Root of all Problems of EU4

[HlyRomanEmperor]

If you want history go to wikipedia, stop ruining the game for people who want to play a game. OP is 100% correct in his assumptions.

I have supported Paradox since EUI, I have been around for a long time and enjoy the historical plausibility in these games. Who are you to tell me that I am ruining this game? The original games were based on plausibility and it was a huge magnet to history buffs who bought EUI and EUII which allowed there to be an EUIII and IV.

 

[Colossal_Elk]

The way the map is made and how history is set up in 1444, certain European powers are going to be really dominant more often times than not. The "Lucky" nation status is designed so that European powers are going to be really dominant more often than not. You combine the two...and most campaigns feel like "same old same old."

For example: aforementioned Portugal being a power with colonial ideas and cores just outside the Americas, and hostility with Morocco. Of course they're going to expand into Africa and go west and explore, and then colonize. Why wouldn't they? That's what their AI is set up to do from the start too. They can do this all anyway but making Portugal a Lucky nation gives them a crap ton of wealth and additional impetus to colonize, have good allies, stay out of risky wars, and get good rulers. The end result is an interventionist Portugal that, with an alliance with Castille, faces absolutely zero competition in the New World unless the player challenges them, and regularly smacks around other AI countries because of a limitless supply of mercenaries and Castillan support.

The only times Portugal gets wiped out are when the player actively tries to eliminate it.

 

[Trickrs]

Turning off the Lucky Nations helps.

 

[Opus]

The argument that "if you think diplo-annex is OP then just don't do it don't ask paradox to nerf it" is like asking 2 football teams to "not use your hands to carry the ball because its OP". Games exist within a certain set of rules, which is what makes them fun. The most efficient way to get the ball into the other net in football (soccer) is just to pick it up, have the other 10 players surround him in a human wall and run forwards. That would make the game absolutely retarded, however, so arbitrary rules that make the game more difficult, such as you can't use your hands, you can't body-slam tackle, exist to make the game more fun.


The human should also not have to impose on himself house rules, such as no conquering Ming by 1600, much the same way that a football player shouldn't have to impose house rules of 'no carrying the ball' on himself. In practice, even it makes no difference to the outcome of the game, there is a certain psychological disconnect with reality that I'm sure a psychologist will be able to better explain than I do.

While I enjoy both kinds of football, the real kind and the kind where you don't acctually use your feet in any particular way but still call it "football" in a some parts of the world (and a ball is supposed to be round, isn't it?), there still are some house rules surrounding the FIFA-style of the game. Mainly in the transfer-market though (like the webster-ruling that is disregarded by European clubs), but also on the pitch. Fair-play and stuff like that. Put the ball over the sideline when someones injured (it's not a rule, really. The rule is to keep playing until the ref says otherwhise).


Point beeing, since it's hard to create the perfect game, you are doing yourself a favor by using house rules. The game gets better, and more to your liking.

 

[unmerged(465279)]

I have supported Paradox since EUI, I have been around for a long time and enjoy the historical plausibility in these games. Who are you to tell me that I am ruining this game? The original games were based on plausibility and it was a huge magnet to history buffs who bought EUI and EUII which allowed there to be an EUIII and IV.

Because EU3 wasn't like this, EU3 was a fun sandbox experience where you could reshape history and enjoy seeing your world evolve and grow. It didn't have stupid forced events like the Iberian wedding and the Burgundian Inheritance but it was still highly popular.

 

[Opus]

Because EU3 wasn't like this, EU3 was a fun sandbox experience where you could reshape history and enjoy seeing your world evolve and grow. It didn't have stupid forced events like the Iberian wedding and the Burgundian Inheritance but it was still highly popular.

While they do happen often, they are not forced as in "They'll happen every game, no matter the circumstances". They do have triggers that might or might not be fullfilled. And you yourself can try to influence that by RM:s and stuff like that. They do happen more often then not, but in 10 games (in my experice) they happen in maybe 7 or 8 of them.

 

[HlyRomanEmperor]

Because EU3 wasn't like this, EU3 was a fun sandbox experience where you could reshape history and enjoy seeing your world evolve and grow. It didn't have stupid forced events like the Iberian wedding and the Burgundian Inheritance but it was still highly popular.

That does not answer my question who are you to tell me that I am ruining this franchise. Who are you to basically tell me to abandon a franchise i grew up on and supported who are you to tell someone who has been around and bought paradox games during the times of there unstable buggy releases to drop the game and go to Wikipedia. Just who do you think you are?

 

[WeissRaben]

I have supported Paradox since EUI, I have been around for a long time and enjoy the historical plausibility in these games. Who are you to tell me that I am ruining this game? The original games were based on plausibility and it was a huge magnet to history buffs who bought EUI and EUII which allowed there to be an EUIII and IV.

No. I'm sorry, I have played EU2 as well (and FTG), and it was all but plausible. It was interesting to read the events, it was a nice game, but it was NOT plausible. Austria didn't have to inherit Bohemia and Hungary probably in 1526 and surely in 1540, no matter what happened.

 

[Opus]

I have supported Paradox since EUI, I have been around for a long time and enjoy the historical plausibility in these games. Who are you to tell me that I am ruining this game? The original games were based on plausibility and it was a huge magnet to history buffs who bought EUI and EUII which allowed there to be an EUIII and IV.

I might remember this incorrectly, but didn't EUII relied heavy on events that fired no matter the circumstances? It is regarded as the most railroaded game in the series, isn't it? It did not rely on plausibility, but on scripts, really.

