Can't agree - manufactures for recruits are more effective on the goods you don't need to build manufactures anyway like wheat and cows.
- 5
The Emperor launch was a failure
- Thread starter love sweden
- 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.
Can't agree - manufactures for recruits are more effective on the goods you don't need to build manufactures anyway like wheat and cows.
Make no mistake, PDX wants you to think that their patches and paid DLCs are part of the same deal. They said it way back in 2018 (I think) on a GDC talk about how their DLCs business model work and why is it so successful.
The original numbers were never final and were put in place to stir up discussion, as pointed out by the devs on Florry's discord server.
- 3
Stop fetishizing the "full experience" then. If you hate the DLC and still buy it, If I were Paradox, I'd laugh all the way to the bank.
- 11
- 1
This was a wake up call for me personally to review the DLC.
I'd encourage everyone who enjoyed the DLC to also review it and give it an uptick.
I'd encourage everyone who enjoyed the DLC to also review it and give it an uptick.
- 1
- 1
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on this forum who enjoys EU4. It might have bugs or design flaws but it's given me nearly 1000 hours of enjoyment, and it's not even close to getting old.
I love the changes Emperor has brought. I have fun playing this game. Shrug,
I love the changes Emperor has brought. I have fun playing this game. Shrug,
- 8
- 2
- 2
If people didn’t love EUIV they wouldn’t stick around here.
That doesn’t mean we won’t criticize the game, in fact my love for the game (which I have probably put more hours into over the last 2.5 years than any other game I have ever played, with CIV IV being the only possible exception and that was when I couldn’t easily afford new games) is why I criticize it and the business model around it.
It is a great game, but it could be much better and we want it to be better because that not only gives us a better game, but attracts more players to show Paradox it is worth supporting.
Never conflate criticizing something with not liking it.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Hey buddy, I have close to 1,7K hours in the game and it is one of my favourite games. And that's precisely why I criticize it so much. Liking something doesn't make it immune from criticizing. If anything it makes you even more critical about it.
- 2
- 1
This doesn’t apply much to Europe because AE prevents you from expanding too fast there and you naturally have to wait for you to get governing capacity from tech, but in Asia, especially India, where most of your expansion is meant to happen early game, it’s a complete pain
- 1
I get that, but there are also people who complain but about the most inane things, and they do so with the utmost outrage and depreciation of the game, whilst still clocking 50+ hours a week... Like that thread complaining about how much EU4 sucks and how there's no player agency because he got a CoR in France? lmao
I'm all for reasonable criticisms of the game, I have plenty of my own. But when I browse through this forum I feel like a "filthy casual" because I see so many complain about the most irrelevant things and I'm just like "jeez does it really suck that bad or do I have really simplistic expectations from a game/do I suck?"
- 8
Ok, I really need to disagree with fact that new manufactory buildings are useless.
I mean maybe for SP they are, can't say much about it myself, I will say their usefulness in MP tho.
Manufactury for manpower: must have on every province with wheat or cows. The 1500 it adds is only 1500 on paper, with modificators and buildings for manpower it can reach 5k where in most it ranges from 2500-3500. Which is respectable amount. And in MP money is not what stops you in wars (most of the time) it's manpower. [and other people but that is automatic with MP] And I know you find drill slacken better in your eyes, however enemy also has it. And expect to run out of it during long and bloody war.
Manufactury for sailors is useless for most nations, yes. However not for naval powers. Since same as manpower runs wars on land sailors are main limiter of one's navy. And those buildings adding sailors are not giving the pure numbers it says but modified ones.
Rampants. Well, they are useless most of the game, (in my eyes at least) but you still use them on forts in defensive terrain late game so that sieges take longer and enemy loses precious manpower. It also gives you time to reorganise due to whatever reason and be ready to strike back.
Governing capacity one is, well depending if you need it you build it. Easy as that. Compare what other buildings would give on each province in state you want it in and then decide. GC is not a massive slow down tho the advisor cost is most annoying part.
