Root of all Problems of EU4

[EUnderhill]

It's a difference, but that difference is entirely characterized by the absence of anything unique. CK and Victoria both have states that divide the map between them, but they also have much more than that. EU, on the other hand has an international system of states... and nothing else. The exception being trade, which is very flawed but still a great addition to the game. I see it as a big step in the right direction.

I expect EU to be more abstract and boardgamey than, for example, Victoria. I'd love to see POPs in 1648, but lets do that by someday giving the Victoria franchise earlier starting dates rather than changing EU.

 

[Hootieleece]

Of course, unique national ideas are a shortcut way to stimulate all other unrepresented factors (we don't have enough internal mechanics in-game to represent why nations like real-life Portugal are good at trade, so let's slap an unique bonus and call it a day). Of course, they create quite a dissonance when the game develops differently from history, yet still gives nations scripted bonuses. Once these factors are actually represented, unique national ideas are not necessary. An approach like this



Is exactly the approach EU needs. Contextualize all these flavourful unique events so that they may happen for many nations.

I wonder, however, why the "we want internal development" complaints are so much more common in EU4 then they were in EU3. Sure, the latter had sliders, but they were in no way especially complex, immersive or deep.

The reason everyone keeps talking about EU3 was the control of the NI's of a Country and how in many ways you could take nations on ahistorical paths. At the start of the game every country was a blank slate. Unfortunately the NI's weren't really balanced so you ended up picking the same NI's no matter who you played. Sort of like the Idea groups in EUIV.

Also you could change government types from monarchies to republics without having to wait the correct rebels. The only government I ever had a hard time implementing was Theocracy. Never was able to do it without console commands.

One of the most fun games was as France that went reformed and became a republic in the 1500's and built a true colonial empire. Only way would have been as a Theocracy bent on Crusade.......

In all it seemed like there was less determinism.......I could be wrong, but that is my take.

 

[Careful Plum]

IMO, it's because in EUIII we had the bigger problem of the AI not being able to form coherent states at all. EUIV is a major improvement in that now we do frequently have a strong France, Spain, Ottomans, Russia, etc., whereas in EUIII these places often all became balkanized. So now that major problem #1 has been fixed, people are turning to major problem #2: the lack of internal management.



It's a difference, but that difference is entirely characterized by the absence of anything unique. CK and Victoria both have states that divide the map between them, but they also have much more than that. EU, on the other hand has an international system of states... and nothing else. The exception being trade, which is very flawed but still a great addition to the game. I see it as a big step in the right direction.

I agree that CK and Victoria are better in that the states have more structure to them. But I think the "problem" is more fundamental than that. The way you deal with things within the state is very different from those without it.

For example, imagine you are the Ottomans, dealing with the Balkans. There are two challenges you are facing (never mind whether dealing with them is a challenge or not):

On the one hand, Serbia, which you want to conquer.

On the other hand, some people want to reform Albania, so there is some revolt risk.

Now, with Serbia, you can interact, and they will react to that. They might form alliances, recruit armies, theoretically they could/should just offer to be your vassal...

You can deal with the rebels as well: give in to their demands, suppress them etc. But all the action you do is from you. The outcome is predetermined. There's no AI, flawed as it is, behind the rebels.

I think the difference is that you can replace the Serbian AI with a player, but not the rebel one. And that's a fundamental difference. It's not necessarily BAD, but it is what makes development of the game different in those two areas.

BTW, of course you can play the vassal of another player in CK. But down at the province rebels, the same mechanics apply. For example, you can rule multiple provinces all by yourself. Which makes no sense at all, even in the modern world! Barack Obama simply CAN'T rule every person of the US personally! It's inconceivable that there's NOBODY between the ruler and literally everybody else.

 

[WeissRaben]

At the start of the game every country was a blank slate.

In EU3? I think you are getting it upside-down - the good point of the sliders was that a country already was SOMETHING, at October 14th 1399. Mercantile, innovative kingdom? Check. Aristocratic, decentralized republic? Check. Small, centralized, innovative? Check. When you start EU4, on the other hand, there are minuscule differences between nations - and none at all between Frankfurt and Ansbach, for example.

 

[Beagá]

That is true.

To be honest I think the removal of sliders is actually a bad design choice from Paradox to an extent (taking them from hOI 3 didn´t help much there either). National Ideas help sure, but relying only on them... dunno.

Maybe it could be mitigated by having factions inside the country (nobles, bourgueoise, clergy)?

 

[WeissRaben]

That is true.

To be honest I think the removal of sliders is actually a bad design choice from Paradox to an extent (taking them from hOI 3 didn´t help much there either). National Ideas help sure, but relying only on them... dunno.

Maybe it could be mitigated by having factions inside the country (nobles, bourgueoise, clergy)?

That I would like. It would be, if not a nice start, at least a decent approximation.

 

[Chamboozer]

Where Victoria has pops, I think EUIV should have had landholdings. So the base-tax of a province would represent the value of the land there, and it could be split up among various groups in the country (free peasants, magnates, minor nobility, royal demesne, church/monastery, tribal pasture, uncultivated, etc.) and the transfer of land ownership would be the basis of social manipulation, similar to promotion and demotion of pops in Vicky. The player's goal would be to achieve the balance he desires. For example, empowering free peasants could lead to more economic development, supporting minor nobility could give you a powerful officer corps, going Protestant would allow you to take over church land into demesne and use it for your own purposes. There would be a lot of directions Paradox could go to create an interesting game with a structure like that.

