They also don't improve by pandering to people who confuse volume with thoughtfulness and vocabulary with intelligence.
The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?
- Thread starter Riekopo
- 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.
- Status
The EU series can only get me back if Paradox finally stops trying to make maximum profit with minimum input.
Just look at EUIV. It's just a modded version of EU3.
The devs refused to put real effort into it and focused on fine tuning and adding features into it. Like the OP said, people wanted more accuracy, but we got more abstraction. In order to add more accuracy the engine needed to be really overhauled or even better shelved and a new engine should have been made. Yes, this involves a lot of work I know but that's how it should be.
Just look at EUIV. It's just a modded version of EU3.
The devs refused to put real effort into it and focused on fine tuning and adding features into it. Like the OP said, people wanted more accuracy, but we got more abstraction. In order to add more accuracy the engine needed to be really overhauled or even better shelved and a new engine should have been made. Yes, this involves a lot of work I know but that's how it should be.
This made me laugh until I caught sight of your sig and realized you were serious.
The game relies on many of the same things as EU3. Provinces have BT, goods, manpower. Players have a certain number of diplomats, colonists, and missionaries. Units have pips....
The game is radically different. The only thing that is potentially "more abstracted" is the monarch point system, but it effectively replaced a similarly abstract tech investment system which was no more accurate. Expanded idea groups are no less abstract than the slider system for country attributes.
I've never given stability much thought in EU4, but yes I suppose having a Stability stat that can fluctuate fairly wildly does seem a little weird. Hmm, interesting to think about.
There are three kinds of internet forum: Those which are terrible because they are echo chambers, those which are terrible because they are cacophonous, and the rare few which are not terrible. I'm not sure I've ever actually met one of the third kind.
That's a brilliant idea for a new addition to the Great Works section. Canals and roller coasters are all I need to have a good time!
I've encountered such threads. Depending on one's moral compass....nono I'll stop myself.
Thought so. That being said, why would anyone NOT run the Pop Demand mod?
That's a brilliant idea for a new addition to the Great Works section. Canals and roller coasters are all I need to have a good time!
Actually, Russian Mountains existed in the 1600's and were popularized in the 1700's, so it's pretty legit.
Hey TMIT. I've enjoyed your let's plays since Civ 4 times. Nice to see you around here.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but with regards to river crossings in the UI: both Hearts of Iron 3 and Crusader Kings 2 have interface elements in every province to show you exactly which neighboring provinces will invoke a river crossing penalty. I don't know why such a thing hasn't been included in EU4, but I really wish it would be.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but with regards to river crossings in the UI: both Hearts of Iron 3 and Crusader Kings 2 have interface elements in every province to show you exactly which neighboring provinces will invoke a river crossing penalty. I don't know why such a thing hasn't been included in EU4, but I really wish it would be.
I'm a fan of based games turn and strategie games in general. I was a great fan of knight of honor. My first paradox games I played i've got to hack them because they were too hard to find in Canada.
There was several thing i didn't like about eu3. There was a lot of very punishing mechanic without any base or reason to exist. Inflation was kind of absurde in that games. The monarch point might be a strange concept, but it work. It work very well. It allow you to tech but also make you expansion easier. The ideas might be even stranger, but this is so fun to choose your ideas and customise your nation.
I have to say. I love to paint the world in my color. I love map and stuff like that. But also the greatest weakess of this games. In CIV, i can play a games without making any war and still have fun. In must paradox games, it is also fun. But in EU4, there is nothing to do in peace. Building are useless, there in no gouvernement to manage, no one to marry, the economic system is weak. I truth i love all those little arrow with the trade system. But if you are playing a mid power there is no way you would be able to influence the trade. I was playing a giant empire with estern poland but at the end of the games I was only at 3 merchant.
I must say, i'm only playing in single player. It fun to watch multiplayer, but this games is design for single player.
There was several thing i didn't like about eu3. There was a lot of very punishing mechanic without any base or reason to exist. Inflation was kind of absurde in that games. The monarch point might be a strange concept, but it work. It work very well. It allow you to tech but also make you expansion easier. The ideas might be even stranger, but this is so fun to choose your ideas and customise your nation.
I have to say. I love to paint the world in my color. I love map and stuff like that. But also the greatest weakess of this games. In CIV, i can play a games without making any war and still have fun. In must paradox games, it is also fun. But in EU4, there is nothing to do in peace. Building are useless, there in no gouvernement to manage, no one to marry, the economic system is weak. I truth i love all those little arrow with the trade system. But if you are playing a mid power there is no way you would be able to influence the trade. I was playing a giant empire with estern poland but at the end of the games I was only at 3 merchant.
I must say, i'm only playing in single player. It fun to watch multiplayer, but this games is design for single player.
A lot of these are things I'd like to know. Especially the warleader thing, especially because it seems like warleader can change more than once... maybe? I want to know if Oldenburg is allied with Savoy who's allied with Castille who's allied with France, when is it possible or not that declaring on Oldenburg will result in an unpleasant collision with the business end of the Big Blue death machine?
Army tradition is something I'd like to have more explanation for. In particular, what determines the magnitude of gains?
Some of these are things I think I understand, but based on their presence in your list I'm having doubts.
What in warp's name are you talking about?
Johan Andersson has made multiple statements that the design philosophy hasn't changed. I've been playing this series of games since a long time ago and both the AI and MP got better. The interface got better. The current EU4 interface is light-years ahead of that bloated menace called EU3 with all expansions. It was unwieldy, it was difficult to grasp even for the veterans. Even back then the MP community was pretty strong. It's preposterous to even talk about a "MP balanced game". There are strong countries, and weak countries. There are good players and bad players. Couple a good player with Russia and you get an unstoppable behemoth. Does that make the game unbalanced? Hehe, no.
Your account was registered last year, what do you even know about the old days of Paradox?
PDS is not the same as the publisher company, are you aware of that? If you are so knowledgeable about the old days why don't you know that? This Rome bullshit is really getting on some people's nerves already. Who cares about Rome? That isn't their flagship(yet!). Before Rome there has to be Vic3, Hoi4, more CK2 DLCs, more EU4 DLCs rather than gambling your resources on some game that might not get bought.
Yes, it's a pity there are players that have no idea what they're talking about.
+1
Last edited:
What about technology? I love monarchy points but find it strange that country focusing on military ideas and actions doesn't have spare points to advance military tech and peaceful country has nowhere to drop all those military points so they become master warriors. Do people complain about this?
.png){kind=avatar}
Ah! I see... I reckon they're pretty awesome. I haven't played EU3 yet, but the monarch points in EU4 does make sense in an abstract sense of the influence the ruler has in certain areas. It would be nice if the three could interact more.
Yes, people complain about this. I find it perfectly fine from a gameplay perspective as it means you have to make hard choices between tech, ideas, keeping revolts down, etc, and frankly real technological progression is such a complex thing that whatever model you have is going to be completely unrealistic anyway. EU3's model of 'you acquired some poor land, now you'll have to wait longer to get new guns' wasn't exactly a model of realism, and was a lot less interesting gameplaywise.
- Status