And normal manufacturies in lands that you devved up and you have desire to earn money from. Tho manpower buildings are more important and you have them on every cow and wheat at every time. Which is why PLC, if it survive and have economy to support them, can have massive numbers of manpower. Since if youh look at trade goods it is bassically manpower farm.
Of course as I stated before it is with view of MP in mind and I am not saying if they are worth it or no in SP since I have absolutely no idea. Tjo with changes to mercenaries you cannot go wrong with more manpower.
I mean maybe for SP they are, can't say much about it myself, I will say their usefulness in MP tho.
Manufactury for manpower: must have on every province with wheat or cows. The 1500 it adds is only 1500 on paper, with modificators and buildings for manpower it can reach 5k where in most it ranges from 2500-3500. Which is respectable amount. And in MP money is not what stops you in wars (most of the time) it's manpower. [and other people but that is automatic with MP] And I know you find drill slacken better in your eyes, however enemy also has it. And expect to run out of it during long and bloody war.
Manufactury for sailors is useless for most nations, yes. However not for naval powers. Since same as manpower runs wars on land sailors are main limiter of one's navy. And those buildings adding sailors are not giving the pure numbers it says but modified ones.
Rampants. Well, they are useless most of the game, (in my eyes at least) but you still use them on forts in defensive terrain late game so that sieges take longer and enemy loses precious manpower. It also gives you time to reorganise due to whatever reason and be ready to strike back.
Governing capacity one is, well depending if you need it you build it. Easy as that. Compare what other buildings would give on each province in state you want it in and then decide. GC is not a massive slow down tho the advisor cost is most annoying part.
And normal manufacturies in lands that you devved up and you have desire to earn money from. Tho manpower buildings are more important and you have them on every cow and wheat at every time. Which is why PLC, if it survive and have economy to support them, can have massive numbers of manpower. Since if youh look at trade goods it is bassically manpower farm.
Of course as I stated before it is with view of MP in mind and I am not saying if they are worth it or no in SP since I have absolutely no idea. Tjo with changes to mercenaries you cannot go wrong with more manpower.
- 2
Boring and unhelpfull thread. Everyone knows already what the state of the game was at release.
- 2
There's a weird hate cult where I feel people who dislike the DLC model end up encouraging people who are interested in the games to buy all the DLC because they're constantly saying how the game is "unplayable" without them, when there are several that can be skipped just fine.
- 4
- 1
Yes, I understand the reaction to the last few patches were very bad, but as someone who was actively playing the game pretty thoroughly throughout all those patches... I don't understand why people are so apocalyptic and exaggerate so much about it? Many of the criticisms are valid takes on things that are pretty objectively bad, but they treat there not being another hotfix for the debt problem fast enough as if EU4 killed their dog. I recall one instance of someone saying Paradox should break Swedish labor laws in regard to regular time off to get a patch out because they're supposedly obligated to do so to compete in a global market. Nuts.
Last edited:
- 3
I like putting Ramparts in Tibet or Switzerland. Watching AI stacks melt on 173% defence forts with 5% attrition is fun. It also lets you basically ignore the entire Persian region when playing in India by throwing 80 day siege tick forts on Roh and Kalat. Same situation with Ethiopia. Slap two down in Darfur and Sahra an Nubyah then you can basically ignore the rest of Africa.
Is it optimal? No.
Is it hilarious? Yes.
(Would honestly love if it increased for defence a bit more though. +30% would make it much more worth the money)
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
The other thing about sailors is that protecting trade and privateering cost you sailors. Normally, you don't suffer manpower attrition in peacetime, but you normally do suffer sailor attrition in peacetime. So increasing the number of sailors you get from a province has a disproportionate effect on your sailors reinforcement rate.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I love the GC change.
I find it makes the game more fun for me. I like how it ties in with deving and buildings.
I can see why others may not appreciate it, but I’m glad they switched over. No more hard cap on states.
