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.
....you're kidding me. Your point about it balancing out isn't a point at all. You're arguing:
'Well, if he had more men, he could have still done it! The Incans should still fall regularly because reasons! Err....the superiority of European arms'
Wrong.
Cajamarca was a rout. The army destroyed. The chain of command gone. The Spaniards made a thousand promises to conquered natives and from there stormed Cuzco. Ingame, that's no army in existence, no morale(death of the God-Emperor), and rebels friendly to Spain popping up everywhere. And by the time they got a semblance of an army formed at Ollantaytambo, something crazy started to happen, shocking even. The natives didn't roll over!
It took the Spanish forty years with all of their good luck, not to mention actual thousands of men in reinforcements over this timespan, to conquer what is now Peru. Or in other words....your argument about numbers means all of nothing. The Inca Empire shouldn't be falling on the regular. Not to mention that the Spanish shouldn't be able to ship 15,000 men in 1530 or even 1600 to conquer the Inca. And that's a positive estimate, as I usually see 40k+ invading in the 1540s, and Portugal joining in because why not. Now, let's put this in context. The largest armies actually numbering anywhere close to this were in the American Revolutionary War. Before this, no colony could have possibly fed so many men or mobilized this many troops. And we're talking agrarian colonies too; Peru was a land to be mined, not farmed. And finally, Pizarro? They thought he was coming to vassalize himself to the Sapa Inca. If he came with an army, do you know what would have met his army, instead of thousand of unarmed men? An actual army. One that as demonstrated above, was not going to roll over even in the face of European firearms.
It's clear you don't seem to comprehend what I'm trying to tell you. And why so many other posters have given up on trying to explain this to you. As well as why you seem intent on insulting several others by questioning their English skills instead of thinking, 'Why is everybody piling on me? Is it something I said?'.
EDIT: Holy hell, that quote. This explains everything. You think Europeans had the superior ships in 1444 and were destined to dominate the world at this stage? Let me introduce you to a state called Ming China. Many other areas? Please elaborate. But I'm not taking your opinion on the conquest of the Inca seriously anymore.
I don't agree. I play EU for the european theatre, not the nations caught in pre-historical settings.
What's pre-historical? I've actually never heard of this term before.
The number of people in this thread spewing utterly false facts about european supremacy in the 1400s thread is mind boggling.
As it stands, I don't see EU4 as a historical game. France and England start off at war when they were in a state of truce, Muscovy controls far more land than it actually did in this period, hordes are hilariously weak, colonial powers can ship tens of thousands of men across the ocean to take over the mesoamerican empires, and China/India may as well be loot pinatas since they start off a whole tech behind and have a huge malus.
Still manage to have fun with it though.
As it stands, I don't see EU4 as a historical game. France and England start off at war when they were in a state of truce, Muscovy controls far more land than it actually did in this period, hordes are hilariously weak, colonial powers can ship tens of thousands of men across the ocean to take over the mesoamerican empires, and China/India may as well be loot pinatas since they start off a whole tech behind and have a huge malus.
Still manage to have fun with it though.
What pre-historical settings are you talking about? Even aboriginals recorded history with items like totem poles and passed down oral history.
He is obviously trolling, implying that non-europeans are like neanderthals. A close match with the 'historical experts' who think that the west was technologically superior to the far east in 1444
I never said pre-historical settings. That was another guy. I was just telling someone what the term means.
Last edited:
Indeed. imo CK2 suffers from that even more than EU4, because you can get over the initial hump a lot quicker.
I would really love to see a DLC focusing on East Asia, but I also would really love to see a DLC that revamps the way the HRE is handled, and also a DLC that focuses on Italy or (Non-Byzantine) Balkans.
Italy needs an overhaul TBH. There has been very little attention to flavour, especially compared to cultural/event flavour of neighbors in Iberia, Gaul, and the HRE.
