The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions

[TheAtreides84]

This topic was on game depth and skill ceiling, but once again is beyond all but what it seems like 3 people. It's not what I expected of this community considering the game tends to appeal to people with a really strong understanding of systems, opportunity cost, game theory and other high level strategic thought.

Come on, friend... EUIV is a smart game but it's no rocket science. I wouldn't even qualify commercial wargames (like Flashpoint Campaigns or TOAW series or Command Airnaval Ops) as "appealing to people with strong understanding of game theory". Game theory is fairly high level math, you know. They are smart games for smarter-than-average people, yes, but they are still games, you play them for fun, not to get better at some arbitrary set of rules. It seems to me you need a job in corporate management, not a game.

 

[Noel84]

How do you refute the fact that there is a victory screen at 1821 that shows you your score and your placement? It even has 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc listed there to make it easy for you to understand. I ignore your so called refutation because it is nonsense.

ANd? Let's try this with other games. At the end of a round of League of Legends you have a screen showing how many kills you have. By your definition, having the most kills here is winning, even if your team lost the game
Also, if ironman is the intended way to play, then why isn't it the default setting? Achievements can't be true because paradox has clearly said they couldn't care less if a patch makes certain achievements impossible

 

[RobRoy3]

How do you refute the fact that there is a victory screen at 1821 that shows you your score and your placement? It even has 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc listed there to make it easy for you to understand. I ignore your so called refutation because it is nonsense.

Many have other goals that they made up out of the ether, that is called roleplay.

Wait. I've lost track of your nonsense. Are you arguing that the one and only way to play the game is to pursue achievements? Or world conquest? Or high score?

'Cause some of those are mutually exclusive. Of course, you'd know that since you've optimized how the game should be played.

About once a week or so, the OP makes a topic written in an intentionally aggravating tone with many sweeping assumptions and opinions stated as facts about a point that may or may not have any validity. Many people object to this and disagree with the OP's comments. The OP then takes this as a sign that the other people are stupid and incapable of understanding his point rather than just irritated at the assumptions and rudeness and decides to be even more condescending and state even more personal opinions as facts. The cycle repeats itself for a while, and then the topic loses steam and fades into the abyss where it belongs.

There's precisely zero chance of convincing the OP of anything, and he's clearly just out for the attention. I should probably stop reading this myself, but these topics are like roadkill--too awful not to look at.

Unfortunately, I think you're close. But it's probably more simple than that. This is just his form of entertainment, more satisfying to him than actually playing the game.

And I now share guilt for feeding him, multiple times.

 

[grommile]

There is only one multiplayer game,

False. You can, by coordinating with the people you want to play with, play multiplayer with mods.

 

[Edmon]

False. You can, by coordinating with the people you want to play with, play multiplayer with mods.

Yeah, that's actually fair, I've played multiplayer with a few mods with friends such as extended timeline. However, the game is pretty unstable and adding mods leads to tons of infuriating desyncs. However, I feel it is also fair to say the default multiplayer is probably the only one that can be played with any amount of stability. At least, when you are running 5-6+ players.

 

[Quickslow87]

It causes lots of weird bugs depending on which expansions are flipped on and off, and it's not worth having those bugs there for the sake of that tiny percent of achievement hunters

What if I start a game and later buy an expansion? Does that mean the save will not be compatible?

 

[Noel84]

Yeah, that's actually fair, I've played multiplayer with a few mods with friends such as extended timeline. However, the game is pretty unstable and adding mods leads to tons of infuriating desyncs. However, I feel it is also fair to say the default multiplayer is probably the only one that can be played with any amount of stability. At least, when you are running 5-6+ players.

Ignoring my posts again?

 

[Xinkc]

I wouldn't be here if I didn't really like this game, but I am kind of incredulous at how every "lets play", strategy guide and youtube video related to doing anything difficult on EUIV always seems to start with these statements:

"So, for X achievement, I'm going to disable El Doraldo because I want to explore manually and I'm also disabling Common Sense because I don't want the AI to develop and development is useless for human players anyway."

Arumba07, Shenryyr02, and Quill18. Three fairly big EU4/Paradox/strategy based Youtuber names that don't do this. The first two both go through several incredibly difficult achievements and are often cited as being some of best ways to learn how to play the game visually without disabling DLC. Maybe they're not as big as I think.

Good players disable these expansions because they are frustrating. Thats why common sense in part has terrible reviews. Good players quickly realise (being good) that the best way to play is without these features or with them but to never invest or use them, thus shallowing the game.

These features take away freedoms and thus create frustration for good players who can and will micromanage like a boss.

TL;DR:
Expansion features are often best completely avoided for the highest possible skill ceiling game.

