So EU4 devs, will you return to the European Great Powers?
- Thread starter richelieu1628
- Start date
-
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.
I would love to see diplomacy aspects of the game enhanced. Forging historical friendships and rivalries through long time alliances and wars.. thru not just picking a country tag in the diplomacy tab. Give players more control over diplomacy.
I assure you that if the mechanics were both meaningful and interesting instead of just 'you get more rebels' or 'you get less tax/manpower/whatever', or alternatively 'you generate a magical wall whose only purpose of existing is to force you to sit on your hands for a relatively large portion of game time', then we would not mind.
However, I am not sure I trust Paradox to implement such mechanics this late into EU4's development in a way that satisfies both the 'meaningful' and 'interesting' requirements. We'd be much more likely to just get ham restrictions.
This late? The later, the more experience they have with the game and the more likely they are to get it right, IMO.
Didn't mean to imply all who consider themselves "map painters" would be opposed to reasonable mechanics, but some tend to have a knee jerk reaction to anything that slows down WC speed.
Not sure how this works atm, but one way would be to calculate coalition entry decisions not just on the basis of AE but also on proximity and the absolute size of a country, so that for instance if France is unified, Spain, GB & Austria are much more likely to join coalitions against France. Obviously this is very easy to get wrong, but it's true that right now, coalitions are basically a tool for infanticide. They can snuff you out when you're 1-8 provinces old, but after that, much less, and beyond 21, whatever.
I think the european continent is where is more interesting to play. So, i think Pdx should focus elsewhere in the world to make RotW just as interesting. Given that El Dorado focused in the new world, i think next should be Asia or Africa. Europe is fine just as it is.
I thought of this too but you would have to change the rules quite significantly. What would you do? Change how wars are declared? Instead of CB's you could make them match some sort of historical rules or events? That's the biggest thing I can think of. Out of these periods the game or 'time per day' would be extremely quick but during times of war the game would slow right down to as slow if not slower than the 'time per day' pace is now. So rather than having, 'Australian Conquest of whatever's on the barbie today' you would have actual war titles, differences in how war leaders work, how war score works and how peace deals are worked out in terms of land. It would be insanely complicated to pull off though but this just might help.
Obviously this is out of the question for standard mode, but as an alternative it could be very interesting and good way to make those nations more fun to play rather than 'instawin'.
Indeed. I am a map painter, however I understand your position. Thing is though the same 'game' with the same rules is not going to appease both camps, which is ultimately after some 'investigation' is what has come up with the 'true' reason some people want more features in Europe, the age old argument between 'painting the map and playing a strategy game' versus 'playing a historical simulation/strategy with major consequences for unjustified aggressive actions'. I could see myself enjoying the other style if it was done well.
Also coalitions don't really stop blobs in military terms, they stop them with artificial walls and are only a military threat for 'middle' powers rather than huge ones, by the time you are a huge power people are less likely to join the coalition I find. I've got some 500 AE with some nations and they are not in the coalition even though we do not have a truce. However that's another argument.
Bavaria sounds the most entertaining of the three, because I hate playing with a large tech penalty and starting the game as one of the secular electors tends to oversimplify the imperial game (also because as the Palatinate, La Blobbe is a little too close for comfort).
Rotw bros tend to forget that if they are playing constantly rotw is because they find it funnier (for various reasons) than europe. Europe right now is really funny only as sweden, the greatpower that apparently in eu4 will never fall back to regional againyeah haters gonna hate but if any tag was polished like sweden we would not be speaking at all, 7 btx for 10k souls, -0,05 autonomy, gustavus reforms "till the end of the campaign": the only end of the campaign modifier for naples is one that nerfs capital by 25% = so fun to play.
Fun is subjective, some people like just watching the world develop around them for instance and that's totally know. Furthermore I'll have you know I played Palatinate into Westphalia not that long ago
. RotW bros simply stands up for the nations outside of Europe since there are so many people who overwhelmingly favour them and a few in that group who do not understand the plight of nations belonging to the RotW believing that seeing the AI tells them everything. Incidentally though, yeah, Oh MAN.... does win out of your three picks, primarily because the other two are bogged in HRE nonsense. Sure as Palatinate you can become Emperor fairly easily and once you do force the Burgundian Inheritance REALLY hard but it can be tedious.
