Which parts of American Dream are still broken? I thought we fixed the issues with TC->USA not firing the events in 1.7?
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
Which parts of American Dream are still broken? I thought we fixed the issues with TC->USA not firing the events in 1.7?
I agree with your comments about the silliness of, say, building town halls reducing your administrative capabilities.
I also like the changes you propose to distinguish between different forms of government.
Perhaps you might want to post it in the tech support forum (sic) or send it as a PM to a developer?
Wiz is reading this thread so I'm fairly sure he's seen it. Besides, I doubt anything can be changed very drastically because EU4 is a mature game now. It's more food for thought when it comes to Victoria 3, because I will be very sad of EU4's monarch point system is ported into V3. But thank you for reading and liking.
Wiz is reading this thread so I'm fairly sure he's seen it. Besides, I doubt anything can be changed very drastically because EU4 is a mature game now. It's more food for thought when it comes to Victoria 3, because I will be very sad of EU4's monarch point system is ported into V3. But thank you for reading and liking.
Yeah, I've read and considered it. I'm usually not going to engage in debating sweeping mechanics change proposals (because then I'd never have time to get any work done), but your feedback has been read and noted.
WTF? Monarch points in Victoria 3 would be an abomination. The game needs tweaks, not putting that kind of crap.
As a matter of fact Paradox needs to lose its tendency to reinvent the wheel in EVERY new game. There is good reason why Civilization still uses gold, beakers, shields etc - because they work well enough.
Meanwhile, with Paradox games, way too much stuff is scrapped in every new version.
As a matter of fact Paradox needs to lose its tendency to reinvent the wheel in EVERY new game. There is good reason why Civilization still uses gold, beakers, shields etc - because they work well enough.
Meanwhile, with Paradox games, way too much stuff is scrapped in every new version.
They honestly struck a good note with Vicky 2, The economy system while quirky is simple enough the only thing i'd change is make the diplomacy/influence game more interesting. Now Dynamic Historical events that absolutely should be carried over to Vicky 3 considering almost every mod in existence for the last game added them anyway.
I agree. Victoria 2 is almost perfect and needs very few changes. The few I can think of off the top of my head - take out all the randomness in diplomatic relations, like CK2 and EU4 have done; get rid of infamy and replace it with a system like aggressive expansion, although with some improvements; introduce costs based on distance that are very high for low tech nations and smaller for high tech ones and are also good-dependent (so perishable goods have very high travel costs); and completely revamp the influence system - I'm not quite sure how you'd do this, but it was the only really bad part of V2 and wasn't fun as the cardinals mechanic in EU4 either. Aside from those, I'd be happy with just better graphics/improved UI (especially this one!)/more good DHEs.
Also, make the trade system more intuitive/transparent.
But, in general, I agree. Vicky2 is such a great game for its age.
I can second that the only thing that pops to mind that I want changed in Vic2 if Vic3 gets made is a reworking of the Spheres of Influence minigame garbage.
Absolutely hate how it works, and it's the only really bad part of what I otherwise view as an excellent game. Aside from that it has its flaws but it's still an absolute blast to play.
There are some other minor quibbles like too much spending on education actually hurting your education level but overall I'd say yes, the influence minigame dying in a fire would address the greatest weakness the game has...
Then I would like to add the following; I really like the system of monarch points and I have no complaints at all about it.
Sometimes these forums seem like everything is wrong with the game, while in my opinion one of the highlights of eu iv is the monarch points which I have found very enjoyable. I do wish buildings did not cost monarch points though (but possibly more gold, especially for the later tiers) and that there was more stuff to do with diplomatic points.
I must have missed that in the patch notes then; my USA game ended several months ago so I haven't been paying attention to the state of AD. While I'm glad it's finally fixed, there was a several month gap where you had to mod the game to make it work. Needless to say, things like this (and the state of the CK2>EU4 converter) don't reflect well on the new DLC policy or Paradox in general.
Yes, well from my point of view there is a reason why I did not even consider purchasing Civ V beyond that fact that they went on Steam. I've played it through 4 iterations now and I did not see the need to buy the same game again.
But that's just me.
The way you make science and money has changed from Civ3 to Civ4 to Civ5, only production and food stay the same.
The monarch point system is a very good mechanic IMHO for EU4 but it really would feel out of place in Victoria.
I've been playing paradox games for years now and I prefer the changes in eu4. DLC that is compatible with multi-player is much more fair as the devs can do more and players only buy what they want. Also is it really so terrible that the ai is being made to act more and more like a human would? I've got a group of 15 or so that plays eu4 regularly and it's a blast. I'd love more domestic things but that's what this next large DLC is about. Its fleshing out the reformation era for Europe instead of just rebels. People will always find a reason to complain but Paradox ' s movement to making multi-player more fun has helped single player too. Sure you can't do colossal empires in 50 years but so what the game should take 400 anyway not 50. This way is more realistic and extends the game.
Hahaha
No.
I played both CIV 2 and 3. When I played 5 I did the tutorial, one bad game as Germany in Prince, then another as Korea, which I won. That was my learning curve in Civ 5. Note: I didn´t play a Civ game since 2003, probably.
The principles are almost ALL the same (population creates food, science and production, bigger population better, one tech a time can be researched etc etc). Nothing Civ 5 (even comparing it to Civ 2) did was as radical as scrapping sliders and switching to Monarch Points/NI/Idea Groups.
You ducked the most radical divergence in the series sadly. Commerce could be split into both gold and science, but science was still possible through specialists also, and one of the tile improvements for commerce grew over time (no more using roads, and no maintaining roads yet either). Maintenance in IV is "sort of" like happiness in V, but there is happiness in IV that works on the individual city level as well.
Sliders were a big deal in Civ IV
.
You ducked the most radical divergence in the series sadly. Commerce could be split into both gold and science, but science was still possible through specialists also, and one of the tile improvements for commerce grew over time (no more using roads, and no maintaining roads yet either). Maintenance in IV is "sort of" like happiness in V, but there is happiness in IV that works on the individual city level as well.
Sliders were a big deal in Civ IV
In many ways Civ 4 was superior to Civ 5. The only real improvements were going to 1 unit/tile to get rid of the idiocy of catapult doomstacking and borders actually meaning something (no more "get off my land""ok" settler advances a couple squares into your land"get off my land""ok" settler moves further into your land...). Most of the other changes were backtracking. Then there was the cutting stuff like religions and espionage out to (shocker) later add them in DLCs...
This is one of the more popular myths about game design and it's really hard to dispel.
When game designers set about designing new versions of existing games, they often code the new version more or less from scratch. This is not absolutely true, (for example EU3-EU4?) but it's true in a lot of cases and is true in Civ V's particular case. This means that the coders have a limited amount of time to code up a working game and certain features have to get left out of the original game. They don't 'cut' it out because it was never in the new game's code.
so then if they didnt have the time then, why didnt they add it later for free as it was originally intended, dun dun duhhhhhhhhhhh!
- Status