Patch 1.9 - New Achievements

[Hakuromatsu]

Yes. And since 90 % of the game are started as France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, England, Russia and Ottomans I support the idea of restricting the player to only theses countries, Eu 4 team has already too much work.

Apples and oranges.

Fleshing out the ROTW has the benefit of improving the game experience for every nation, not just the ROTW. Example: in 1.7, when Spain/Portugal made landfall in South America, all they found was a poor, single Incan blob and one or two poor Mesoamerican blobs. Now? More tags with more native BT to conquer (instead of mindlessly colonize), more native diplomacy to meddle in, more native nations to protectorate or ally, and potentially large native empires that aren't entirely incapable of putting up a resistance to the conquistador invasion (I just witnessed an AI Cusco repelling Portugal in the Andes!)

The additions that make the ROTW more fun to play also make European nations more fun to play. Spending development manhours on later start dates has no bearing on the 1444 start.

 

[Laozi]

Hi there,

If I start a large campaign now, say the Three Mountains, would that Update 1.9 make me not get the achievement when I´m not finished yet then?
When will it be out?

 

[ThuderLizard2]

If I start a large campaign now, say the Three Mountains, would that Update 1.9 make me not get the achievement when I´m not finished yet then?
When will it be out?

There is a risk that the new patch could mess up your game but it's a low risk. However, some mechanisms you're counting on could be changed in 1.9, for example how Aggressive Expansion and coalitions get formed. Given this is mostly a big fix the risk seems low.

I'd like to know when it's expected as well but haven't heard specifics. Was supposed to be a reality quick patch after 1.8.1

 

[Enewald]

Apples and oranges.

Fleshing out the ROTW has the benefit of improving the game experience for every nation, not just the ROTW. Example: in 1.7, when Spain/Portugal made landfall in South America, all they found was a poor, single Incan blob and one or two poor Mesoamerican blobs. Now? More tags with more native BT to conquer (instead of mindlessly colonize), more native diplomacy to meddle in, more native nations to protectorate or ally, and potentially large native empires that aren't entirely incapable of putting up a resistance to the conquistador invasion (I just witnessed an AI Cusco repelling Portugal in the Andes!)

The additions that make the ROTW more fun to play also make European nations more fun to play. Spending development manhours on later start dates has no bearing on the 1444 start.

You realize they do have the provincial history files already developed, same with the files already showing who owned what and when, same with monarch deaths? The data already existed in 2007 when they released Eu3 where you could pick any state at any time.

So if they have detailed history for provinces and nations from both Eu3 and Eu4 and decide not to use all this data for Eu5, that is a step backwards, from more content towards less content.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

You realize they do have the provincial history files already developed, same with the files already showing who owned what and when, same with monarch deaths? The data already existed in 2007 when they released Eu3 where you could pick any state at any time.

So if they have detailed history for provinces and nations from both Eu3 and Eu4 and decide not to use all this data for Eu5, that is a step backwards, from more content towards less content.

The history is there; the balance and depth aren't.

I'd be fine with Paradox releasing an "official mod" with later start dates using the EU3 history files. But vanilla Europa Universalis should only have a set number of well-developed bookmarks, not a spectrum of completely undeveloped start dates.

 

[seeds24]

Be careful not to give them ideas, sarcasm is difficult over the Internet.

I can find other ideas following Johan's logic.

95 % of the games do not go further than 1600. Why spend dev time to make the game playable after this date ? just end the game in 1600.

 

[sermaciej]

"Non-ironman" doesn't automatically mean "without the Steam client running".

Yes, but I don't think non-Ironman games with Steam running send any data about how you're playing.

 

[Enewald]

The history is there; the balance and depth aren't.

I'd be fine with Paradox releasing an "official mod" with later start dates using the EU3 history files. But vanilla Europa Universalis should only have a set number of well-developed bookmarks, not a spectrum of completely undeveloped start dates.

The latter dates are not that much undeveloped, unless there are some horrible mistakes over some monarch's name pronunciation.

