Patch Notes 1.7

[oblio-]

First point: ahistorical and alternative history have, in general language but mainly in the field you drag in the discussion, the same meaning: something that didn't happen in real history - but might have. Scotland conquering England and then conquering France is ahistorical/alternative history. It is, though, garbage alternative history. Conquering Europe as Scotland as represented in game is below garbage alternative history.

Represent the struggles Scotland would have to face by conquering by force England, how it would have to appease the extremely powerful English nobility, the Parliament and the clergy; represent the difficulty in finding a landing spot for its armies, a way to provide for them and keep them full force; represent the extreme problems in fighting a war to conquer a whole nation beyond the sea; represent the general hostility this would gather in those threatened, mainly Castile, Aragon, Burgundy and the HRE; represent the desperate struggle to find a way to keep the French nobles on your side instead of being armed and flanked by the other powers, who will then join them into war against you; represent the almost-impossibility to win a war at 10-to-1 numbers beyond the sea with whole territories breaking away; and THEN, if you played like some kind of Napoleon and with real skill, THEN I will accept that it is alternative history of the good kind, because all the problems that would have popped up, popped up, and you managed to overcome them.

Before that, Scotland invading mainland Europe is ridiculous.

Represent a magical being - let's call it "overlord" - that guides this hypothetical country "Scotland" across the centuries, directing funds and other resources towards its goals.
Then give "overlord" 400 years to conquer France.

Hmmm... now conquering France as Scotland isn't as ridiculous. After all, determined men across history have proven what a single man in the right conditions can achieve. Now imagine having such an overseer living and imposing his will for 400 years.

 

[Ferrous Will]

Wat?

Fleets attempting to break blockades will, if they retreat, retreat back to port.

 

[BFFCC]

I would never tell anyone how they should play the game. I wasn't trying to flame anyone. But the more historically 'plausible' the game I know the more I'll enjoy the challenge. If Scotland finds itself in the position can invade and conquer Brittany or Denmark ( Let's re-enter orbit a bit here) then go for it.

I just think people are flipping out a bit too much because WC is now a bit harder. It seems people like me that like historical plausibility ( even though that's an elusive dream) are in conflict with people that just want a fun game based on an earth shaped map.

I find it funny how guy, who wants some "historical plausibility", is defending the change in the length of truce. In real life, Ottomans conquered Mamluks in one short war. If you manage to do it in 50 years in EU4 now, you are good. There goes your historical plausibility. Every coin has two sides. I think that Paradox makes many changes just for the sake of changing. Nobody can say that the 5 years truce was in any way gamebreaking, I haven't seen anyone complaining about that at least. It was working fine and there was no real reason to change it. The thing is that players should be able to choose their own style of playing. You want historical game? Fine, go ahead. But if someone else wants agressive WC game, he should be able to do so too. Paradox should patch and fix problematic and gamebreaking things, they should not try to limit player's possibilities or available and viable strategies.

 

[Asturiano]

To me, Paradox games are fun because of the historical simulation, so more realistic is important to me. Now, I can be swayed by arguments that such and such mechanic is not historical, but I am deaf to any argument that complains simply because it doesn't let people easily paint the map.

EUIV is not a historical simulation. At all. Inspired by actual events, perhaps. Johan has described it as Risk on steroids (bloated, with a small scrotum and prone to heart attacks?) but not a historical simulator. In practice it is a "grand" strategy game, based on actual events and Risk, but beholden to none of these - as demonstrated in countless elements that are either not strategic, ahistorical or certainly not based on Risk.

In the end EUIV is just EUIV. Whatever that means.

 

[Asturiano]

Yes. Its been tested quite alot. This was due to countries who were just destroyed after losing their first war, so they never bother accepting a small reasonable demand but instead fought each war like a total war. The original design was 25 years, and this was the range that gave the best results.

Variable truce lengths make things behave more historically and provides better longterm challenge in SP as well.

And yes, its been tested far more than you can imagine.. I got over 100 hours in SP since that came in myself, and i'm not an active tester like the betas & our QA.

Stop balancing for MP, this game is tragically ill equipped for being and MP game. It will never be an MP game. Ever.

No one ever will hear about EUIV and think "oh that *multiplayer* game?!"

Some play MP, and that's great, good for them. They are a minority and while important, don't need the game balanced around them in particular.

Single player is not "practice mode" for MP. It is the game for most people. All of it.

A decision made to balance the game for MP is always bad, because you are then forgetting the fundamental issue: *EUIV is not and never will be an MP game, just a game where MP is possible and some minority of players will use it.

 

[herrhals]

We will have to play the game first before we can make any educated comments about the changes. After release, then we can burn up Paradox forums with hate, if that is indeed required.

 

[WeissRaben]

Represent a magical being - let's call it "overlord" - that guides this hypothetical country "Scotland" across the centuries, directing funds and other resources towards its goals.
Then give "overlord" 400 years to conquer France.

Hmmm... now conquering France as Scotland isn't as ridiculous. After all, determined men across history have proven what a single man in the right conditions can achieve. Now imagine having such an overseer living and imposing his will for 400 years.

Scotland still is a country. England still is a country. France still is a country. This overlord still has to deal with this fact.

If, instead, Scotland/England/France are splotches of colour on a map, then it makes sense! But you are choosing a splotch of colour, then, not a country. Wasn't I told I would be leading a country?

 

[rohirrimelf]

herrhals,

You are right about this. People need to put down those pitchforks. Enjoy all the good things this patch will bring and comment on it after a couple of weeks later.
Then we can make up if the chances are good or bad. Personally i think this will be a great patch. Ive read through the patchnotes a couple of times.