Much of the poor reviews for Common Sense were related to the accompanying patch changing the building system of the game which had an effect on manpower gain. Also, you list the fort change as being a DLC change but that's a 1.12 change. "Good" players can only disable that feature by either rolling back to an earlier patch or modding (I guess, don't know about that for sure).

It's okay, eventually one of you will realize you can savescum by ending the process through the task manager. Ironman accomplishes nothing except forcing an extra two hours worth of save times minimum on anything not a SSD.

But loading the game up afterwards takes a fair amount of time as well.

What are you even talking about? I watch tons and tons of EU 4 Let's plays and i have never heard a single Let's Player utter those words.
Arumba, Shenryyr2, DDRJake, Marco Antonio. All Let's Players that are doing the toughest Achievements that are in the game and none of them did them by turning of certain Dlc to make the game easier. Maybe you should watch Let's players that are actually good at the game, instead of the ones turning of features to make it easier for them.

Yeah, the OP is wrong in this regard.

 

[doktorstick]

They are smart games for smarter-than-average people, yes, but they are still games, you play them for fun, not to get better at some arbitrary set of rules.

Emphasis mine. I would argue against the whole notion of games and fun as most people think of "fun". To me, learning (i.e., "get better at some arbitrary set of rules") is intrinsic to games and fun. Maybe "satisfaction" is a better word? Periods of boredom interrupted by moments of accomplishment? As you have written it, however, I think that definition of "fun" (without learning) applies to shallow games that aren't lasting.

When games are played socially, I mostly agree they are played for fun; it isn't the game that makes it fun, it's the people you are with. When they are played competitively? That's a harder sell--there's so much emotion tied up in victory and defeat. When playing them by yourself? I feel it's all over the map.

For me, I don't sit down to EU4 and think, "Man, I'm going to have some FUN!" It's more about the next thing to learn, the next obstacle to overcome, to more effectively crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Emphasis mine. I would argue against the whole notion of games and fun as most people think of "fun". To me, learning (i.e., "get better at some arbitrary set of rules") is intrinsic to games and fun. Maybe "satisfaction" is a better word? Periods of boredom interrupted by moments of accomplishment? As you have written it, however, I think that definition of "fun" (without learning) applies to shallow games that aren't lasting.

When games are played socially, I mostly agree they are played for fun; it isn't the game that makes it fun, it's the people you are with. When they are played competitively? That's a harder sell--there's so much emotion tied up in victory and defeat. When playing them by yourself? I feel it's all over the map.

For me, I don't sit down to EU4 and think, "Man, I'm going to have some FUN!" It's more about the next thing to learn, the next obstacle to overcome, to more effectively crush my enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Learning can indeed be fun, and different people define fun in different ways. But I was saying that even "intellectual" players don't usually enjoy having to learn the arbitrary intricacies of micromanagement: most of them are in for some realistic, somewhat plausible strategy fix inside a ruleset that makes a bit of real-life sense. Getting better and better at a single game regardless of how tedious it can be (basically, OP is asking for this when he talks about micro exploits) is more of an e-sport kind of thing, not the most popular point of view in the grand strategy crowd. After all, many people would love being an emperor or a general for a day, but very few would step in the shoes of a quartermaster or a bureaucrat.

 

[Connacht]

Circumventing the strict rules is called "Cheating". Ironman specifically states, in plain English, that it disables saving "So you can't reload when something goes wrong for your nation". If you then find a method to specifically do exactly that, you are a cheater. You've been told in English, which I'm sure you understand, to not save and reload when something goes wrong. The game should not have to (but does attempt to) enforce that rule, but you should have the morale fibre to follow the ruling without enforcement.

Oh, holy shit, it's a videogame. A VIDEOGAME.
Who in Heaven and Earth cares if you save and reload, or play in a particular way or something something something blah blah blah.
Get a life everybody, play EU4 in your single player for the fun of playing it, enjoy what all of you enjoy, respect the rules for the achievements but consider those things unnecessary.

Even Amnesia gave players the ability to save whenever they wanted. Yes, this might ruin the atmosphere, but then simply don't save every 3 steps and don't bother people who don't feel sure to proceed forward without saving.

P.S. I tried once to play on ironman mode, because I thought it would be fun: no savegames, what a challenge, if I do a mistake I will have to take it!
After I noticed that every 2 minutes I had a long time waiting for a slow autosave, I quitted, because it was breaking my balls. I play for fun, not for waiting all the time. I also don't have so much time to spend in front of a videogame: my family, my friends, my job, my hobbies... my life. Those things are more important that a void "achievement" given to a simple Steam account.

 

[happymix91]

Oh, holy shit, it's a videogame. A VIDEOGAME.
Who in Heaven and Earth cares if you save and reload, or play in a particular way or something something something blah blah blah.
Get a life everybody, play EU4 in your single player for the fun of playing it, enjoy what all of you enjoy, respect the rules for the achievements but consider those things unnecessary.

