The big 8 - and the lesser 8

[ANO1453]

Where it was said all lots-of-love nations (big 8) will be European?

 

[Evie HJ]

And again, I'm well aware that it's a design priority system, not a game one. Amazingly enough, I can read, and I don't appreciate being patronized by someone who think I'm an idiot.

And again, the only thing that needs done with the Ming is stop them from expanding all over the place. Beyond that, their behavior is NOT important to Europe.

I really expect Tier II (Important, but not fundamental), even perhaps III (not essential) to be far more likely than tier I (the fundamental nations around which Europa IV is centered). Any of these four is infinitely more likely than Tier IV (Nation that doesn't matter).

My reading is:

Tier I - the Fundamental nations. The ones that the game is all about in the mind of the developers. I expect "This is EUROPA" to be in full force here.
Tier II - The Very Important nations. Really important actors, but not the fundamental parts of the game
Tier III - The Non-Essential nations. I'm expecting nations that are really cool, well-loved by fans (and so getting attention), but not fundamental to what the game is about.
Tier IV - a plethora of minors, unknowns and the like.

For Ming, I think Tier II is most likely, followed by Tier III (far less likely), then Tier I (even less likely) and finally Tier IV (near-impossible).

For (for example) Japan, I expect Tier III. Poland is probably Tier II.

ANO1453 - it was not said. That's my expectation based on Johan's oft-repeated "It's EUROPA Universalis" quote.

 

[BrunoDerKaiser]

Portugal?? If a comet struck Portugal in 1492 and wiped out all its population, what, pray tell, would be the loss for history as we know it?? Someone else would settle Brazil, and someone else would discover the Spice islands. What of it. Neither of those two places had much of an influence on anything that happened *IN* Europe in the 16th or 17th century.

Portugal really needs to be kicked from this big 8 list whatever it may be.

The EU games make Portugal always into this mythical uber-grandfather of European destiny, and their explorations are meticulously reproduced in the game at quite a large effort - dozens if not hundreds of decisions, unique personalities, events are scripted in to make them do stuff. Yet when you objectively look at it in the EU games (EU2/EU3) and how a typical campaign evolves, ACTUALLY you see that the historical performance of Portugal is of total unimportance. The Dutch never actually end up anywhere near the spice islands, Brazil is a total backwater, and Portugal itself goes on the whackiest sort of overpowered conquests in the mediterranean. EU3 would arguably evolve in a more historical way if Portugal was replaced by empty sea provinces. I propose just that solution to EU4 because obviously as EU3 has shown the game would be all the better for it.

Ofcourse , Portugal is just a small shadow in the big sun of history. Ofcourse their explorations were futile to the expansion and glory of european civilization during the time period of the game.

If the portuguese hadn't sailed around africa the path to asia would still be blocked by muslims. Without the trade with asia europe would remain as it was and much of the technological advances seen coming from asia would never have reached europe so early as they did.

Portugal must be on the top 8 for its historical importance to exploration and trade, as those two elements , as you may remember , are the part of the top 3 elements of Europa Universalis IV , Warfare , Trade and Exploration , which also led to the rise of europe to the global stage.
Brazil isn't a total backwater since pretty much 1808 and we're the 6th Economy of the world , so you better learn to respect us. As you may be trolling i won't say much more. Anyway thankyou for your time.

 

[ajm317]

And again, I'm well aware that it's a design priority system, not a game one. Amazingly enough, I can read, and I don't appreciate being patronized by someone who think I'm an idiot.

And again, the only thing that needs done with the Ming is stop them from expanding all over the place. Beyond that, their behavior is NOT important to Europe.

I really expect Tier II (Important, but not fundamental), even perhaps III (not essential) to be far more likely than tier I (the fundamental nations around which Europa IV is centered). Any of these four is infinitely more likely than Tier IV (Nation that doesn't matter).

ANO1453 - it was not said. That's my expectation based on Johan's oft-repeated "It's EUROPA Universalis" quote.

I certainly don't think you're an idiot. There is no need to be so hostile.

You say that "the only thing that needs done with the Ming is stop them from expanding all over the place", but that's actually a pretty big thing unless you script their AI, which is a direction Paradox doesn't prefer to go in general. I don't see why it's any less a big deal than "Portugal needs to colonize stuff". It's also important that Ming doesn't completely collapse (except possibly in the historical way that it actually did collapse). If human players from Europe get to China and find it's owned by Japan, well that's also weird and breaks immersion. By comparison nobody particularly cares about how the Indian minors arrange themselves.