The penalties are only harsh if you have a string of bad luck on stab hits at the wrong time. More expensive stability makes sense to me. I always take free stab options for this reason.
I find it makes the game more fun for me. I like how it ties in with deving and buildings.
I can see why others may not appreciate it, but I’m glad they switched over. No more hard cap on states.
The penalties are only harsh if you have a string of bad luck on stab hits at the wrong time. More expensive stability makes sense to me. I always take free stab options for this reason.
- 5
- 1
The thing is for example the fort building is useful depending on your situation. I think you can build 5 mountain forts as india and your core region aka India cannot be attacked anymore so if you spam the special manufactory there ofc it is very good. But 99 percent of the time it is not. I have only seen the ai build the troop building and the sailor one never the state. The best fix was though no more naval battery spam ^^
- 1
It's just human nature to only hear posts from disgruntled peeps. Same thing with TV news, it's always the bad events making headlines. No one cares about rainbows and sunshine. If I'm pissed off, I'm motivated to complain. If I'm happy, I'm probably playing instead of reading or writing posts.
- 3
Well, ending my fist game in v1.30.4 + Emperor for a Spanish Forever Golden achievement run in VH difficulty. With no exploits. So ending it in 1750s.
I love the new estate mechanism. Far more immersive to me. Also the crownland percentage is something I find more logical. And the fact that if you give privileges to the estates your absolutism decreases (before you can have 100 absolutism and 90% influence for all three estates.
As for the new buildings, I ignore them for most of the game, but in the 18th century, I had to invade Great-Britain and Great-Britain has 226 heavy ships, and hundred of frigates. So I had to build a navy able to face it, and I had not enough sailors, even by hiring them in my CNs. So I created naval hiring offices everywhere, and this did it. I also build manpower buildings at the same time, as I was drowning in money. I also tried coastal batteries where I knew English ships will come.
Regarding the merc companies, I didn't use them for probably the first 150 years, as I did not have the money or the need to, making manpower management crucial. And then I could only hire huge merco companies. I would really like to have the choice of companies of all sizes at any time in the game. Now in 1750, I should say it is saving me time. My ally Ming called me in an offensive war vs Ayutthaya. I had no troops in the area, but in less than twenty clicks I raised 6 60k stacks in 6 provinces in the area. OK, you could do the same with army models before.... And I had 30k ducats to spend like that...
Regarding Hegemony, the -100 relationships to everyone, including allies, vassals and CNs, suck a lot. And if that was not enough, there is also a -20 modifier for alliance. Clicking on it makes me change from the guy almost everybody in the world wanted to ally (+9 diplo rep, 1st world power) to the guy everyone hates and nobody wants to ally. Well, that is not fun. I have won the Hegemony achievement, and I will probably not click again on it, except if going on a WC. Fun fact, in my VH run, I had economical hegemony, the Ottos (my allies for 250 years... until I choose economical hegemony) are starting to have military hegemony and Great-Britain would probably have started naval hegemony very soon (when I attacked them, they had 226 heavy ships and were building several a year. ).
Catholicism: in this game, I switch from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic again. I won scores of Papal Influence converting my provinces and those of my vassals/CNs, and so was able to take all papal bonuses, plus control the Pope half of the time and take mercantilism upgrades from time to time. I also love the new Bulls: being able to launch a Crusade in late game is nice, other bonuses are cool too. The fact that they apply to all Catholic countries is also more immersive, as the Pope is not working only for the Curia Controller, but for all Catholics in this case. As for the congregations, -50 ADM for having 10% DEV bonus could be valuable for boosting a province or a group of provinces for institution (you usually spend more than 500 MPs for this).
Defender of the Faith: I find the idea of level of power depending of the number of countries interesting, even if it would be better if the DEV of the countries was integrated to the calculation. For some reason, I found very hard to keep the Catholic DoTF, as soon as I fell below 100 prestige, either Scandinavia or the Commonwealth took the title if I took it more than two years before.
