The game is...well...boring

[RedSpectre]

Pardon me for plugging my own thread but alot of what I discuss regarding the favor system would add more dynamism and politics to the favor system that right now is just "wait and see"

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-out-the-consort-system.976835/#post-21996242

In terms of what I think ought to happen I'll copy and pasta:

Favors:

Right now if you do favors for your allies you can get cool bonuses, monarch points, manpower and other things that are awesome! But it seems kind of random, you can't really "ask" your ally for that manpower when you really need it unless an event pops up and there's no real way to know how much this system is working behind the scenes since it's basically invisible.

So I was thinking that perhaps this could be integrated into the favor/trust system for war. After all alot of times I build up favors with an ally too small or unwilling to help me in a war and too distant but I would love to get some manpower from them. And it would go to say that instead of a smaller country having to be patient and occasionally help out when their behemoth allies want to go to war, a smaller country can play more dynamically and proactivly by helping out their big brother with internal strife, diplomacy, economic matters and other things that can garner favors.. Heck right now there's no reason to accept a deal to transfer trade power to your larger allies but if giving up 10% of your trade power increased the speed favors increase with your larger ally then I think alot of people would accept that option!

And of course maybe bigger allies should use that as a way to be a bit of a bully to make it a challenge to be small in non-military ways.

And of course alot of time I have problems that I can't necessarily call my allies in for and being able to ask them for some help in exchange for not being able to throw around their weight as much would be both a way to add dynamism and make diplomacy a bit more interesting.

And what could make this even more interesting. Right now diplomatic annexation has been nerfed so much that I almost never find myself using it. If trust was a positive value one could build through helping out a smaller country that could potentially outweigh the economic penalty. Building long term dynastic ties and marriage relationships could lead to a smaller kingdom willing to become a vassal of a larger in perhaps a 100-75 year timespan. Of course that's a long time but as of now it's annoying and kind of bizzare how you make small allies and have to back stab them when you want their land with no reward for being loyal to them in the long term. Brittany is a good example. Useful early on ally but their possession of a valuable trade city makes their friendship inconvenient a hundred years down the road when your colonizing and they are sucking up all your hard earned trade power. Or at least a small percentage of it which is almost more offensive.

 

[alexti]

Perhaps I'm part of a dying breed of Paradox players, but I'd just like a fair and square war against an equally strong neighbour, fight a couple of close battles, try some unlikely attacks across that unguarded mountain range, grab a few provinces if I win, cede a few if I lose.

You are probably looking at the wrong game. EU IV simply doesn't have depth to the warfare to make such scenario interesting to play. Essentially, everybody has more or less the same troops and modifiers and very close battles are decided by RNG. To make an interesting gameplay out of the warfare you would need very different system (like Dominions, for example). Given the scope of EU IV, it's hard to see how very detailed and involved wars would fit into it. I suppose if the turn was a month and you were expected to fight 1-2 wars per century it could work. But that would be a different game.

 

[nkibilko]

I read through entirely, and i still have to say i disagree with you. There are so may places to start... You could put the game on maximum difficulty first of all, that would probably help.

If that didn't help, there is always modding, which has infinite possibilities i can't even cover. It's very simple in this game.

Honestly, it really seems like your issue comes down to personal perspective.

You mention lack of feeling satisfied... Well, i personally have had numerous triumphant and proud moments in this game. I don't understand what you mean about not being able to have small nations with elite armies that really make a difference, that is Brandenburg. It's also possible with many other nations if you take the right ideas in the right order.

Have you ever played a one province minor? Have you restored Byzantium? Have you gotten the Mare Nostrum achievement as the Knights Hospitaller? Have you got the Norwegian Wood achievement, or the Meissner Porcelain achievement? Have you started as a Native American tribe, fully westernized, and conquered all of Europe? Doing all that would be insane. Achievements can inspire very interesting and fun games.

You need to be more creative and put more effort into your ideas, that's all. Your mind is almost just being too lazy to enjoy the game... In my experience my enjoyment from this game comes from about 50% my imagination... The game is a nice way to present a context for the imagination. I put myself in the world of the game when i play, that makes things very fun.

My question to you would be: what more do you want?

