Root of all Problems of EU4

[loveslater]

After sifting through countless threads, I found the reason why:

It's the historical simulation people and Paradox catering to their unrealistic expectations!!!

They expect this game will somehow play out all historical facts and everything else in their games every time!

They expect France to win the Hundred Years War.

They expect Great Britain and France to colonize North America.

They expect Spain and Portugal to beeline into South America and Africa.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever a country deviates from this script , they want to punish it and nerf it into oblivion!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid if England wins the Hundred Years War! It must be nerfed!

God forbid if The Hansa somehow takes over Southeast Asia. It must be made impossible!

God forbid if somehow Norway winds up owning half of South America. Good God! Those Scandinavians and their NIs!

God forbid if the Ottoman Empire succeeds and blobs its way into Europe and the rest of the World! Oh noes ! Let's nerf them Moslem some more!

 

[delpiero1234]

True that!
People cry too much when they get beaten by the A.I.

 

[sunsterson]

0/10

 

[sunsterson]

True that!
People cry too much when they get beaten by the A.I.

completely unrelated to the op.

 

[Jomini]

The big thing I see that is the problem is there are a bunch of posters who hate that anyone does something wildly ahistorical. I can understand that the AI should kinda sort follow rational historical development. I mean yes it would be ideal if the incentive structure was balanced just right so Portugal goes to Brazil because it makes sense, but what bugs me to no end is folks who say "you min-maxed something and even though I don't play that way, we need to screw with game mechanics to prevent that abuse".

For instance, some bright folks looked at the diplo-vassalization system and figured that if you geared your entire country towards it, Austria could diplo vassalize everyone regardless of size. Now did the AI ever do this? No. Did anything force you to play Austria or to play that way with Austria all the time? No. Was it a good strategy for Austria in MP? No. It was something to try for those who like the idea of world conquest. In response, we nuked diplo-vassalization so you pretty much have to go the conquest route to expand except against the weakest states in Europe.

Likewise, there are people who think you are too stupid to "play well" if you ever get into a coalition war, but asking for a change in the coalition system - something they never actually choose to interact with - is a personal affront. I get some people want to feel a sense of accomplishment if they turn Sweden into a Norse Juggernaut ruling the Baltic, England, and Low Countries, and Normandy ... but as long as we keep "balancing" the game around stopping elite players (aka most people on the forums), we just make the game a kick in the teeth for normal players.

The game should be fun and if it is too easy for you, adopt some house rules. I mean seriously, nothing says that if coalition wars actually modeled the Napoleonic conquests that you have to use them.

Frankly, I normally find that the ones who get most upset about "ahistorical outcomes" are the least historically invested folks. Hey Europe never seriously invaded China - so let's adopt completely ahistorical attrition rates to prevent that. Vassal feeding sucks - so let's ignore the whole Duchy of Warsaw, Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, etc. and just nerf that too.

 

[StatikShocker]

This is my first paradox game and I expected more out of it. I was sold on the idea that you can pick up the reigns of any old country, failed state or storied kingdom doesn't matter, and lead them through 400 years of history, do what you can to change it. akin to a "butterfly effect", that you making different decisions (with the advantage of hindsight, for example knowing that there is a new world, knowing of the potentials of siberia etc) could result in drastically different outcomes.

but this really isn't the case. countries like muscovy are hard-coded to have super powers. what you do from a 1444 start should be independent of what happened on real life. it shouldn't matter that ottomans conquered mamluks manchu conquered ming or mughals conquered india (I've changed my mind on this). you should be able to exact your will on your sovereign land, within the capabilities of one man, and suffer a correlating fate (success or failure). instead we are doomed to certain things happening no matter what, arbitrary metric limits on damn near everything.

there is much less freedom than I expected. you really can only play one way, and that is WAD apparently, because every time someone does something unique and amazing, (if they post it here) the ability to do it is removed from the game. This isn't supposed to be an fps where you both have the same guns and abilities no matter what, and need to shoot at the enemy more than they do or you lose. this thing can't claim to be a grand strategy game if it continues on the route it has since launch.