HRE: well, I became Emperor relatively late (the fact that the Catholic lost the League War did not help, so I had to switch to Protestant) and the Empire was a mess. Such a mess that rather than taking the long way to reform it, I prefer losing the Emperorship, switching back to Catholic and destroy the HRE. I saw none of the Imperial events. Not a good experience for me.
AI: my experience (in VH difficulty) is that I saw no big powers go into debt spirals. The countries I saw in debt managed to recover most of the times and were in debt for good reasons (lost war, institutions). As for the tactical AI, while small enemies continue to flee to Siberia, big enemies seem to me better to concentrate armies and not getting wiped stack per stack. I lately invaded Great Britain with 450 men, found the same number of men in face of me and we danced around each other during all the war without the AI doing an obvious mistake. I guess the fact it was on an island makes it more probable, as the AI won't calculate a path to Siberia. The war vs Ayutthaya saw also coherent defence by Ayutthaya, but awful work by AI Ming (that had zero mandante and probably no desire to engage due to poor morale/trop quality except if with a huge superiority). The AI is also able to mount sea landings and is not commiting suicides at sea. On the other hand, the AI is still unable to build new forts and only OPM or small countries upgraded them, probably because they have no more building slots available. The war vs Great Britain was won by me because I landed directly on London with all my troops and it was only a lvl 3 fort, with an artillery barrage it fell in one month, before English troops can gather to oppose me. Its only ally, Augsbug, a German OPM, had a fort level 9 and it fell just one month before the end of the war (I had in the years before attacked allies of all other GB allies, to force them to cancel the alliance).
Governing Capacity: I find the mechanism better than the limit of states, and far better than the territory corruption of the last patches.
Missions Trees: most of the times I ignore them, as I find them either useless or OP. Of course I am doing a Forever Golden run, so I have to do it. I can't comment on any new mission tree, as I have not played anything in this version than Spain.
Another changes in v1.30:
_ the high attrition to troops carried by boat more than one month. I started my game as usual, and around 1500 loaded 30k men to conquer Madagascar after buying a province here. Well, when they arrived from Spain, the 30 regiments had only 6k men remaining... Ouch... I did not waste manpower like that twice. It is certainly slowing world conquest, but is more realistic, so I'm OK with it. By the way, hiring local mercenaries or finding local allies is so important for wars in colonial aeras, as it was in history.
_ trade companies everywhere: playing from Europe, it is not such a big change, but being able to have a trade company in Creta, Cyprus, Japan or Yemen is cool. Well, it should be possible to have 50 merchants now.
I love the new estate mechanism. Far more immersive to me. Also the crownland percentage is something I find more logical. And the fact that if you give privileges to the estates your absolutism decreases (before you can have 100 absolutism and 90% influence for all three estates.
As for the new buildings, I ignore them for most of the game, but in the 18th century, I had to invade Great-Britain and Great-Britain has 226 heavy ships, and hundred of frigates. So I had to build a navy able to face it, and I had not enough sailors, even by hiring them in my CNs. So I created naval hiring offices everywhere, and this did it. I also build manpower buildings at the same time, as I was drowning in money. I also tried coastal batteries where I knew English ships will come.
Regarding the merc companies, I didn't use them for probably the first 150 years, as I did not have the money or the need to, making manpower management crucial. And then I could only hire huge merco companies. I would really like to have the choice of companies of all sizes at any time in the game. Now in 1750, I should say it is saving me time. My ally Ming called me in an offensive war vs Ayutthaya. I had no troops in the area, but in less than twenty clicks I raised 6 60k stacks in 6 provinces in the area. OK, you could do the same with army models before.... And I had 30k ducats to spend like that...