The tech penalty isn't that bad, not as Muslim, Indian or Chinese, it's a disadvantage sure, but there are benefits to being surrounded by people who are also disadvantaged in this way. You can stay up to date in military fairly easily until westernization and swallow those around you who are behind much more easily, you just have to pick your priorities better than just wanting everything and accept you might not tech in some areas for a while, it's not a big deal. In some patches it was actually advantageous not to Westernize at all.
Fun is subjective, some people like just watching the world develop around them for instance and that's totally know. Furthermore I'll have you know I played Palatinate into Westphalia not that long ago
Incidentally though, yeah, Oh MAN.... does win out of your three picks, primarily because the other two are bogged in HRE nonsense. Sure as Palatinate you can become Emperor fairly easily and once you do force the Burgundian Inheritance REALLY hard but it can be tedious.
The tech penalty isn't that bad, not as Muslim, Indian or Chinese, it's a disadvantage sure, but there are benefits to being surrounded by people who are also disadvantaged in this way. You can stay up to date in military fairly easily until westernization and swallow those around you who are behind much more easily, you just have to pick your priorities better than just wanting everything and accept you might not tech in some areas for a while, it's not a big deal. In some patches it was actually advantageous not to Westernize at all.
Thanks for helping me to state the obvious, yeah oman wins because those two are bogged in hre nonsense. HRE = right in the middle of europe as you know, makes up for 1/5 of it and maybe there are inside 3/4 of the playable tags in europe, so you agree on me that hre is boring, nothing special, and every nation inside (which is not a MR) has practically the same objective to become the emperor or be forsaken ?!? Isn't it weird that an ibadi nation (with all due respect to awesome oman) has way more fun factor than a nation in the "fun" "full of flavor" "feature-full" and "op" europe? I'm always favorable to make ROTW more entertaining but if it's gonna make the whole europe lag behind in development and balance, then that's a no for me. Europe right now is funny just thanks to its own history and presence of several nations and religions, and not because of gameplay. So yeah i would totally prefer hre to be reworked over western africa or india? Right now they're on par with hre, tons of provinces with nothing to do, so let's start develop the most used continent, please?
@grommille pardon me but you've not played at all with oman then? Could rotw guys stop comparing their tech to europeans and start comparing their tech with neighbours? Oman has better tech than most of tags surrounding him, way better ideas than palatinate and ofc maybe a more fun objective than become hre emperor or die? Also prolly has more DHes than bavaria + palatinate
Last edited:
Bavaria has more missions and events. Palatinate has none, though. Really, there ought to be at least a small set of German minor events that would fire randomly for some, based on conditions.
I kind of enjoy the HRE nonsense.
Indeed not. I've never found the concept particularly appealing. (I think I played them once in EU3 DW, but that's irrelevant to discussing them in EU4.)
Only because the AI is approximately as bad at monarch power management as it is at everything else.
Looking at the game files, it appears that both PAL and BAV have NIs that directly relate to the parts of EU4's gameplay I like engaging with. OMA's NIs directly relate to the parts of EU4's gameplay I don't like engaging with in any significant way.
As a horde I could keep up with mil tech by filtering rulers. Otherwise in those tech groups you are more at the mercy of the RNG. If you hit a couple awful rulers in a row it's much more crippling than the same experience in Europe. I would love to play as a ROTW republic but unfortunately rushing the ideas required to flip would require the monarch point specialization ability that was the whole reason I wanted the republic...
@grommile
Ok you don't like MR and trade steering (personal choice) but you are putting the discussion somewhere else when i meant that HRE which is one of the main features in europe (the topic) is the same thing since eu3 and it makes a sense if you want to rule it but if you want to be something else then it's boredom and even worse: it's just a big defeat because since AI sucks you HAVE to become emperor to make the empire resist against france (austria 99% of the times will lose, let's just admit it), since france is naturally stronger for this game. Revamping germany and italy could help, making a real balance checker and not random coalitions which form against the first guy who gets negative relations cause of AE would help, stopping the emperor to cannibalize his own strenght would help too..