Again, I don't see 8 European countries more important than Ming. 7 sure, but I don't see an 8th. Ming blobbing is a major balance issue that Paradox has to deal with.

My reading is:

Tier I - the Fundamental nations. The ones that the game is all about in the mind of the developers. I expect "This is EUROPA" to be in full force here.
Tier II - The Very Important nations. Really important actors, but not the fundamental parts of the game
Tier III - The Non-Essential nations. I'm expecting nations that are really cool, well-loved by fans (and so getting attention), but not fundamental to what the game is about.
Tier IV - a plethora of minors, unknowns and the like.

That's your reading, and you may be right, but Johan doesn't say that. He says things like "behavior vital for game progress". That doesn't necessarily mean the game is about them. In the case of the Ming I would argue that their behavior IS vital for precisely the reason that the game ISN'T about them.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I'm loving the notion that Europe expanding to swallow another full continent plus big chunks of another 2 had no relevant impact, as the contact with new cultures and religions and crops and animals did not.

You have to admit though, putting patriotism aside (), that Portugal didn't have a lot of direct impact on Europe (like wars, influencing alliances, influencing ballance of power), especially in 17th and 18th century when it was close to none.

Still - IMO Portugal should be in the top 8. However, if EU4 theoretically had just map of Europe with abstracted exploration and colonisation, Portugal wouldn't be even tier 2.

 

[Evie HJ]

That's your reading, but Johan doesn't say that. He says things like "behavior vital for game progress". That doesn't necessarily mean the game is about them. In the case of the Ming I would argue that their behavior IS vital for precisely the reason that the game ISN'T about them.

Except that you can argue that for EVERY nation. If Ulm expands all over the place, then game progress has gone haywire. Thus it is vital to game progress that Ulm do nothing. Yet we know that Ulm is being treated as a Tier IV. I'm pretty sure that the top nations are the "Doers", not the "Not-doers".

Now, granted, Ming has a lot more power than Ulm. However, Ming expansion is largely a factor of general game balance, ease of expansion in Eurasia and South Asia, and other general factors. Moreover, they don't need to bring in that much more to the Ming: they can just paste in the DW factions. It WOULD keep the Ming in line...it just wouldn't be fun or elegant in any significant way. That's not so much paying lots of attention, as keeping what's already in EU3.

 

[ajm317]

Except that you can argue that for EVERY nation. If Ulm expands all over the place, then game progress has gone haywire. Thus it is vital to game progress that Ulm do nothing. Yet we know that Ulm is being treated as a Tier IV. I'm pretty sure that the top nations are the "Doers", not the "Not-doers".

You can't argue that for every nation. You even acknowledge why in your next paragraph. Ulm is never going to do what you describe, so there is no point worrying about it. Ming on the other hand can easily blob.

Additionally, EU players know and care a lot more about China than they do about, say, pre-British India. Again, no one really cares how the Indian minors arrange themselves. Likewise, if the Mamluks get a little to aggresive in North Africa it doesn't change the character of the game much.

But if European players get to China and find it a mess of smaller states, that changes the late game substantially. Instead of dealing with one Asian superstate you can colonize China the same way the Europeans colonized India. Likewise if you get to India and find that the Ming have set up shop, well colonizing India becomes much, much more difficult.

And, to reiterate, if we're listing 8 nations whose performance is important for "game progress", I don't see 8 nations in Europe more important than Ming. England, France, Castille, Austria, Moscowy, Portugal, and the OE sure. But then who is more important to balance than Ming? Poland? I don't really buy it. Balancing Ming is central to the evolution of Asia and, as a result, the colonization game.

Now, granted, Ming has a lot more power than Ulm. However, Ming expansion is largely a factor of general game balance, ease of expansion in Eurasia and South Asia, and other general factors. Moreover, they don't need to bring in that much more to the Ming: they can just paste in the DW factions. It WOULD keep the Ming in line...it just wouldn't be fun or elegant in any significant way. That's not so much paying lots of attention, as keeping what's already in EU3.

I wouldn't assume they keep the DW features, and if they do then it will probably be the result of considerable discussion beforehand given how unpopular that expansion was.

 

[Evie HJ]

They listed the features they weren't keeping. Designer Diary #2.