Some of these things are fair points. Personally, I think that the French and English should start off in a state of truce. It worked better that way in EUIII because the English player had time to prepare for the inevitable return to hostilities if they wanted to contend over the French territories and throne. In my opinion, you should start off with a claim to the French Throne and should have time to sign alliances and prepare for the fight. That would give you a little more control vs. just dumping you in the middle of a massive fight you are not prepared for. As for the Hordes, their time is long since passed by this point. The Timurids are beginning their long decline as are the Golden Horde and all of the other Hordes were also nowhere near capable of challenging the settled peoples. The only exception was Manchuria and they really only became powerful after they united and conquered Mongolia. Even then, they were only able to conquer China because the Ming Dynasty collapsed to revolt and a traitor let them through the Great Wall. Those are circumstances that are very hard to replicate in game. China and maybe India should start off ahead of the Europeans, but with lowered tech so they gradually fall behind, like they did historically. And I would really appreciate their being something mechanic in place stopping European powers from being able to send too large of forces to the America's until they get firmly established enough. Maybe something like you only being able to send as many troops as you have territories in the Americas or something else representing the difficulties of supplying such a large army overseas so that initially, you can't send that many men but as you gain more territory, you can start supplying them from the territory you already control and thus after you get established, the limiter to your troops starts to diminish and/or go away completely
History starts with the technology of writing, hence recorded history. Prehistorical means related to Prehistory = tribes or people that hadn't discovered writing. i never wrote or implied neanderthal.
Implying that there are only Europeans and nations without writing system in the game.
News to most of Asia, large parts of Africa (=anywhere with significant Muslim presence) and even Mesoamerica (Mayan glyphs, etc). Even arguably news to the Incas, depending how you consider their quipu system (not technically writing, but an interesting record-keeping system nonetheless).
So essentially, news to everyone outside North America.
Yeah, don't really get why this thread has arguments about Europe, the core of it is, essentially, a "more internal mechanics" request, which should benefit the Mughals as well as France, only limited to European majors for some reason. I don't really know how to add more internal mechanics to EU, though. The internal squabbles of paradoxplaza forums can be more amusing than the game itself.
So the not-European nations are pre-historical?
Either you don't read your own posts, or....bruh pls :rofl:
If you choose to ignore the rest of the world, that's your prerogative, don't try to screw it for the rest of us.
I think you guys see too much in what I wrote. I know China, Japan, the Maghreb, Mayans, Persia, India all had the knowledge of writing. I think historians and archeologist see too much into the quipu although it can be considered a primitive form of recording data. Anyhow. I do consider Western Europe as the most advanced civilization in the world starting in the 16th Century although it certainly lagged behind under certain considerations (hygiene, child treatment, etc.) I have an history master's degree which I got in 2013, and for hanging around the university post graduate crowd for half a decade I can safely say that Occidental self deprecation has pretty much been the thing in the last 40 years so my opinion might not be very popular.
I think Europe's theatre needs more attention from the developers than the rest of the world. The last DLC have all been about the Americas and Far East Asia. Actually, I know what I want. I want an overhaul of the naval battle system where the nation that has the most ships in a stack will always win a battle. See how that worked in the Franco-Dutch War of the second half of the 17th Century. The Franco-English fleet was overwhelming the Dutch one, still De Ruyter was able to thwart that threat with skillful maneuvering and a defensive stance. Naval battles should be a seasonal thing as they were in those times and they shouldn't result in total destruction. Ship capturing and destruction was not the norm in those days (if you consider the number of ships implicated in a battle versus what was left after a battle).
Last edited:
I believe the most important part of Europe that needs attentions is Italy: Needs little more provinces (just a few) to recreate the Italian Wars. Then could probably be the balkans (Serbia-Bosnia-Croatia Region), Scandinavia? (a more balance Denmark - Norway against the all powerful Sweden/Finland) and finally the British Isles (need to counter England with a more balance Scotland/Ireland).