There are so many goals to set in this game, it's hard to believe you're truly having such a hard time becoming satisfied.

Between Trade, Development, Diplomacy, Colonization, War and Conquest i feel like EU4 is a truly great game with nearly unlimited replayability.

 

[Sol_Invictus]

You are probably looking at the wrong game. EU IV simply doesn't have depth to the warfare to make such scenario interesting to play. Essentially, everybody has more or less the same troops and modifiers and very close battles are decided by RNG. To make an interesting gameplay out of the warfare you would need very different system (like Dominions, for example). Given the scope of EU IV, it's hard to see how very detailed and involved wars would fit into it. I suppose if the turn was a month and you were expected to fight 1-2 wars per century it could work. But that would be a different game.

I don't think that's true. As I said, I've played quite a number of EU builds and I can tell from experience that warfare used to offer more options to shine than it does now. I even mentioned a few. For instance, spreading out your troops used to be very rewarding if done right; now, with forts acting as bottlenecks, there's pretty much no reason not to form one large doomstack, hunt down the enemy doomstack and fight that one decisive battle. Likewise, Shattered Retreat turns warfare into a series of big encounters, where armies either disengage completely or are immediately hunted down and destroyed after one battle instead of a more dynamic warfare with more incentive for smaller, independent armies. And having to focus more on these would lead to much more dynamic warfare, as it already did in the past.

 

[alexti]

I don't think that's true. As I said, I've played quite a number of EU builds and I can tell from experience that warfare used to offer more options to shine than it does now. I even mentioned a few. For instance, spreading out your troops used to be very rewarding if done right; now, with forts acting as bottlenecks, there's pretty much no reason not to form one large doomstack, hunt down the enemy doomstack and fight that one decisive battle. Likewise, Shattered Retreat turns warfare into a series of big encounters, where armies either disengage completely or are immediately hunted down and destroyed after one battle instead of a more dynamic warfare with more incentive for smaller, independent armies. And having to focus more on these would lead to much more dynamic warfare, as it already did in the past.

These things keep changing from patch to patch, but In any given patch these type of decisions were always trivial - they were just adding more clicks. Doomstacks are bad because they are taking moral damage for no reason. The only reason to use doomstack is to ensure that the enemy won't engage (which, thanks to the forts, is not likely unless you have massive advantage).

 

[bbqftw]

Thanks for your advice, but in a way, you're confirming the issue I have with this game. Of course, playing safely doesn't necessarily mean staying at peace all the time. What it means also includes what you just said: if one of your neighbours is lying on the floor, always hurry to join the beating.

Of course you can get excited for such opportunities, but I, again, just don't feel the achievement in it. Again, you just collect the pieces of what some stronger neighbour has achieved. Again, you don't fight a balanced war but just siege what you want to have.

Its not always about dogpiling, you can fight countries with triple your force limit on VH, you just have to make your own opportunities with loans + tech rushes sometimes

 

[alexti]

Its not always about dogpiling, you can fight countries with triple your force limit on VH, you just have to make your own opportunities with loans + tech rushes sometimes

On VH, being within 1/3 of enemy's force limit is kind of "an enemy lying on the floor" in OP terms

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I agree with the OP that this game (like most Paradox games) often lacks a sense of reward, though I'd suggest that it's usually more a lack of interesting feedback than a lack of goals. Unlike games like the Civilization series or the old Imperialism games where you get plenty of build-it, see-it feedback, EU too often relies too heavily on under-the-hood arithmetic. In Civ, if I build something, I usually can see it on the map. In EU, it's too often build something for 30 years to get a .01 bump to some number under the hood.

Paradox has improved things in this regard over the years but EU sometimes still feels too much like a map with a spreadsheet hidden underneath.

 

[bbqftw]

On VH, being within 1/3 of enemy's force limit is kind of "an enemy lying on the floor" in OP terms

I guess now that the AI sits at something like 75% FL.

But you want to be cautious and account for possible condotierri hires sometimes. Though sometimes you just end up with neighbors inexplicably hiring out their entire armies.

 

[bbqftw]

Normal. And I refuse to touch Hard/VH unless-and-until they, ah, review the -33% AE Impact given by the AI bonuses.