"Chinese factions" was markedly absent from that list (as was the hordes). The factions are still in the game, we know this (or at least, have excellent reason to assume so).

Now, it's entirely possible that they changed the factions. They might even have changed them a lot, and even made them something that all countries have. We don't know. But it's also possible they didn't. If not changed that would be a case of "solving Ming" without putting much focus on them. Even if changed, it could still be used to restrain Ming without much effort, while giving other, different factions to the RotW.

As for "unpopularity" of Divine Wind, I doubt they're going to measure popularity from the rants of a handful of forum-goers.

 

[George LeS]

Oh, so that was your sister? Sorry mate, I didn't know.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Prize for best response.

 

[No idea]

I don't know if Ming is tier 1 or whatever, but it does seem clear that Ming needs something in order to not to conquer the whole world very rapidly on its own.

They can do that in a lot of different ways, no need to make them tier 1, even if i think they should be there. I fact, it should be at the top of the list, but i guess the game is called europa universalis for a reason

 

[unmerged(139685)]

From a historical point of view, the states most important in the development of the world economy were, in order of appearance:
Genoa, Venice, Spain, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Prussia/Germany, USA.

Another eight states that played major roles, either European states themselves, or the impossible-to-ignore competitors/enemies:
Sweden, Poland/Lithuania, Russia, Austria, the Ottomans, Persia, China, Japan.

Obviously they're going to put in Portugal and not Genoa because the story is better, and some states like the USA are too late to the party, but otherwise the first 8 will be among the countries named.

 

[Kiithis]

I want the Byzantine Empire to have all the attention. I mean if it weren't for them we would not have the Byzantine Empire right? We wouldn't have space time either last I heard, because we all know.....

Byzantine Empire can into space!

 

[Ivashanko]

It bothers me that these eight nations are getting preferred treatment. All events should be generic. Magna Mundi's devs had the right mindset there.

 

[Evie HJ]

It bothers me that these eight nations are getting preferred treatment. All events should be generic. Magna Mundi's devs had the right mindset there.

"Generic" is also spelled "vanilla" and "bland.

 

[Seli]

It bothers me that these eight nations are getting preferred treatment. All events should be generic. Magna Mundi's devs had the right mindset there.

Most events will have generic versions as well, which was the spirit behind the development of EU3 long before MM. But there is the experience that people like the connect to the events that happened historically, which is one of the reasons of the DHE.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

"Generic" is also spelled "vanilla" and "bland.

Yes, they were bland (vanilla EU3). But with some work they may become interesting, complex, immersive, and most importantly - more effective, and flexible (not just one tag). Rather than making flavor Austria they can make flavor HRE events, rather than making interesting France they can make interesting feudal monarchy events, rather than making flavor Venice the can make flavor events for Merchant Republics in general. etc.

Most events will have generic versions as well, which was the spirit behind the development of EU3 long before MM. But there is the experience that people like the connect to the events that happened historically, which is one of the reasons of the DHE.

IIRC EU2 (and FtG) weren't a commercial success (unlike EU3 or CK2), so I wouldn't be so sure about majority of people wanting historical events.

 

[Kiithis]

Yes, they were bland (vanilla EU3). But with some work they may become interesting, complex, immersive, and most importantly - more effective, and flexible (not just one tag). Rather than making flavor Austria they can make flavor HRE events, rather than making interesting France they can make interesting feudal monarchy events, rather than making flavor Venice the can make flavor events for Merchant Republics in general. etc.

IIRC EU2 (and FtG) weren't a commercial success (unlike EU3 or CK2), so I wouldn't be so sure about majority of people wanting historical events.

Some times less is more. I won't argue the validity of providing a wealth of all encompassing features that are one size fits all, but like all generic events, they either get watered down in order to fit a wide variety of countries or make playing said countries feel overly ubiquitous, prosaic, and pedestrian. Don't get me wrong, generic events are needed. But don't confuse an event that brings out the specific character of a country with neglecting other countries.

Would we say that a Mage or Necromancer in an RPG is neglected because only the warrior gets to use a sword if the game is so designed that way? Wanting every country in the game to be just as interesting as the next gets harder as the country count gets larger, and when you start to make an event made for all, it no longer holds up to an event made for one or two countries. It often becomes repetitive ("comet sighted" anyone?). But I agree, I want things to be "interesting, complex, immersive, and most importantly - more effective, and flexible" but the more flex it has, the less effect it will garner. When every country gets an event, no matter how deep and flexible it is, that even loses it's power.