 

[Hootieleece]

@Weissraben I was really thinking of the NI's. Not really thinking of the sliders. Yes the sliders were preset but you could actually change a country to your liking even though some slider choices were better than others.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

A lot of these suggestions smack of Magna Mundi The Game. Paradox could easily make that kind of game, much better than Ubik's impromptu team did, but that's not their intention.

 

[Hootieleece]

In EU3? I think you are getting it upside-down - the good point of the sliders was that a country already was SOMETHING, at October 14th 1399. Mercantile, innovative kingdom? Check. Aristocratic, decentralized republic? Check. Small, centralized, innovative? Check. When you start EU4, on the other hand, there are minuscule differences between nations - and none at all between Frankfurt and Ansbach, for example.

That is true, but your game is pretty much locked to the play style encouraged by your countries Unique (Maybe) NI's. In EU3, I think that the player had much more control by being able to move the sliders and CHOOSE the NI's.

The reason players didn't like it was the lack of choice in the slider moves and or NI's, because certain NI's and slider moves were OP and obvious to all but noobs.

 

[Beagá]

But that is bad balance, not bad gameplay. Different things.

And it´s not like EU 4 doesn´t have its share of dubious NIs and national ambitions.

 

[Morwys]

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.

+1. And to the poster who said that "go play risk" is the biggest offence to a PI fan, that's not. It's "this game is boring, I'll go play Civ instead". Damned philistines!

Historical deviation is for me, not for the AI!

I agree entirely. If I was to decide it, the split of Burgundy would happen every single time!

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.

Much to my annoyance.

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.

+++1. Perfectly put.

 

[rebelde]

That is true, but your game is pretty much locked to the play style encouraged by your countries Unique (Maybe) NI's. In EU3, I think that the player had much more control by being able to move the sliders and CHOOSE the NI's.

Yeah that's a big problem with EU4. It pretty much railroads nations down a historical path, so that if for example you want to turn Portugal into a land power you are penalized because you will always be weaker than a nation "tailored" to be a land power. Wait for it I can already see a "customizable country" DLC coming eventually, customize your country National Ideas, Government type and monarch stats for only 14.99€ on Steam.

The reason players didn't like it was the lack of choice in the slider moves and or NI's, because certain NI's and slider moves were OP and obvious to all but noobs.

Well honestly EU4 is not much better. The monarch system doesn't give any choice or interaction at all and the national ideas are just as bad balanced as EU3. Depending on what country you play you will pretty much always chose the same no-brainer ideas because some trees are just so bad nobody takes them, and others are just useless to certain types of gameplay.

 

[loveslater]

let's hope some of the problems are cured in 1.5

 

[NikephorosSonar]

I haven't picked up EU4 yet because the changes made since EU3 that I saw in the demo I thought made little sense. I liked sliders, they gave you control over your nation's development while still restricting you from completely changing your country overnight. I'm still tempted to pick up the game and start modding, but honestly I browse this subforum hoping that my worst fears about this game stop being true.

 

[Poorlaggedman]

A lot of people like reenacting too much. But I think the best kind of game is very flexible. I just discovered EU in January and I like it quite a bit. I've played HoI in the past so I was familiar with the style a little.

I think the best way to change people's expectations is too do like Imperialism II could do. Generate random new and old worlds. That would be complex and I have no clue how you'd do the trade nodes for that. Imperialism might have had those maps created (in the hundreds) but it changed replayability and blew away all expectations for historical accuracy. I don't even think keeping the new world as representative of reality was an option.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

Well my problem is that EUIV and to a slightly lesser extent EUIII just play like straight up wargames. I love playing Darkest Hour and I'm trying to play HOI3, and that's fine given the time period.

Maybe I should just pick up CK2 (or CK1 since it's much cheaper.)

 

[Karnak]

The thing is that in 1444, the man who rules Dijon isn't a King (despite what the game calls him).

In 1444, the ruler of Burgundy is His Grace, Philip III "the Good", Duke of Burgundy, a scion of the Burgundian junior line of the Capetian House of Valois. He holds the lands around Dijon, Nevers, and Charolles not in fee simple as a vassal of the French crown, nor by any kind of absolute sole right, but rather as an appanage of the French crown. An appanage could not be lawfully disposed of by its holder, and if the holder were to die without a legitimate male heir, it was an inherent part of the law under which the appanage was originally granted that those parts of his estates which were granted as part of the appanage revert to the crown.

Thus, it really is justified for Burgundy to be treated uniquely (and for the possibility to expire over time, representing the Dukes' de facto independence becoming de jure with their ascent to royalty) in this regard.

in that case, we want to model those circumstances in the game. Every nation should have the possibility to have these circumstances.

Right now we don't even HAVE dukes. EU is sorely lacking in internal politics which could easily become peace-time content.
It is fine for the court and the factions of the nation to have a diminished importance, but at least let them exist. Everything was set up for us with CK2, and then the converter just throws everything out with the bathwater and we get EU4.

Everything is right there, just implement it!