there should be some randomness/restriction where it is necessary to simulate the laws of nature (like death, infinitely complex variables influencing combat, etc.) but everything else should be game. more complex ideas need to be channeled into simplified mechanics, I understand its a game not some super computer (like coalitions forming based on "ae" from taking provinces, that is fine it can't really be represented in any other way).

but absolutely NOTHING should be restricted based on if it happened "historically". that is inherently stupid and unfun. the game is making less sense with each patch. tearing things out of the game because they are routes that when followed can lead to success that didn't occur in real life, and you want to represent how nations were historically unsuccessful (no one accomplished all their nation's desire, no one conquered the world) well it sucks. like I've said, we have hindsight. we can restart the game as many times as we want. we can make strategies and read them online. we should be able to do infinitely better than the real life nations did.

If you play ottomans, you can focus on persia and india to gain infinite riches instead of dumping your troops into the wastelands of hungary like real life ottomans. so "ottomans op need to be nerfed"? hey maybe norway can send all of their able bodied men to china to conquer it. are you really telling me that because real life norway didn't do it, it should be impossible in this grand strategy game? the assumption that every country fullfilled the maximum potential of themselves is stupid as hell. can these people just go away already

 

[RogerWilco]

... but as long as we keep "balancing" the game around stopping elite players (aka most people on the forums), we just make the game a kick in the teeth for normal players.

The game should be fun and if it is too easy for you, adopt some house rules.

I agree with this statement.

I have no problem with the game having an ahistorical result. It's one of the things that drew me to buy this game: you can create a world spanning Ceylon Empire.

My problem with the game is that a lot of patches get released that unbalance the game, sometimes even make it unplayable, often completely change important mechanics, and contain mechanics that are buggy, poorly developed and incomplete. The game feels like I'm playing an Alpha version, not a released game.

I'm a casual player, I've arrived in around 1600 in the games I started upon release in August. I want to play those until 1821. I've given up on my Ironman games, and I've stopped playing my non-Ironman games during certain patches (esp 1.2) because things were just to messed up to continue playing. I'm currently playing the 1.3.2 Beta available on Steam because the new 1.4 mechanics would also completely mess up my existing game.

My two main complaints are:
- A lot of the patches they release feel untested. What they did around patch 1.2 was the worst in that regard.
- Big overhauls to game mechanics will often completely change existing games. Colonial Nations, changing the map and trade nodes in ongoing games, changing border friction by 500%, changing AE, vassalization, protectorates, etc. etc.

 

[EUnderhill]

As proud as I am of my Norwegian heritage the notion that my forbears could have sailed to China and conquered her goes far beyond what was logistically possible.

 

[Tub]

As proud as I am of my Norwegian heritage the notion that my forbears could have sailed to China and conquered her goes far beyond what was logistically possible.

And there you go, doing exactly what the above posts said. Surely if there was an inhuman effort in Norway - a huge drive in recruitment, massive increases in ships built - it would be possible? I can just imagine it. Norway leaves the Scandinavian continent in an exodus of Diasporic proportions, searching for a new home. They have heard tell of a place in the Far East, 'Chin' that holds untold riches. Tens of thousands of men are shipped across the seas - these aren't normal boats, they've been specially built to survive long journeys - in order to ind this 'Chin', so as to make a home for themselves, and their wives and children, waiting back in the god-forsaken mountains of Norway. They get there, and through conquest and battle, and brave Norwegian gumption, they drive out the local administration, crush their armies, and make a new home. Sure, it's predominantly populated by Chinese peasants, and follows a heathen religion, but that will be changed with time.

And you can do that right now. You don't have to conquer China if you find it historically inaccurate, but some people do.

 

[Zagys]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to play a history themed game if they don't want to deal with any historical limitations. Go play Risk.

