Root of all Problems of EU4
- Thread starter loveslater
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The winning behaviour for the AI is to gang up on day one, murderstomp the player, then settle their disputes with each other.
I don't mind ahistorical deviations. I'm still not overly excited about monarch points. I'd rather make money more useful. Maybe if you don't have enough monarch points for something you can just pay more money? I mean, money can do a lot you know and if you have several thousand in the bank, why shouldn't you be able to force-build that workshop like some renaissance jedi?
Last edited:
Wiz does have quite the sense of humor. In any case, bring it on. Not like the player never punks unsuspecting AI nations right off the bat when it is part of the "How to ROFLstomp with Country X" recipe.
Humans can change the game already, I want the game to happen something that resembles history without my intervention 9/10 games
Wiz was not the first person to make this observation on these forums; The Bloke beat him to it.
We have had the exact same discussion on the HoI forum. Imo Paradox has made a great compromise in HoI3. Of course, the most stubborn historians probably left, and the most stupid casuals never even found out how to play the game, not even in Arcade mode, but the rest of us had a good time.
Imo, left to itself, the game should roughly follow history, as far as possible. But if I play, say, Ulm, I really don't want to be an OPM for the rest of the game, just because history says so.
What I am more concerned about is the big changes in gameplay, that come with each patch. I don't care who is responsible for those changes, historians or casuals, but I get angry, when the game I bought and liked suddenly changes to something completely different that I don't like. I like microing, so I don't like Colonial Nations. I like challenges, so I don't mind Coalitions. I always thought vassal feeding was an exploit, so I never used it much - now I hear that it cannot be done at all, which to me is overreacting.
In the old days, I could always go back to an older patch, if I didn't like the new stuff. I could even have two different versions of the game on my HD if I couldn't decide. But after Steam, there is no easy way to go back, if I accidentally update to some new mechanic I don't want.
Paradox is aware of this, so they have provided an easy way to play 1.3.2 - but will this option be available forever?
Imo, left to itself, the game should roughly follow history, as far as possible. But if I play, say, Ulm, I really don't want to be an OPM for the rest of the game, just because history says so.
What I am more concerned about is the big changes in gameplay, that come with each patch. I don't care who is responsible for those changes, historians or casuals, but I get angry, when the game I bought and liked suddenly changes to something completely different that I don't like. I like microing, so I don't like Colonial Nations. I like challenges, so I don't mind Coalitions. I always thought vassal feeding was an exploit, so I never used it much - now I hear that it cannot be done at all, which to me is overreacting.
In the old days, I could always go back to an older patch, if I didn't like the new stuff. I could even have two different versions of the game on my HD if I couldn't decide. But after Steam, there is no easy way to go back, if I accidentally update to some new mechanic I don't want.
Paradox is aware of this, so they have provided an easy way to play 1.3.2 - but will this option be available forever?
There is a discussion of this on every gameforum that has any historical theme
Isn't that the truth. And it has been a regular feature of every version of Europa Universalis since the very first one!
It's comforting to know that some things are always there.
It's comforting to know that some things are always there.
It was not possible for Norway to take over China. Britain didn't even take over China. Some things in our lives just aren't possible. That's just the kind of the game this is. It's historical and reality based. Part of the fun is being made to fail and suffer by the game mechanics, because that's what happens in the real world and not in the play/pretend world of some peoples' imaginations.
I agree with RogerWilko's "what if" line of thought. The game is a starting point, but the destination should be developed along the way as events interact and create change.
Close minded Underhill thinking "No. It wouldn't" is just so unimaginitive.
Close minded Underhill thinking "No. It wouldn't" is just so unimaginitive.
You need to read more history and travel in this life a bit. Norway taking over China was not a possibility. There is absolutely nothing they could have done or would have done to make this a reality. You need to respect this about history and our own world today.
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel while you're at it for some perspective.
Imagination has its real world limits though and that's the joy of historical based games. It's going to keep your wildest imaginations in check. That's what is great about the game. You're going to fail and suffer in it.
The problem with the "what if" is that we're getting wrong answers.
What if Norway had done everything in its power to subjugate China?
Well, i can tell you the answer for that. They would have failed.
If this can be done, we're past "what if" and into the realm of full blown fantasy. Might as well have orcs and magic at that point, the suspension of disbelief is gone.
And it's also worth noting the game IS slightly balanced against you. I've heard complaints there are more bad events than good for example, and now that I'm paying attention I think it's true. But that's okay, because those events give me something to react to. Sometimes it can set me on an entirely different path. And it shows respect for the fact that I'm a human and more creative about how to solve my problems than the AI.
As for the 'Go play Risk' insult I read earlier in this thread, obviously we should be sticking to the complaint and not commenting on each other. That said, there's some validity there. I would say any player who doesn't expect some historical constraints placed on them is really in the wrong forum. Similar complaints came up about the personality system in CK II, and I recall a developer bluntly saying 'tough' or something to that effect.
This game is about doing what we can, with the resources we have, including our hindsight, creativity and (hopefully) superior skill, and despite the fact the game better be trying to throw obstacles in my path.
Incidentally, the game is willing to let you TRY to conquer China as Norway. Here's what you need: Strong enough ships to withstand the voyage (high dip level - no ship built in 1444 could make it), lots of fleet basing agreements (because even in 1820 ships needed replacement masts, cordage, food, water, lime, medicinals), alot of soldiers, and the will to make it happen. (That's your job.) Now why they would do so when it'd be so much easier to focus westward (Exploration Ideas) and hang out on that nice brand new continent, that I couldn't say.
Should the rest of the world (AI vs. AI) play out historically? To some extent. I like my semi-historical worlds as much as the next person, but I most certainly do NOT want the AI sitting on it's butt waiting for me to ROFLstomp it. I've played games like that. It gets old really quickly and kills replayability. I'd rather chance Vijayanagaran China then to be able to look at a map of my game from say...1650, look at a starting map from 1650, and other than what I've done not be able to tell the difference.
tl;dr - The game is fine. Balance is always a work in progress, but I'm happy with where it is and what it's trying to do.
Overreacting to every screenshot of an original and innovative strategy by disabling whatever mechanic made it possible is not the right way to balance a game; that's the core problem of EU4. The game is an arms race between WCers and devs.
EU4 is a sandbox set in a historical framework and as such, it needs to follow an at least remotely historical or historically plausible course.
I too play the game for the 'what if' feeling, and a 'what if' is much more enjoyable when you know that you managed to overcome the constraints that prevented the country you're playing to do as well as it could have done.
In a completely wild sandbox, where is the pleasure of trying to drive an alt-history scenario when anything goes crazy around you and everything is possible ?
That's why EU4 is a better sandbox when it's historically plausible (not necessarily historically accurate).
I too play the game for the 'what if' feeling, and a 'what if' is much more enjoyable when you know that you managed to overcome the constraints that prevented the country you're playing to do as well as it could have done.
In a completely wild sandbox, where is the pleasure of trying to drive an alt-history scenario when anything goes crazy around you and everything is possible ?
That's why EU4 is a better sandbox when it's historically plausible (not necessarily historically accurate).