step back and look at why what you said is wrong
heard it here first folks, only nations in the europe region should be playable
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.
step back and look at why what you said is wrong
heard it here first folks, only nations in the europe region should be playable
If names of Paradox games are anything to go by, EU should be about Europe as much as CK is about crusades.
Crusader Kings, AKA Christian Kings during the middle ages.
And yes, CK2 has the most content as a christian king as EU4 has the most content in Europe.
You should only be allowed to play UK during the reign of Queen Victoria...
I'd rather see Southeast Asia get some love, seeing as how it's literally the only place in the world without any special mechanics whatsoever.
I did not say that. But with the scope of this game, and with the focus of this game and every other EU before it being on Europe, then they should continue to be the most worked on. The game is simply too large to make it equal across the board.
No, but there is a reason they have made games other than EUIV for the different time periods. Perhaps they should just merge them all into one massive game? There would be little depth and it would be wonky, but at least all time periods would be playable.
Well, I barely played it because I did not like it. But I do remember being disappointed that I could not play as some tiny Norwegian kingdoms because of their pagan religion. Perhaps that was later changed?
So, because Europe started off as (by far) the most-developed region on the release of Europa Universalis IV, Europe should continue to be the biggest developer priority? I'm not sure I really follow the logic there...
I... really don't think it's the only region without any special mechanics. West Africa comes first to mind.
The only places left with no signifact own events or mechanics which I really would like to see make more interesting are West Africa and SE Asia.
Yep, yet again the underlying root problem in EUIV right now.
Too easy to get big, too easy to stay big.
Even with isolated minor start countries.
To be completely honest, as much as I like EUIV, they probably should have ended the EU series for now after EU III and instead focused on a completely new region during the same time period. And instead had AU I or whatever. I did not play EU III much because I was in the military at the time and had little free time. But I seem to remember the game being more complex as a whole than EUIV (I miss the sliders from EU II and EU III). So like I said, perhaps it was time to end the EU series and move on to something else?
Last edited:
Well put! The thing is that you always know what is happening in any part of the world in-game, and in reality rulers only knew about events weeks or months after they happened. Let's say you're the french king in the XV century, and you're invaded by Aragon through the Pirineos. It would take some days for you to know about it. Same about any revolt that went about somewhere.
By 1444, Europe was already miles ahead in lots of areas, most noticeably naval. Throughout this period Europeans made most of the advancements and only spread to other continents later. By 1444 Europe was already on course to dominate because pretty much every other place near as advanced had numerous things in the way of them doing what Europeans did(like China).
I'd be willing to bet that a 15th-century Ming junk was a superior ship to a 15th-century Portuguese carrack. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Furthermore, one region of the world has, by 1444, had moveable-type metal printing presses for about 200 years. That region of the world is Korea, not Europe.
The 1444 bookmark starts the day after a coalition of Eastern Europe have just had the living crap beaten out of them by the Ottomans, and it took until the late 17th century for the Ottomans to be decisively beaten on land by a Western European power.
I can't respond to this because, without wishing to be rude, I genuinely don't understand what it means from "near as advanced" onwards.
Ahead of whom? Certainly more advanced than, say, the Cherokee. Not so much China. Zheng He anyone?
What advancements? Certainly not the Chinese crossbow, the Chinese gunpowder, Chinese artillery... Europe actually didn't develop a lot of the technologies that it made famous - it merely adapted them in an environment that was really conducive to innovation whereas many of the other areas had cultural reasons why technological innovation could not radically change life/war/etc. This is not to say that the Europeans were not advanced relative to many areas (all of the New World, the Steppes, most of Africa), but they were not the progenitors of much of what most laymen think they were.
Now this statement I agree with.
I wouldn't be that sure. Most of Europe wasn't on course, but they were dragged in it by the need to float compared to those who were. You don't need the whole of Asia to start on course: keep Japan from straying, and I can hardly see innovations not starting there as well.
As people have already said, European technology during the 15th century is vastly overrated. European ships didn't even have proper bulkheads until the 19th century.
Last edited: