Root of all Problems of EU4

[Aethelred]

I for one don't care at all about whether a game has "realistic/historical" outcomes. What matters is that it tries to portray the structures and mechanisms that generate outcomes. So, I'm not after "realistic" end-results, as this would be boring indeed. Rather, I'm after "realistic" courses of action, of getting the player to base his actions on realistic considerations/historically relevant factors. Especially I would mention conflicting "interests" or "powers" (as opposed to more or less "ressources").

 

[rebelde]

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.

This. The "grand strategy" of EU4 is all about how to circumvent the stupid constraints on expansion imposed by the game to achieve what I want, rather than what's the best strategy to beat the ai and build a great empire. Every time I see the orthodox ottoman hre screenshots it makes me want to puke, yet I realize that people have no real other options if they want to even attempt a WC and that makes me sad.

People want an historical or historical plausible game, yet most are perfectly fine with things like the absurd and random monarch points system, the entire trade system, the magical loan system, the random new world and how easy and effortless colonization is, shallow republics and republican tradition, and all the other abstractions that aren't even remotely based on reality.

 

[grommile]

This. The "grand strategy" of EU4 is all about how to circumvent the stupid constraints on expansion imposed by the game to achieve what I want, rather than what's the best strategy to beat the ai and build a great empire. Every time I see the orthodox ottoman hre screenshots it makes me want to puke, yet I realize that people have no real other options if they want to even attempt a WC and that makes me sad.

Given that the absolute largest empire ever (the British) didn't reach its peak land area (about 22% of the world) until the 1920s, I think you should have to cheese the game mechanics like mad to get more than 25% of the world's land area simultaneously under your control by 1820.

 

[rebelde]

Given that the absolute largest empire ever (the British) didn't reach its peak land area (about 22% of the world) until the 1920s, I think you should have to cheese the game mechanics like mad to get more than 25% of the world's land area simultaneously under your control by 1820.

The problem is, the difficulties and challenges of building big empires (especially overseas) are not represented in the game, but rather replaced by arbitrary mechanics imposed by the game like overextension and coring cost/time. The game keeps hindering military expansion and conquest while colonization is still a joke despite CoP (focused too much on random new world and too little on features and balance) and you can colonize most of the American continent without hardly ever get an independence revolt or colonial war against other great powers. You can leave 2 regiments in America and seize all AI colonies you can afford because the AI cannot manage to build transports and send troops overseas. AI hates you if you conquer a few provinces but doesn't care if you control half the continent across the Atlantic or in Asia and doesn't form coalitions to try to stop big dangerous blobs like Ottomans, Muscovy/Russia, France or Austria but will destroy that one OPM in the HRE because it conquered its neighbors and now is a 3 province minor. How is that balanced?
So we go back to the argument that war for expansion is the only fun thing to do in the game (and only way to expand for most countries) yet it's also the most punished which doesn't make sense.

 

[Trickrs]

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

You perfectly do that. After every patch someone post a strategy about it.

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

You can do that fine too.

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

Norway have a lot of good colonization NIs, you survive as them too.

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!

And that is ahistorical since the Ottomans blobbed a lot of places.

Also, you can see a lot of pics of the Ottomans blobing from Iberia to the Himallayas.

Those thread kinda make me chill, don't expect the Byzantinnes surving against the Ottomans, England PU'ing France, etc. WITHOUT EXPECTING SOMETHING HARD AND FORCING YOU TO ELABORATE A STRATEGY! It's a Grand Strategy game for Pete's sake, in the two cases I mentionned are hopeless, bot are on the verge of defeat, it's extremely hard to overcome both without thinking outside the machine.

 

[rebelde]

You perfectly do that. After every patch someone post a strategy about it.

The very fact that every patch a new strategy needs to be found for the 100 years war or to survive as Byzantium it's proof that Paradox seems determined to nerf every new strategy that comes out. So what's the point of coming up with a strategy that works if in the next patch it's going to be nerfed just because France and the Ottomans MUST win? That's the point.

 

[EUnderhill]

The very fact that every patch a new strategy needs to be found for the 100 years war or to survive as Byzantium it's proof that Paradox seems determined to nerf every new strategy that comes out. So what's the point of coming up with a strategy that works if in the next patch it's going to be nerfed just because France and the Ottomans MUST win? That's the point.

It like you get a brand-new game without having to pay for one. Extra value ftw!!

 

[Trickrs]

The very fact that every patch a new strategy needs to be found for the 100 years war or to survive as Byzantium it's proof that Paradox seems determined to nerf every new strategy that comes out. So what's the point of coming up with a strategy that works if in the next patch it's going to be nerfed just because France and the Ottomans MUST win? That's the point.

Never saw AI England won against France, can't say for the Player because I never really tried to play as France and I quit the HYW as England in day 1, but I fail to see how more challenge is bad.