Even Amnesia gave players the ability to save whenever they wanted. Yes, this might ruin the atmosphere, but then simply don't save every 3 steps and don't bother people who don't feel sure to proceed forward without saving.

P.S. I tried once to play on ironman mode, because I thought it would be fun: no savegames, what a challenge, if I do a mistake I will have to take it!
After I noticed that every 2 minutes I had a long time waiting for a slow autosave, I quitted, because it was breaking my balls. I play for fun, not for waiting all the time. I also don't have so much time to spend in front of a videogame: my family, my friends, my job, my hobbies... my life. Those things are more important that a void "achievement" given to a simple Steam account.

? Do non-ironman game then. What he said was about cheating with ironman. Not blaming for savescummig or cheating at non-ironman.

 

[Connacht]

It's implicit that if I once tried irongame and quit because it was too slow and I don't consider a tag on Steam a life-goal, then I play default settings.

 

[Person012345]

That's a sad statistic, it basically implies that only 16.8% of people who bought EUIV actually bothered to play it.

*on ironman.

I have no achievements afaik because I have no desire to punish myself by playing ironman.

 

[Person012345]

Your point is stupid, Ironman is not the way the game is "intended" to be played, it's intended to be played however you want otherwise they wouldn't give you the option. You do realise that it's an intentional decision by the developers to allow one not to enable ironman mode right?

The problem here isn't everyone else refusing to answer your point, it's you distracting from your own point by saying moronic crap like "good people play X way" and "if you aren't playing ironman you aren't playing the game". I'll also say that a number of your posts have been self-contradictory. From claiming that development is worthless because it's so much worse than using your points efficiently, to in the next post saying that it doesn't punish noobs who use it to extolling the virtues of "playing the game like it was intended" in one post and in another telling us how "good" people who use tactics like diplomat exploits are.

 

[Hector of Troy]

The day PDS introduced world conquest achievements was the day they had to start compromising mature game mechanics.

As we all know, there are people who only play this game for the sake of getting those achievements, and if they don't, they will complain very loudly, day and night, until the developers find a way to downgrade EU4 and meet their expectations.

They truly only care about getting the WC achievement, and won't accept no as an answer. Therefore, If they can't get what they want, then it's because something must be very wrong with EU4 and needs to be fixed.

In the end, It doesn't really matter how trivial, unrealistic, easy or gamey EU4 may turn out to be, just as long as they can go to bed knowing they've finally managed to conquer the world as Ryuyku, Ethiopia, The Byzantines or France. That's all that matters after all. It's the only thing that makes the EU4 experience worthwhile for them.

 

[grommile]

The day PDS introduced world conquest achievements was the day they had to start compromising mature game mechanics.

Given that you've got EU3 in your displayed forum badges, I find it hilarious that you're claiming this. World Conquest was possible in every iteration of EU3 as far as I know, and it was only the final iteration (Divine Wind) that had achievements. EU4, in permitting world conquest, is just following in its predecessor's footsteps.

Certain implementations of EU4's conquest-restraining mechanics got complained about not so much for their impact on WC attempts as for their impact on, y'know, playing France.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Given that you've got EU3 in your displayed forum badges, I find it hilarious that you're claiming this. World Conquest was possible in every iteration of EU3 as far as I know.

Not only was it possible in EU3, but it was even easier than in EU4. And I never liked it.

 

[TheAtreides84]

The day PDS introduced world conquest achievements was the day they had to start compromising mature game mechanics.

As we all know, there are people who only play this game for the sake of getting those achievements, and if they don't, they will complain very loudly, day and night, until the developers find a way to downgrade EU4 and meet their expectations.

They truly only care about getting the WC achievement, and won't accept no as an answer. Therefore, If they can't get what they want, then it's because something must be very wrong with EU4 and needs to be fixed.

In the end, It doesn't really matter how trivial, unrealistic, easy or gamey EU4 may turn out to be, just as long as they can go to bed knowing they've finally managed to conquer the world as Ryuyku, Ethiopia, The Byzantines or France. That's all that matters after all. It's the only thing that makes the EU4 experience worthwhile for them.

I don't really like achievements. They break the fourth wall and make you play in weird ways. I'll always go for some in-game bonus objective (just finished Legacy of the Void this way, with the ship fully upgraded), but medals on my personal profile? Who cares? I'm not playing the game as me, I'm playing as the emperor/commander/spirit of the nation. I really hope that Paradox will expand on the mission system, giving some permanent in-game rewards for specific feats, instead of just dishing out achievements.

 

[grommile]

I don't really like achievements. They break the fourth wall and make you play in weird ways.

Many - even most - of EU4's achievements are actually entirely reasonable goals within the context of the game. (Yes, Norwegian Wood, Krabater, and Hessian Mercenaries are silly.)