EU2 helped build Paradox's reputation into what it is today, back then there were no digital distribution systems. And I doubt it's written down anywhere, the figures that states one way or the other, that players want or don't want historical events, regardless if one is sure or not.

 

[unmerged(405535)]

I hope for Denmark they are kinda having a hard time as it is, beeing naibourg to all those germans, not to think about the war hungry swedes

 

[lucaluca]

I agree Poland was vital in European geopolitics: It was the treading ground and perpetual battlefield between Lithuania, the Teutonic Order, Muscovy/Russia, Cossacks, Ottomans, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Saxony, Prussia, Bohemia, and the Polish nobility never understood what the problem was - or, more accurately, their petty privileges was more important than solving the issues that made them the perpetual gangrape victim of Eastern Europe.

Poland was never a great power, or even a second rate power. At best they were respected, at worst it was the target of collusion to rip its territory apart, limb by limb.

wow, not true at all. Is this some sort of swedish nationism? Poland was the only great power at start and they even saved austria twice from the ottomans

 

[Camara]

Portugal?? If a comet struck Portugal in 1492 and wiped out all its population, what, pray tell, would be the loss for history as we know it?? Someone else would settle Brazil, and someone else would discover the Spice islands. What of it. Neither of those two places had much of an influence on anything that happened *IN* Europe in the 16th or 17th century.

Portugal really needs to be kicked from this big 8 list whatever it may be.

The EU games make Portugal always into this mythical uber-grandfather of European destiny, and their explorations are meticulously reproduced in the game at quite a large effort - dozens if not hundreds of decisions, unique personalities, events are scripted in to make them do stuff. Yet when you objectively look at it in the EU games (EU2/EU3) and how a typical campaign evolves, ACTUALLY you see that the historical performance of Portugal is of total unimportance. The Dutch never actually end up anywhere near the spice islands, Brazil is a total backwater, and Portugal itself goes on the whackiest sort of overpowered conquests in the mediterranean. EU3 would arguably evolve in a more historical way if Portugal was replaced by empty sea provinces. I propose just that solution to EU4 because obviously as EU3 has shown the game would be all the better for it.

Good luck reproducing European history without France! Germany, Spain and Italy would go pretty off balance without big bad France.

Or Austria without the Turks. They'd be all over Germany if there's not a big bad enemy to their east. It's exactly what Austria does in EU3 when the Ottomans fizzle (as they usually do)

But Portugal? Where did Portugal change the course of history, for anyone but... Portugal? They had a brief bam-bam with Spain when the dynasty died out but that ended with Spain leaving them alone and Portugal leaving Spain alone, like the 200 years before that.

Johans list of the four-tier system showed that they do look at how important it is that a country evolves more or less along historic lines, if you want all of Europe to evolve along historic lines. I'm just thinking things through to their logical conclusion: That Portugal ought to be replaced by sea tiles.

Remove Portugal in 1444 and NO ONE will be in the discoveries. And in case you didn't notice it took 100 years for another country to start the trade in Asia (excluding Spain in Philippines) after Portugal got there. Are you aware that without Portugal Columbus would never sail west, nor Castille would pay him to sail to nowhere? Castille only started the discoveries BECAUSE of Portugal, Portugal was forcing them indirectly through the fabulous wealth of the African trade.
No Americas in 1492 (God knows when it would happen), no collapse of the Mediterranean East trade (so Mamluks may survive, Venice and Genoa still very powerful, Ottomans less strong) and the flood of Europe by eastern products changing the offer of these products -> big economical change, no mass slavery of Africa, American natives spared for a while. That's the entire history of the world changing right there.

From a historical point of view, the states most important in the development of the world economy were, in order of appearance:
Genoa, Venice, Spain, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Prussia/Germany, USA.

Another eight states that played major roles, either European states themselves, or the impossible-to-ignore competitors/enemies:
Sweden, Poland/Lithuania, Russia, Austria, the Ottomans, Persia, China, Japan.

Obviously they're going to put in Portugal and not Genoa because the story is better, and some states like the USA are too late to the party, but otherwise the first 8 will be among the countries named.

Yeah, that's why Portugal flooding the european market with unprecedent amounts of eastern goods and slaves, as well as building a gigantic trade empire is irrelevant, forcing, for example, Genoa to become more of a regional trader than a Mediterranean behemoth.


Not sure if trolling.