Going to buy this expansion and start playing as soon as i can.

 

[spinoza013]

I find it funny how guy, who wants some "historical plausibility", is defending the change in the length of truce. In real life, Ottomans conquered Mamluks in one short war. If you manage to do it in 50 years in EU4 now, you are good. There goes your historical plausibility. Every coin has two sides. I think that Paradox makes many changes just for the sake of changing. Nobody can say that the 5 years truce was in any way gamebreaking, I haven't seen anyone complaining about that at least. It was working fine and there was no real reason to change it. The thing is that players should be able to choose their own style of playing. You want historical game? Fine, go ahead. But if someone else wants agressive WC game, he should be able to do so too. Paradox should patch and fix problematic and gamebreaking things, they should not try to limit player's possibilities or available and viable strategies.

I can't actually remember defending 15 year truces. Someone said they are making Scotland conquering Europe more difficult. I think what I said was that the idea of Scotland conquering Europe is frankly ridiculous. Now it might be implied from the context of the overall argument that that meant I thought the solution to this was 15 year truces. Which I never said. At any point.

We all want historical 'plausibility' otherwise we may as well be playing Civ5. You pointed out an instance where 15 year truces actually prevent historical plausibility and therefore I'm on your side. It's a far more convincing argument than not being able to WC.

 

[parachute]

"Truce length now scales to the amount of warscore taken in the peace, from 5 years at white peace to 15 years at 100% warscore. "

Uuuuuh. I don't get it. What do you guys want us to do in this game? Go to war for nothing?

Doesn't matter. Play CK2 maybe? EU IV seems to be short for "Except U can't".

 

[Korashy]

The Truce timer change is terrible imho. I dont know if it's supposed counterbalance admin efficiency but if it is then the lengths shouldn't be increased till later. This is just gonna make people abuse coalition chain wars even more.

 

[AdAstra]

herrhals,

You are right about this. People need to put down those pitchforks. Enjoy all the good things this patch will bring and comment on it after a couple of weeks later.
Then we can make up if the chances are good or bad. Personally i think this will be a great patch. Ive read through the patchnotes a couple of times.

Going to buy this expansion and start playing as soon as i can.

No pitchforks will be laid down. We are angry and happy same time. Every patch brings lots of good things and couple of horrible ones, also changes game mechanics from one end to another. No golden middle roads here. I am not eager to relearn game mechanics with every patch.

 

[Garath88]

Terrible change in regards to the truce timer. Then again I haven't played much since they messed up the AE to it's current level. Give us something to do during peacetime, internal management or something similar. Provide depth instead of limiting our conquest through these silly mechanics. It also bothers me that this isn't historical, look at the Ottomans and their conquest of the mamlukes. That sure as hell didn't take 50+ years...
So please, give us internal management mechanics and add some war dynamism effect similar to the big mods to simulate the big historical conquests. Then I won't find this truce timer change so pathetic. But atleast until then I can hopefully mod the AE and truce timer.
In essence I just wanted to add my voice to those disappointed by this change, which seems to follow a pattern of giving the player LESS to do in-game. Disappointing to say the least.

 

[varonel]

The Truce timer change is terrible imho. I dont know if it's supposed counterbalance admin efficiency but if it is then the lengths shouldn't be increased till later. This is just gonna make people abuse coalition chain wars even more.

This change feel like trying to solve inflation by printing more money.

Trying to limit players artificially will result in even more "feature abusing".

Why limit us this way also when there are:
- AE and coallitions
- Overextension
- manpower taking 10 years to fully recover
- war exhaustion

This change in MP will make the game experience worse. Sitting there at 2 speed is really bad as it is, 15 years truce means even more IRL time spent doing... mostly nothing.

 

[frolix42]

- Fixed Mahican primary culture

Thank you.

 

[_B_art.cz]

EUIV is not a historical simulation. At all. Inspired by actual events, perhaps. Johan has described it as Risk on steroids (bloated, with a small scrotum and prone to heart attacks?) but not a historical simulator. In practice it is a "grand" strategy game, based on actual events and Risk, but beholden to none of these - as demonstrated in countless elements that are either not strategic, ahistorical or certainly not based on Risk.

In the end EUIV is just EUIV. Whatever that means.

I agree.

And just want to ad a quote from Steam::

Steam
All Games > Strategy Games > Europa Universalis IV
39,99€ ADD TO CART

Fulfill Your Quest For Global Domination
Paradox Development Studio is back with the fourth installment of the award-winning Europa Universalis series. The empire building game Europa Universalis IV gives you control of a nation to guide through the years in order to create a dominant global empire.

 

[lolciokuba]

I am really suprised about the 15 year truce outrage, does everyone here always go for 100% warscore?

I rather win quickly get couple of provinces and continue the fighting later, I mean whats the fun in the game when you take out your biggest rivals in let say 3 quick wars in 20 years or so.

 

[Pornek]

Geeeve patch please. I want to see the even more rage and QQ. :rofl:

 

[Guancyto]

Truce timer change is... interesting. Fifteen years is generally your regiments plus about half your manpower (or the other way around), plus -18 WE if you concentrated on recovering, so you can indeed recover from losing a total war.

I can't say I like the change, but it does seem indicative of a greater sense of design vision.

That is to say, focusing on the "EU4 is a board game" aspect, with all the things that entails (balanced for multiplayer, balanced around people playing majors, balanced for europe), as this very much supports that.

I just really wish you had found a way to do this without throwing the Scottish baby out with the bathwater. (There should really just be less incentive to fight total wars all the time.) I foresee a lot of bad days for Riga in the future...

 

[General Feierabend]

Patch is released