That's pretty much the key bonus that the AI expands at a competitive rate relative to the player, at least when it comes to HRE / central Europe

 

[Lopatou_ovalil]

Try this
http://www.scenariogenerator.net/game/europa_universalis_IV

 

[Vivi_]

you should never, ever, ever start a war that you haven't already won before it started. If there's even the slightest doubt that your enemy is clearly weaker than you, don't start the war.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War

 

[zukodark]

I agree with the OP that this game (like most Paradox games) often lacks a sense of reward, though I'd suggest that it's usually more a lack of interesting feedback than a lack of goals. Unlike games like the Civilization series or the old Imperialism games where you get plenty of build-it, see-it feedback, EU too often relies too heavily on under-the-hood arithmetic. In Civ, if I build something, I usually can see it on the map. In EU, it's too often build something for 30 years to get a .01 bump to some number under the hood.

Paradox has improved things in this regard over the years but EU sometimes still feels too much like a map with a spreadsheet hidden underneath.

Eu4 feels much more rewarding for me than Civilization. My nation is rewarded from struggle, not just me. In Civilization, while I have enjoyed it for hundreds of hours, I don't feel like playing a nation. The moment my nation becomes something completely improbable, I stop enjoying Eu4. That is why I honestly prefer the game at its current state.

 

[grommile]

That's pretty much the key bonus that the AI expands at a competitive rate relative to the player, at least when it comes to HRE / central Europe

It's the bonus that makes computer Austria, France, and Spain literally immune to AE if they take Influence (fairly likely) and hold the controllership (crapshoot) or get the AE Impact reduction event.

Screw that noise.

 

[Ratanka]

wow i see nearly every of your points exact different, its seems way more as an oppinion maybe ur bored and that can happen after thousend of hours
i for myself played eu4 alone 1k hours and the others eu way more and i can say its better then ever and makes more fun then ever before in eu history for me

 

[Ratanka]

That's why the TW games are fun. If you deploy your army correctly and use the terrain to your advantage, a small force can sometime destroy a much larger one. Do it a couple times in a war and a small nation can beat a larger one on skill of arms and general.

you see thats an oppinion, i hate total war and this army stuff is so boring i die from it

 

[Kapteinsabel]

I love the new AI and forts.

It might not be the most logical, but the new fort system makes forts worth it, they do something good for the defend.
We all know how we could abuse the AI by not bulidng forts other than in the capital. and just wierd him out. now it got some good use.

the new AI game play, maybe not perfectly tweaked, but darn good.
if the war is lost, the ai no longer feel a need to suicide, he keeps his troops away from battle and pick off what tropps he can, sige where he can. but he will no longer try to defend with 10 k vs 100 k.

sometimes other nations will attack me while a am in a winning war, and now the tropps that AI saved up, can start working hard.
game vs AI feel alot more like MP game.

I salute you for this, maybe the biggest improvement.

If you do not like the smart AI, make him dumb, don't play on very hard like I do, play on normal or easy.

nobody will judge you

 

[Captain Frye]

Alright, so you came here to leave your dislike because of the edgy thread title. But perhaps you'll hear me out before you do so.

To put things straight, I've totalled probably about 2000 hours in Pdox games, and I've been playing the EU series since EU II, so I've seen quite a bit in terms of grand strategy games, I've learned things the hard way, had quite a few great games, seen quite a bunch patches, DLCs etc come and go.

"So, why this thread then? If you don't enjoy EUIV any more, just play something different."
The problem is that I think EU IV is probably in a better state than any EU game was before. Most new features are awesome, and I'd love to play the hell out of them, enjoy them and see how it all turns out.

The thing is, I can't enjoy it anymore. Because the game lacks the thing a good game needs more than anything: reward. The sense that you achieved something unexpected, that you've beaten the odds.

This was perfectly possible in most earlier versions of EU, and it was great fun to defeat a huge Blobhemia with tiny elite Swiss soldiers, or to restore the Byzantine Empire to all its glory.

Of course, neither of these is impossible in the current game state, but what is impossible is doing this in a rewarding way. If Alexander had played EU IV, there would be no Alexander, you might say.