And if i make a comparison i mean it AI vs AI or human vs human not for sure human vs ai.. oman has better tech and it's not because of ai, it just has better tech. It's a muslim tag in front of an indian subcontinent and 2 sea lanes distant from subsaharian africa. lol, anyways it's an useless debate over oman, mine was just an example to put a mid tier muslim country compared to a mid tier country in europe, and right now ROTE (rest of europe, all europe except historical great powers) is polished pretty the same as ROTW. Rotw isn't fun enough ? Well europe right now has the same immersion (except great powers i repeat), only with the tiny problem that if you're a german tag or an italian tag you've to prey RNG gods if you want to do something else than becoming the emperor of hre and thereby europe and thereby the real balance checker.
Ok you don't like MR and trade steering (personal choice) but you are putting the discussion somewhere else when i meant that HRE which is one of the main features in europe (the topic) is the same thing since eu3 and it makes a sense if you want to rule it but if you want to be something else then it's boredom and even worse: it's just a big defeat because since AI sucks you HAVE to become emperor to make the empire resist against france (austria 99% of the times will lose, let's just admit it), since france is naturally stronger for this game. Revamping germany and italy could help, making a real balance checker and not random coalitions which form against the first guy who gets negative relations cause of AE would help, stopping the emperor to cannibalize his own strenght would help too..
And if i make a comparison i mean it AI vs AI or human vs human not for sure human vs ai.. oman has better tech and it's not because of ai, it just has better tech. It's a muslim tag in front of an indian subcontinent and 2 sea lanes distant from subsaharian africa. lol, anyways it's an useless debate over oman, mine was just an example to put a mid tier muslim country compared to a mid tier country in europe, and right now ROTE (rest of europe, all europe except historical great powers) is polished pretty the same as ROTW. Rotw isn't fun enough ? Well europe right now has the same immersion (except great powers i repeat), only with the tiny problem that if you're a german tag or an italian tag you've to prey RNG gods if you want to do something else than becoming the emperor of hre and thereby europe and thereby the real balance checker.
Tbh, out of the terrible tech groups (native Americans), it's very possible to stay current in mil tech. Not current for your tech group, but compared to westerners. Just pick early aristo, and then, focus on mil if you don't have a good mil ruler. Avoid mil ideas, favor mil advisors and you'll be ahead of anyone in your tech group. Better mil tech will more than make up for lack of mil ideas.
Yeah, this is true but monarchies are the friggin devil for this reason. Still I tend to find even with a 2 in military you won't fall behind if you focus and don't take any military ideas. I agree though the idea and province restrictions on being a republic is nonsense, though really people wouldn't be so eager to be a republic if monarchies themselves weren't subject to luck screws.
Sure I agree, but a lot of people, especially those in favour for content for Europe do not. Some people do indeed enjoy the restrictions of the HRE. That's more what I was getting at.
How is that racist he just said that he like Europe more than the rest of th world?Is he not allowed to like Europe?I like Europe and Asia more than the rest of the world does that make me racist too?
Btw the definition of racism:a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
1. They were joking. Hence all the 1s and exclamation marks as if acting like a little child with a keyboard.
2. They stated that they thought European history was much more interesting than Asia and Africas, even though they don't really know about the history of either and that no matter how much flavour was added to Africa/Asia they would never play there.
Obviously they didn't mean any racist comments or any offence and they established that English wasn't their first language but it was quite an odd way to put it and thus it could be interpreted to believing Europeans are superior to others, I state again, I know that's not what they meant
. Honestly, this game in general does this 'Europe superiority thing' and I'm not gunna lie, it annoys me a little. The advantage Europe has over RotW is a bit too much IMO. Slaughtering men at 5 to 1 odds with minimal losses CONSISTANTLY I just can't swallow that.