 

[mcmanusaur]

0/10

^

 

[Descartes]

Historicity is not the root of all problems in EU4. When I play, I want my decisions to affect the countries around me. The rest of the world is supposed to behave historically. It's not nice to discover an all-Aztec America, or a Vijayanagara China. Historical deviation is for me, not for the AI!

 

[CzechKronner]

Historical deviation is for me, not for the AI!

Exactly. Fully agreed.

 

[Kapitalisti]

In my opinion the ideal would be that if left alone, the AI would form a world that's either close to what actually happened or some other plausible scenario while the player with his/her omniscient foreknowledge as the spirit of the nation would be able to do radical deviations from plausible historical events.

 

[RogerWilco]

Historicity is not the root of all problems in EU4. When I play, I want my decisions to affect the countries around me. The rest of the world is supposed to behave historically. It's not nice to discover an all-Aztec America, or a Vijayanagara China. Historical deviation is for me, not for the AI!

I think that the switch that currently controls Lucky Nations should be changed and also control scripted historical events like the War of the Roses, Dutch Revolt, Burgundian Inheritance. Basically all the mechanics that try force the AI follow actual history.

I myself do not have a problem if things happen ahistorically. EU4 is a simulation of the 1444-1821 era, with a historical situation on the start date you pick. If you really want it to follow history you need much more detailed scripting and mechanics like Lucky Nations. For example we should only have comets on actual days that for example Haley's Comet was visible historically, Kings and other rulers should all be scripted to have the right stats and be born and die at the right times, etc.. Aiming for EU4 to actually follow history beyond the starting date you pick is an illusion.

EU4 is a "what if" machine, not a historical simulator, it can't really be with the current design. Expecting EU4 to follow actual history is folly, you would need the game to work very differently for that. You would need to completely script the AI and not allow any random events. you would need Jamestown colony to be founded on May 14 1607, you would need Sweden to go to war with Poland in 1600 with an army of 12.000 men for 11 years to vassalize Livonia, etc.

A lot of this history is actually in the game, as you can pick any start date with a historical situation. But as soon as you start the clock rolling, the game is based on it's own mechanics and will develop ahistorically.

 

[TolHydra]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to play a history themed game if they don't want to deal with any historical limitations. Go play Risk.

That is not the point, of course there should be historical limitations, it's like House Karen in Ck2, it's historically just impossible for Zoroastrianism to rise again; but if you are a good enough player, even when surrounded by all sorts of enemies, you can indeed change that fate, which does add to the whole entertainment doesn't hinder it, i for one didn't witness a single rise of zoroastrianism all those times I've spent on west of the map.

Oh and also I do genuinely feel like this 'go play Risk' phrase should be banned from these forums, it's literally the worse insult to a paradox grand strategy player.

 

[Sir Iain]

This game never follows history. Portugal Colonizes North America, Castille colonizes Brazil. Denmark unites the Kalmar Union or Sweden breaks free and conquers all, or breaks free and get destoyed by Russia, leaving Norway to colonize North America. Austria unites the HRE or gets destroyed and is forced to release Styria. Burgundy survives as a regional power until 1800.

Those are interesting deviations, just because they are not destined to happen. What's boring is Castillian or Portugese Kamchatka every single game. EU3 had loads of ahistorical scenarios that always came true, like Spanish North Africa or British Norway. EU4 is much more intresting in that regard, even though it's harder to break free from the constraints of the game.

 

[EUnderhill]

it would be possible?

No. It wouldn't.

 

[Sir Iain]

No. It wouldn't.

Maybe it would in real life, if you had absolute power, lots of luck and your people would just do as they are told.
But in EU4, you can't design special ships, you can't move all your people and so forth.

 

[jockedahl]

Root of the problem is all of the filthy casuals. THE FILTHY CASUALS I TELL YOU!

These threads are so pointless. Stop pretending like the game is somehow broken. It's not. It has minor flaws here and there which will be improved upon in time.

The game follows history more than other developers while still being a game.