 

[Chamboozer]

I don't have a problem with the game going ahistorical. The way I see it, almost every outcome of the game is somewhat plausable, since the start it historical (so if Hungare conquers most of Europan Otto, thats because Otto somehow screwd up big time. And if they had done that, IRL, this outcome would have been possible). Ofc, there are some minor flaws, but nothing big.

The way I see it, almost every outcome of the game is completely implausible. Even if what we see on the map looks like it could have happened in reality, the way it happened in the game is going to be nothing like what would have needed to happen in reality for such a thing to occur. For example, what if the reason the Ottomans lost to Hungary was because the Ottoman fleet was defeated and the Hungarian fleet blocked the strait from Asia to Europe? Well, an attempted blocking of the strait was exactly what happened historically in 1444, the very same year the game begins, and it failed to stop the Ottomans from crossing because cannon positioned on both sides of the strait is just too much for the ships of this era to handle. Yet in the game even a single ship in the Sea of Marmara is going to completely prevent the Ottomans from crossing, 100% of the time.

So Paradox should aim for plausibility because it's one way to improve the atmosphere of the game, but they're never really going to arrive there. Like CyaN said, the atmosphere of EUIV is still a major problem. It just doesn't feel like my state is having to deal with any of the challenges which it would have faced in reality during the Early Modern Era. In Crusader Kings I have to struggle with potentially rebellious vassals. In Victoria I have to struggle with the economic and political changes of the Industrial Revolution. In Europa Universalis I have to struggle with... fighting people.

 

[HlyRomanEmperor]

Like CyaN said, the atmosphere of EUIV is still a major problem. It just doesn't feel like my state is having to deal with any of the challenges which it would have faced in reality during the Early Modern Era.

I can agree with that, at times the game feels empty now, one thing i wish could be recreated is even the tension that England faced with Henry, Mary, Elizabeth were the monarch religion played a big role in the country's stability EU4 seems to not have the ability to handle said turmoil to well and it just feels empty.

 

[checro]

One of the best things about EU4 is the challanges that happen that you didn't anticipate.. When you have to adapt your tactic because your next target allied Russia, or when a Poland and Lithuania chrush the Ottos and you just have to take advantage of that...

If you put everything in scripts, put it in the historical timeline, you take away 3/4 of the fun. Why would anyone want to play a game where you know exactly what will happen more than 1 time???

Also, it overpowers a player vs AI way too much, they would be like sitting ducks... If you want to change the history and make your country greater than it was, Y U not let AI try it too???



Oposed to that, I would like that turning historical nations on random would turn to random the historical events too. I like the events, i want more of them, but sometimes I would like to see what happened to Burgondy happen to Austria Because it could have

 

[Opus]

The way I see it, almost every outcome of the game is completely implausible. Even if what we see on the map looks like it could have happened in reality, the way it happened in the game is going to be nothing like what would have needed to happen in reality for such a thing to occur. For example, what if the reason the Ottomans lost to Hungary was because the Ottoman fleet was defeated and the Hungarian fleet blocked the strait from Asia to Europe? Well, an attempted blocking of the strait was exactly what happened historically in 1444, the very same year the game begins, and it failed to stop the Ottomans from crossing because cannon positioned on both sides of the strait is just too much for the ships of this era to handle. Yet in the game even a single ship in the Sea of Marmara is going to completely prevent the Ottomans from crossing, 100% of the time.

So Paradox should aim for plausibility because it's one way to improve the atmosphere of the game, but they're never really going to arrive there. Like CyaN said, the atmosphere of EUIV is still a major problem. It just doesn't feel like my state is having to deal with any of the challenges which it would have faced in reality during the Early Modern Era.

Yeah, sure. That is a flaw that is bigger then "not big". I do agree with that. The game does not modell Land to Sea-combat at all. Nobody is trying to shoot the ships that blockades you ever, and that is a bit strange. There should be some atriation connected to blockading.

So maybe that was a bad example. The point, however, is that the AI does react on stuff that happens. Things in the game don't happen without reason (even though it might seem like that sometimes), so there are plausibility in almost everything.

Then ofc, if you staple enough "then what if..." upon each other, you might wind up in a totaly unrecognicable world. But that doesn't happen to often in the game.

 

[Seelmeister]

If you disagree with someone, you will do it respectfully and without resorting to petty insults. Everyone should feel comfortable expressing their opinions on these forums, provided they abide by the forum rules.

Deleted insulting posts.

 

[GC13]

It´s a problem with EU 3 as well and by extension, of the philosophy of the series, I´m afraid.

That is, unfortunately, the reason I said "EU" and not "EU4". :sad:

 

[Colossal_Elk]

Turning off the Lucky Nations helps.

Never tried it before; does it make regular nations more ambitious?

In my Scotland campaign right now, France just got invaded by a Portuguese army of 80k men. Note that almost all of these are mercenaries.

 

[loveslater]

I stand by my original post. I read all the comments. The opposition has not provided a compelling argument to disprove my theory.

Do you yield , sirs?

 

[grommile]

I stand by my original post. I read all the comments. The opposition has not provided a compelling argument to disprove my theory.

You made the initial claim. You haven't made a conclusive and compelling defence of it.

Do you yield , sirs?

I will agree to differ, but I will not yield.

 

[GC13]

I stand by my original post. I read all the comments. The opposition has not provided a compelling argument to disprove my theory.

Why argue to defend a position that no one holds? The complaints aren't about ahistorical outcomes, they're about ahistorical rules governing the gameplay. You might as well add nuclear weapons to EU, considering how poorly it models the challenges a nation would have faced in the covered era.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Why argue to defend a position that no one holds? The complaints aren't about ahistorical outcomes, they're about ahistorical rules governing the gameplay.

This. Unfortunately OP and many others can't seem to tell the difference.