Regarding Hegemony, the -100 relationships to everyone, including allies, vassals and CNs, suck a lot. And if that was not enough, there is also a -20 modifier for alliance. Clicking on it makes me change from the guy almost everybody in the world wanted to ally (+9 diplo rep, 1st world power) to the guy everyone hates and nobody wants to ally. Well, that is not fun. I have won the Hegemony achievement, and I will probably not click again on it, except if going on a WC. Fun fact, in my VH run, I had economical hegemony, the Ottos (my allies for 250 years... until I choose economical hegemony) are starting to have military hegemony and Great-Britain would probably have started naval hegemony very soon (when I attacked them, they had 226 heavy ships and were building several a year. ).
Catholicism: in this game, I switch from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic again. I won scores of Papal Influence converting my provinces and those of my vassals/CNs, and so was able to take all papal bonuses, plus control the Pope half of the time and take mercantilism upgrades from time to time. I also love the new Bulls: being able to launch a Crusade in late game is nice, other bonuses are cool too. The fact that they apply to all Catholic countries is also more immersive, as the Pope is not working only for the Curia Controller, but for all Catholics in this case. As for the congregations, -50 ADM for having 10% DEV bonus could be valuable for boosting a province or a group of provinces for institution (you usually spend more than 500 MPs for this).
Defender of the Faith: I find the idea of level of power depending of the number of countries interesting, even if it would be better if the DEV of the countries was integrated to the calculation. For some reason, I found very hard to keep the Catholic DoTF, as soon as I fell below 100 prestige, either Scandinavia or the Commonwealth took the title if I took it more than two years before.
HRE: well, I became Emperor relatively late (the fact that the Catholic lost the League War did not help, so I had to switch to Protestant) and the Empire was a mess. Such a mess that rather than taking the long way to reform it, I prefer losing the Emperorship, switching back to Catholic and destroy the HRE. I saw none of the Imperial events. Not a good experience for me.
AI: my experience (in VH difficulty) is that I saw no big powers go into debt spirals. The countries I saw in debt managed to recover most of the times and were in debt for good reasons (lost war, institutions). As for the tactical AI, while small enemies continue to flee to Siberia, big enemies seem to me better to concentrate armies and not getting wiped stack per stack. I lately invaded Great Britain with 450 men, found the same number of men in face of me and we danced around each other during all the war without the AI doing an obvious mistake. I guess the fact it was on an island makes it more probable, as the AI won't calculate a path to Siberia. The war vs Ayutthaya saw also coherent defence by Ayutthaya, but awful work by AI Ming (that had zero mandante and probably no desire to engage due to poor morale/trop quality except if with a huge superiority). The AI is also able to mount sea landings and is not commiting suicides at sea. On the other hand, the AI is still unable to build new forts and only OPM or small countries upgraded them, probably because they have no more building slots available. The war vs Great Britain was won by me because I landed directly on London with all my troops and it was only a lvl 3 fort, with an artillery barrage it fell in one month, before English troops can gather to oppose me. Its only ally, Augsbug, a German OPM, had a fort level 9 and it fell just one month before the end of the war (I had in the years before attacked allies of all other GB allies, to force them to cancel the alliance).
Governing Capacity: I find the mechanism better than the limit of states, and far better than the territory corruption of the last patches.
Missions Trees: most of the times I ignore them, as I find them either useless or OP. Of course I am doing a Forever Golden run, so I have to do it. I can't comment on any new mission tree, as I have not played anything in this version than Spain.
Another changes in v1.30:
_ the high attrition to troops carried by boat more than one month. I started my game as usual, and around 1500 loaded 30k men to conquer Madagascar after buying a province here. Well, when they arrived from Spain, the 30 regiments had only 6k men remaining... Ouch... I did not waste manpower like that twice. It is certainly slowing world conquest, but is more realistic, so I'm OK with it. By the way, hiring local mercenaries or finding local allies is so important for wars in colonial aeras, as it was in history.
_ trade companies everywhere: playing from Europe, it is not such a big change, but being able to have a trade company in Creta, Cyprus, Japan or Yemen is cool. Well, it should be possible to have 50 merchants now.
- 1
- 1