To TheMeInTeam: If all you should be doing is nudging it back and forth -- then make it so that there are only three states, without the extremes of the +100 for each, since getting there is insanely broken, and you aren't supposed to do it anyway. Again, scrap it, and just let China have three "modes" you choose from, with a small cost to switch between them. In fact, what would be good for China -- "economic" footing, "diplomatic" footing, or "war" footing -- would be just as good for any nation anywhere around the world. But the problem is that it gives you the illusion that you can push any of the factions to 100%, when that just breaks China badly.
False choices are not good game design. It's like telling people, "Sure! Keep conquering! Go for 300% OE. See what happens."
And yes, I found my experience with China to be "that bad." I actually preferred the scrappy little Navarra to the bloated, useless China.
And, not only Spain needs the nerf on colonists. Everyone in the game needs to be nerfed, so that 1600 doesn't look like 1800.
I mean, Botany Bay wasn't founded until 1788. But in the game, it's common to see someone plunked down there in the 1600s.
That's the major ahistorical problem. I can see if someone mini-maxed and really tried to hard to extend their reach. But the players and the AI are all way too expansive collectively. By the time a historical Jamestown colony would be established, often in the game the whole Eastern Seaboard of the United States has colonists on it.
The same is true of European massive invasion fleets reaching Asia. Asian powers already have to start watching their backs in the 1500s. That's historically true with the early 1500s Portuguese bases in India.
HOWEVER, the invasion forces of the time were about 800 men and fleets of a few dozen ships. What made the difference was naval gunfire.
But even with that, what the Portuguese set up were forts and factories. They did not conquer whole provinces. Not at first. There were not really "controlled territories" on the subcontinent until the 1700s after the disintegration of the Mughals and the rise of the Marathas in the 1700s.
For the period of 1500+, what EUIV needs is more of the "trading post" set up of CKII, where you can have a "presence" in a province without really being the province controller. This would make more sense to show establishment of trading posts, at least until later, when the colonial powers began to actually start making whole provinces part of their control.
These trading posts should be money-makers. Otherwise, why in the world are you doing them? But the goal is to make trade income off the province. Not "paint the map" your color. Once you do try to go from trading post to colonization or conquest, then there should be the cost of settlement, or the resort to war against its controller.
It just grates against me when I see these gigantic D-Day-esque invasion fleets with tens of thousands of troops showing up around the world. That's not how the New World was subjugated. Nor was it how India and the rest of Asia were infiltrated. At least, not at first. It was not until the 1700s when the global reach of these empires allowed moving large armies -- tens of thousands of troops -- overseas.
The main limiter on overseas attrition was scurvy -- which was not finally discovered to be preventable with citrus fruits until a book was published in 1732 by a Scottish doctor. It still took decades before the Royal Navy finally clued in.
Before then, attrition after a few months at sea should grow exponentially. Even then, outbreaks of other diseases, such as cholera, could still decimate troops traveling overseas.
Anyway, right now, I am just tired of seeing massive metropoli rivaling Vienna in the New World, the Spanish Armada in Australia, and massive doomstacks of Russian Guards Armor Divisions in Asia by the mid 1600s. All "Europa" needs to be nerfed in terms of expansionism by about a century. If it was, there would be more historical "second tier" powers who could sneak into the New World later: the Dutch, the Swedes, the Scots, even Denmark and Germany. There would be more of a ramping-up of global colonial expansion.
I know a lot of players love the way the game currently works -- because it works in their favor. They get to paint the world their color. If they can't reach it first, all they have to do is go to war with the colonial power who did spend the time to colonize it, and viola! It's theirs too.
Now, a good, focused empire should be able to do better than history did. I don't want to shut down earnest world colonizers entirely. But at the current state of expansion, it's just too fast. It makes the colonial nations far too powerful too quickly.
Anyone else feel the same way?
False choices are not good game design. It's like telling people, "Sure! Keep conquering! Go for 300% OE. See what happens."
And yes, I found my experience with China to be "that bad." I actually preferred the scrappy little Navarra to the bloated, useless China.
And, not only Spain needs the nerf on colonists. Everyone in the game needs to be nerfed, so that 1600 doesn't look like 1800.
I mean, Botany Bay wasn't founded until 1788. But in the game, it's common to see someone plunked down there in the 1600s.
That's the major ahistorical problem. I can see if someone mini-maxed and really tried to hard to extend their reach. But the players and the AI are all way too expansive collectively. By the time a historical Jamestown colony would be established, often in the game the whole Eastern Seaboard of the United States has colonists on it.
The same is true of European massive invasion fleets reaching Asia. Asian powers already have to start watching their backs in the 1500s. That's historically true with the early 1500s Portuguese bases in India.
HOWEVER, the invasion forces of the time were about 800 men and fleets of a few dozen ships. What made the difference was naval gunfire.
But even with that, what the Portuguese set up were forts and factories. They did not conquer whole provinces. Not at first. There were not really "controlled territories" on the subcontinent until the 1700s after the disintegration of the Mughals and the rise of the Marathas in the 1700s.
For the period of 1500+, what EUIV needs is more of the "trading post" set up of CKII, where you can have a "presence" in a province without really being the province controller. This would make more sense to show establishment of trading posts, at least until later, when the colonial powers began to actually start making whole provinces part of their control.
These trading posts should be money-makers. Otherwise, why in the world are you doing them? But the goal is to make trade income off the province. Not "paint the map" your color. Once you do try to go from trading post to colonization or conquest, then there should be the cost of settlement, or the resort to war against its controller.
It just grates against me when I see these gigantic D-Day-esque invasion fleets with tens of thousands of troops showing up around the world. That's not how the New World was subjugated. Nor was it how India and the rest of Asia were infiltrated. At least, not at first. It was not until the 1700s when the global reach of these empires allowed moving large armies -- tens of thousands of troops -- overseas.
The main limiter on overseas attrition was scurvy -- which was not finally discovered to be preventable with citrus fruits until a book was published in 1732 by a Scottish doctor. It still took decades before the Royal Navy finally clued in.
Before then, attrition after a few months at sea should grow exponentially. Even then, outbreaks of other diseases, such as cholera, could still decimate troops traveling overseas.
Anyway, right now, I am just tired of seeing massive metropoli rivaling Vienna in the New World, the Spanish Armada in Australia, and massive doomstacks of Russian Guards Armor Divisions in Asia by the mid 1600s. All "Europa" needs to be nerfed in terms of expansionism by about a century. If it was, there would be more historical "second tier" powers who could sneak into the New World later: the Dutch, the Swedes, the Scots, even Denmark and Germany. There would be more of a ramping-up of global colonial expansion.
I know a lot of players love the way the game currently works -- because it works in their favor. They get to paint the world their color. If they can't reach it first, all they have to do is go to war with the colonial power who did spend the time to colonize it, and viola! It's theirs too.
Now, a good, focused empire should be able to do better than history did. I don't want to shut down earnest world colonizers entirely. But at the current state of expansion, it's just too fast. It makes the colonial nations far too powerful too quickly.
Anyone else feel the same way?
