a 1.8/AoW thing.
But nah, more seriously, the annex vassal button in diplomacy not showing the earliest date you could start annexing your vassal. Turns out it's still buried somewhere (your vassal's diplomacy tab, hover over the vassal icon), it's just annoyingly counter-intuitive. The transfer occupation mechanic is also not very obvious, I had to ask on the forum, and I wouldn't even have known it was something I could do had I not been following the dev diaries.
I also think the criteria for valid rivals is too rigid, but I don't think that's a 1.8/AoW thing.
I might be wrong, but I definitely remember a tooltip over the vassal annexation button mentioning why you cannot start the annexation. Including the earliest start date.
It no longer states the date, just that it needs 10 years. You have to check the diplo connections of you and your vassal for that now
Yeah, ^this makes no sense. what possessed them to remove it (Well this is the first time I found out that it was actually moved, somewhere no one would know)
Westernizing looks broke, Native Americans only need 7 techs difference. That is easy to reach if you get back to 6 tech difference upon reforming.
Byzantium hasn't been nerfed at all. My most recent start with them was my easiest ever.
My small gripes are that some of the new UI elements feel a bit indev. The papacy buttons are overlapping and the war objectives button does this odd pop-out thing that makes me wonder if they forgot to put in a proper one.
I've thrown the Ottoman out of the Balkans twice in 1.8 now. Based on those experiences I'd say it's easier than before. You don't even need to take any land from anyone, all you have to do is get about 30+ galleys to block the strait. The situation to the east of the Ottos in 1.8 is such that it's almost a miracle if they manage to get passage through all of them. When before, all you had to count on was if Poland had rivaled the Ottos and denied them passage.
So basically, for taking back your cores as Byzantium, you don't even have to fight any direct battles with them. Just sit there building galleys until you see a moment when all their troops are dicking around somewhere in the east. For good measure, start the war at a moment when the Ottoman trade fleet happens to be passing the straits and sink them.
If you're really scared of the Ottomans, you can just wait until Crimea DoW's Genoa and watch as Austria brings all his own dudes and all of his little buddies over to the Balkans to beat the shit out of the turk. Especially if he and Venice have, instead of rivaling each other, become best of friends.
My only problem with Byz is that I can't seem to gain momentum against the Ottos. But that's just because I suck. It's one thing just siegeing the shit out of their lands without facing any real opposition and a whole other thing to fight their 4-5 shock god-generals on the otherside of the Marmara...
A real gripe from my part is that the AI seems kind of brain dead. I know it's a reported and acknowledged bug btw. My vassals and allies just sit in their lands doing nothing most of the time. Either that or then they send stacks of 5-6 regiments over the strait and get massacred. Last night, for example, I was allied with Austria in a war with the Ottoman. Austria had access through Venice and then through my largeish vassal Serbia but their troops just sat in their lands doing nothing. Same with both my vassals, Serbia and Bulgaria. They sat there, moving to help only when I engaged in battle personally.
So basically, for taking back your cores as Byzantium, you don't even have to fight any direct battles with them. Just sit there building galleys until you see a moment when all their troops are dicking around somewhere in the east. For good measure, start the war at a moment when the Ottoman trade fleet happens to be passing the straits and sink them.
If you're really scared of the Ottomans, you can just wait until Crimea DoW's Genoa and watch as Austria brings all his own dudes and all of his little buddies over to the Balkans to beat the shit out of the turk. Especially if he and Venice have, instead of rivaling each other, become best of friends.
My only problem with Byz is that I can't seem to gain momentum against the Ottos. But that's just because I suck. It's one thing just siegeing the shit out of their lands without facing any real opposition and a whole other thing to fight their 4-5 shock god-generals on the otherside of the Marmara...
A real gripe from my part is that the AI seems kind of brain dead. I know it's a reported and acknowledged bug btw. My vassals and allies just sit in their lands doing nothing most of the time. Either that or then they send stacks of 5-6 regiments over the strait and get massacred. Last night, for example, I was allied with Austria in a war with the Ottoman. Austria had access through Venice and then through my largeish vassal Serbia but their troops just sat in their lands doing nothing. Same with both my vassals, Serbia and Bulgaria. They sat there, moving to help only when I engaged in battle personally.
Last edited: