I've played most of recent paradox games (CK2 a lot, Victoria 2, EU3 a lot, EU2 etc...) and I was happy to see EUIV, was wondering about pre-ordering it and decided to try the demo.
And there's many things I really don't like and actually makes me want to play the OTHER games and not EUIV. Let's start:
> The new tech system. It seems "nice" to let you choose between techs and ideas, with points being used for many, many, many others things (especially adm points) and having a good tech means sacrifices... except the result is somehow stupid. A "trade" or "colonist" nation will have the worse boat because they need to spend their diplomatic points into ideas. Military nations will have the worse troops but strangely good boats and good adm... etc. This make no senses.
> Rulers are completly unbalanced. You can do NOTHING to act on their stats but they are more important than anything else in the game. This is only luck. If you get a 5 - 5 - 6 rulers you will turn into a powerful nations, you have a 0 - 1 - 0, you will have to wait DECADES before doing something. Advisors can only give you +3. Rulers should be less important OR the player should have some way to impact on them.
> Same thing with events. They're not related AT all with your way to play the game. At least in CK2, events could be deal differently according to your ruler your carefuly builded during the game, in EUIV you're just a spectator of random things affecting your nation. You can have a "good administration" spawning of nowhere and suddenly a "bad administration". Yeah for logic !
> Population. Sorry but it's stupid to see some random town in Africa or some half-baked colony having exactly the same stats as an european cities. Yes there's a base income but the difference isn't really clear. Maybe it's unfair but the reality is: Some cities like Paris or London should be more powerful than entire unpopulated empire. It's especialy stupid for colonies because as soon as they reach 1000 colons, they are now fully grown, case closed... They also automaticaly convert local populations and impose culture. The problem is: you can have a "Brazil empire" in 1550 being more powerful than most european countries...
> Talking about culture, you really think you can change a culture in 40 months ? Seriously ? Even with modern medias and massive propaganda you couldn't convince a french guy he's german or something. I heard some talking about "aristocratic culture" then if it's the case, it's REALLY not accurate (and it sounds like an excuse). No, culture shouldn't be that easy to change, on the contrary it should be the more "set in stone" thing, really hard to change like in CK2.
> Talking about set in stone, why trade nodes can't evolve ? Why Bordeaux will ALWAYS be the trade center for France for 400 years and why some hispanic cities will ALWAYS have to be include in this node ? It's really cheap from Paradox to not have included the EU3 system, way more dynamic, probably to sell it to us again in a future DLC.
> And that's my last point (but i'm sure we can find many others), the DLC. I've been a good consumer with CK2 and bought most of the DLC but now i'm just tired. It's too expensive, it's too much for too little and it gives you the impression you're gonna buy an unfinished game (and unfinished on purpose) just so the devs can do extra bucks. It shouldn't work like that. They want more money ? They do a better game and sell more copies, they don't milk the few loyals gamer they have until, like me, they quit.
And there's many things I really don't like and actually makes me want to play the OTHER games and not EUIV. Let's start:
> The new tech system. It seems "nice" to let you choose between techs and ideas, with points being used for many, many, many others things (especially adm points) and having a good tech means sacrifices... except the result is somehow stupid. A "trade" or "colonist" nation will have the worse boat because they need to spend their diplomatic points into ideas. Military nations will have the worse troops but strangely good boats and good adm... etc. This make no senses.
> Rulers are completly unbalanced. You can do NOTHING to act on their stats but they are more important than anything else in the game. This is only luck. If you get a 5 - 5 - 6 rulers you will turn into a powerful nations, you have a 0 - 1 - 0, you will have to wait DECADES before doing something. Advisors can only give you +3. Rulers should be less important OR the player should have some way to impact on them.
> Same thing with events. They're not related AT all with your way to play the game. At least in CK2, events could be deal differently according to your ruler your carefuly builded during the game, in EUIV you're just a spectator of random things affecting your nation. You can have a "good administration" spawning of nowhere and suddenly a "bad administration". Yeah for logic !
> Population. Sorry but it's stupid to see some random town in Africa or some half-baked colony having exactly the same stats as an european cities. Yes there's a base income but the difference isn't really clear. Maybe it's unfair but the reality is: Some cities like Paris or London should be more powerful than entire unpopulated empire. It's especialy stupid for colonies because as soon as they reach 1000 colons, they are now fully grown, case closed... They also automaticaly convert local populations and impose culture. The problem is: you can have a "Brazil empire" in 1550 being more powerful than most european countries...
> Talking about culture, you really think you can change a culture in 40 months ? Seriously ? Even with modern medias and massive propaganda you couldn't convince a french guy he's german or something. I heard some talking about "aristocratic culture" then if it's the case, it's REALLY not accurate (and it sounds like an excuse). No, culture shouldn't be that easy to change, on the contrary it should be the more "set in stone" thing, really hard to change like in CK2.
> Talking about set in stone, why trade nodes can't evolve ? Why Bordeaux will ALWAYS be the trade center for France for 400 years and why some hispanic cities will ALWAYS have to be include in this node ? It's really cheap from Paradox to not have included the EU3 system, way more dynamic, probably to sell it to us again in a future DLC.
> And that's my last point (but i'm sure we can find many others), the DLC. I've been a good consumer with CK2 and bought most of the DLC but now i'm just tired. It's too expensive, it's too much for too little and it gives you the impression you're gonna buy an unfinished game (and unfinished on purpose) just so the devs can do extra bucks. It shouldn't work like that. They want more money ? They do a better game and sell more copies, they don't milk the few loyals gamer they have until, like me, they quit.