And how is 1444 start more "in depth" than for example 1492 start? And the balance doesn't really exist, some nations will be always more powerful than others. Talk about balance in a game where some large blobs begin as lucky nations with their extra flavour and strong national ideas, compared to far smaller less detailed nations...

 

[Hakuromatsu]

I can find other ideas following Johan's logic.

95 % of the games do not go further than 1600. Why spend dev time to make the game playable after this date ? just end the game in 1600.

You're 100% right

Think of how much longer it takes to type "1821.1.2" than "1600.1.2" in END_DATE in defines.lua. So much developmental time is eaten up by the dev team having to move a finger from "2" to "1" instead of just leaving it on "0." Such a developmental burden.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Yes, but I don't think non-Ironman games with Steam running send any data about how you're playing.

You'd be wrong.

 

[sermaciej]

You'd be wrong.

Could you say more about that, please?

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Yes, but I don't think non-Ironman games with Steam running send any data about how you're playing.

all games with internet active sends metric to us..

 

[AurochsAway]

The history is there; the balance and depth aren't.

I'd be fine with Paradox releasing an "official mod" with later start dates using the EU3 history files. But vanilla Europa Universalis should only have a set number of well-developed bookmarks, not a spectrum of completely undeveloped start dates.

There's no balance anywhere in this game. It's based in history, so is inherently unbalanced. That applies to every start date.

 

[Polskers]

I agree with and echo greatly the sentiment to not delete all start dates in future iterations of the EU series. Doing so betrays the original appeal of the EU games, starting at particular dates from the 15th-19th centuries, as I am sure there are a lot more players of later start dates than you may think.

That said, funny how this spawned from my simple question about it being possible to enable achievements from a later start date. Oy vey.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I agree with and echo greatly the sentiment to not delete all start dates in future iterations of the EU series. Doing so betrays the original appeal of the EU games, starting at particular dates from the 15th-19th centuries, as I am sure there are a lot more players of later start dates than you may think.

Given that less than 1% of all started games played while the person's computer had an internet connection were a post 1444 start, I'd question what your definition of 'more than you think' is.


Not that I have a strong opinion either way, but the fallacious appeal to a large group that doesn't exist is a pet peeve of mine on these forums. Exact same logic was used to justify the non-steam CK2, and we've heard quite a few times what the result of that was (it wasn't worth the time, money, or effort to support the non-steam version of the game, because its sales were minuscule compared to the steam version).

 

[Polskers]

1444 cannot be the only exclusive start for 99% of the demographic from which the data was surveyed. That might be the most popular, but I would venture to say that many of those who play 1444 regularly also dabble around in other start dates just for the heck of it, is what I mean. Some might enjoy starting in 1776, or 1789, or 1618, more than 1444, even though they play 1444 for the achievements.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

I can find other ideas following Johan's logic.

95 % of the games do not go further than 1600. Why spend dev time to make the game playable after this date ? just end the game in 1600.

TBH, EU4 has now outgrown my computer. CK2 still runs as smooth as butter.

If EU4 ran at speed past 1600 on rigs like mine (i5,8gig ram, intel iris), I think there would be many more later starts.

I wonder how much of the player base have computers which struggle with EU4...

I wonder if paradox might be getting the wrong message from usage information.

Optimisation DLC please?

 

[Panzergruppe]

You're 100% right

Think of how much longer it takes to type "1821.1.2" than "1600.1.2" in END_DATE in defines.lua. So much developmental time is eaten up by the dev team having to move a finger from "2" to "1" instead of just leaving it on "0." Such a developmental burden.

He's probably thinking of the time needed to create events concerning the French revolution, the 30 year war, et al.

 

[LumberKing]

Been wondering, but is 1.9 going to be a just a patch or a secret DLC that has yet to be announced?

 

[emilsson]

It seems I'm in a minority here, but I have to say I don't really like all of these goofball achievements. I know, this is the tone of a lot of Steam game achievements, many of which probably just started off as puns. But for EUIV this clashes with the tone of the game for me, especially since I like to role play. So personally I would like to see less of these, and more based on historical events (or at least conceivable events). But maybe that's just me.