If you want to achieve anything as a small nation in the current game state, you need 2 things. Strong allies, and lots of patience. Lots and lots of patience. Boy, so much patience.

The essential rule for the game is that you should never, ever, ever start a war that you haven't already won before it started. If there's even the slightest doubt that your enemy is clearly weaker than you, don't start the war.

What are the problems? Well, for instance:
- AI preserves armies like crazy now. New forts have taught it to never commit to pretty much anything. Ever. Unless, as mentioned, the war is pretty much won already anyway.
- This also means that your allies won't help you in decisive battles since they prefer standing in some remote safe spot until the enemy doomstack has somehow vanished (which it usually doesn't do).
- Ambush/guerilla tactics, which used to be so much fun, are now largely impossible. At least, you won't get anything out of them except maybe a bit of attrition for the doomstack, because forts prohibit any real territorial gains.
- Perhaps most of all, the general all-or-nothing tendency of wars. There are hardly any wars left which don't end in complete disaster for one side. In the early game in particular, losing one battle pretty much ruins your game even as a medium-sized nation. Even big stacks can wipe completely in one unlucky encounter (yes, I'm looking in your direction, Mr. "No-you-can't-stop-your-army-from-walking-into-that-doomstack-sir"-feature), and if they don't wipe in the first encounter, they most likely will in the second or third. The only way to avoid this is to, well, play only large nations. Or, to go back to the point I started from, to never start wars unless you already won them in the first place.
- And, lastly, of course, if you lose said battle, you will a) most likely suffer a -100% defeat and will b) lose most of your territory, perhaps be completely annexed in one go, due to the extremely low province warscore cost.

Now, all of this may sound like excitement at first glance. A challenging AI, high stakes in case of an unlucky result, how glorious! Sadly, it leaves a rational human player with only one logical option: to play it utterly, ridiculously safely and carefully. Ally any/all blobs in your neighbourhood. Go afk for half an hour until you got those 10 points. Then declare war on a hopelessly inferior victim. Hooray, now you're a conqueror your allies have done all your work for you for some arbitrary friendship points.
After that, you essentially do the same thing for the rest of the game until you're strong enough to take on the rest of the world all by yourself. And because the game is pushing you so strongly towards such boring, low-risk, repetitive tactics, is why I sadly have to call it - boring.

There are only two solutions: Stop playing for a while or try some mods. Every game has a certain threshold of replay-ability. Even PDX titles. Buy another pdx game or just play with mods.

 

[donnerknall]

Maybe not showing each countries force limit/ army composition in ledger? I mean for me, I'll first start looking at the ledger to see if i can win a war against nation X and stuff. If my numbers are higher i would declare war and win (most of the time). If my numbers are lower i won't declare. Nations should only be able to see other nations force limit, if they're ALLIED, VASSAL, PU, March, etc...
And perhaps you can "spy" other nations (make Esponiage ideas great again???) and gather information about force limit of ur enemy and where they are atm. Whose their general, how many armies they have.

I think this would make the game a little bit *less boring* as now you need to "do more prep and research" before you decide to fight in a war.

I think this would be really great to hide the informations you really should not know per default.
e.g. This would make wars way more exciting.

I had a similar idea, that the ledger should not show everything you are not able to know
- because country not discovered
- because you normally cannot see the number of soldiers
- ...

wasn't too much interest in this thread:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...s-information-on-undiscovered-nations.975529/

 

[earlofbrigand]

An optional 'fall of Empires' and/or 'events' option would be good. The latter being random things that can throw a spanner in the works of even the most powerful of empires - maybe a religious heresy that splits the empire into pieces through meta rebel spawns. Independence movements that have real power. Nations not being able to send 100K troops off to a far away war without them all dying of disease or just melting back into the countryside.

There is definitely a trend for agglomeration and blobbing in the game that makes the whole experiences a bit less interesting. So more in-game targets would be a great addition. Getting x amount of trade nodes triggers something good. Getting more than x triggers off a growing set of reprisals. Developing the capital. Internal pressure to reform (and thus reducing manpower since less people will serve) would be good too.

Means more realistic usage and hiring of mercenaries come into play.