For the Ottomans, I pretty much see Byzantium surviving a LOT of times, not necessarily with Constantinople, also, as I said, their situation is hopeless, it needs a lot of work to elaborate a AI to determinate a strategy for the Bizzies to survive, especially because the strategies I saw resolve in a lot of exploits (Vassalize then cancel with Albania to gain a truce and attack Serbia because the dishonor CB).

 

[CyaN]

It like you get a brand-new game without having to pay for one. Extra value ftw!!

Not everyone likes constant, sudden shifts in balance with a deep impact in the way you play the game; that's supposed to happen in beta or with the arrival of a big expansion that heavily alters existing mechanics (as happened in EU3 with new expansions), not just because.

Moving the sofa around every once in a while to free some space can be a good idea, but throwing the furniture out the window and buying new one every month is pretty insane, even if it means "having a brand-new room". People like knowing where their sofa is. It's comforting. And comfortable.

 

[x260bm]

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!

Well this was the major gripe when EU3 first came out. The old EU2 way was pretty most out voted in a land slide after the first year or so. The biggest problem now is everyone seems to think their preferred play style should the only way to play the game and the game should be changed to prevent other people from having fun doing it differently.

 

[Cyridius]

Historical deviation is for me, not for the AI!

And herein lies the problem. Why bother calling the game a "strategy" at all if your opponents are going to be doing the same fixed maneuvers every time to the point of absolute predictability. The AI should not only be trying to outwit you, but outwit eachother. Not keep on trucking unwaveringly through the annals of history destined to repeat the same gameplay over and over.

The most interesting games are the ones where this doesn't happen. Where, say, France gets dismantled into smaller states, or the HRE gets dismantled, or maybe instead of spending the entire game expanding East with colonization, Muscovy/Russia tries to expand further into Europe.

That's not to say I don't like EUIV. I think it's brilliant. I enjoy the gameplay. But it isn't exactly challenging in terms of brain power once you get the hang of the game. I'd be happy with a "Non-Historic Mode" that basically turned off all the AI's historical decisions and just see what happened.

 

[ryu2999]

What I am more concerned about is the big changes in gameplay, that come with each patch.

This is my bugbear with the game and is the reason I still spend most of my time playing EUIII v5.1. Too much change for change sake.

Will give EUIV another good go once it has stabilised a bit more with less patches/expansions.

 

[jii]

Problem is, people expect a historical simulation, when it is actually some sort of simplistic strategy game

 

[HansBaer]

Problem is, people expect a historical simulation, when it is actually some sort of simplistic strategy game

Not "people", but some who like to delight us with their "profound" historic knowledge ("omg! russian soldier were far worse in reality, just look at WW I, don't you guys know anything")and like to hear themselves talk.

 

[bizarcasm]

If this is a simplistic strategy game, what do you call Age of Empires, Civilization, and the the Total War franchise? Can you show me anything that's a BETTER historical simulator than the EU series?

 

[CyaN]

If this is a simplistic strategy game, what do you call Age of Empires, Civilization, and the the Total War franchise? Can you show me anything that's a BETTER historical simulator than the EU series?

Vicky II?

 

[grommile]

Vicky II?

With the PDM (which I don't use), maybe.

Without it? *giggle* Have you seen (a) how quickly you can form Germany, even in HoD (b) how much infamy Germany can dissipate once you've formed it?

 

[HansBaer]

If this is a simplistic strategy game, what do you call Age of Empires, Civilization, and the the Total War franchise? Can you show me anything that's a BETTER historical simulator than the EU series?

Why did anyone ever bring the word simulator up? A simulator is something completely different and mostly completely boring. You can program flight simulators, sword fight simulators, garbage truck simulators, chess simulators and whatnot. Certainly no empire building simulator that stretches over 400 years, battles all included. It's a strategy game that has more emphasis on historic accuracy than most other game, and a good one at that. There are just way to many variables to ever make a simulator about something this complex.
The 3d battles in the tw series are probably closer to a simulation then EU ever was, not that there is something wrong about that. I almost want to strangle a kitten every time i read the words "historic" or "not historic" in someone's argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulator

 

[Chamboozer]

Vicky II?

Yes indeed.

She ain't perfect but she's far more close to reality than EUIV.

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.

Cause the 'historical limitations' aren't really historical. EUIV is easily the least historically 'realistic' game Paradox has made since, well, EUIII. But it is an improvement in that regard. If you want it to deal with real 'historical limitations', the game should be much more about issues of taxation/finance, army organization (standing armies vs. levies vs. noble retinues vs. fief-holders etc.) and internal administration vis-a-vis estates and nobility.

 

[GC13]

Have you seen (a) how quickly you can form Germany, even in HoD (b) how much infamy Germany can dissipate once you've formed it?

Did you seriously just bring up the ease of forming Germany before it happened in the real world as a strike against Victoria 2 in favor of Europa Universalis 4? :blink: