It is convenient for you to pretend like you are above the fray and dispensing these paeans of objective wisdom from above about what everyone really thinks or knows or desires. Maybe it would be more polite and more conducive to discussion if you deigned to address specific arguments, though.
This is going too far now. Paradox fix the god-damn game already!!
- Thread starter Hecastomp
- 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.
Separate game mode. I love the coalitions cause big empires don't get boring like they did in CK2. Stomping through europe with a reformed rome and the imperial reconquest CB was soooo meh. And I had such high hopes.
In 100 years, europe will be 1 giant white blob, I'm not even going to form the HRE.
in 50 years my basetax will be so high, i wont even need ivory!
What? I was asked why I don't find the game fun, and I answered, and your response to me is 'separate game mode'? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Am I supposed to conjure this magical mode into existence in order to enjoy the game now, october 18, 2013?!
And, don't get boring? Are you having a laugh here?
Anyways Riidi. To me it sounds like you've been playing a hammer game all game. And you've nailed yourself into a corner. That was your descision. Not a game flaw. The game gives you many more choices that you chose to ignore. Dont fault the game for that.
I will fault the game for it, because it was dramatically changed between release and 1.2, as if specifically to prevent me from playing the way I had been.
edit: I don't even know why I'm taking you seriously, you posted a screenshot in 1600, less than halfway through the game, to address my complaints that coalition warfare makes the late game an unrewarding pointless slog. You say that I should use diplovassalization to get my way - but it's not possible to diplovassalize countries in different religious groups.
Disagree. I believe it would be less polite to join the fray. And I'm certain it would NOT be conducive to discussion, at all. Not that I have really seen much discussion (no I don't count rehashing the same old rants over and over as discussion).
But since I'm just pretending, any observation I make is irrelevant, I guess, not to mention impolite. Actually, though, aren't most of the observations being made here kind of irrelevant? Most are certainly impolite, starting with the title of this thread, not to mention redundant and repetitive.
But since it seems important to you, it seems to me I did address a specific issue earlier. Apparently it was not to your satisfaction. Not sure why you're qualified to judge my posts or why you feel compelled in drag me into an argument or why you think that would be useful? I'm sure you can succeed, if you keep trying. But the why questions would remain.
I'll make one more useless observation for you. Above post refers to a less entertaining end game. Consider: compared to EU3, there is actually an end game worth playing in EU4. Maybe it's a bit more static now and was better under a previous version, and maybe it can become better, again? But how many people actually played EU3 beyond mid 17th century more than once or twice?
Except that people keep telling you, over and over, that there is no end game. In fact, I have no interest about 100 years in. I'm facing completely artificial limits on growth combined with no meaningful opposition. I hit this with Morocco, Oman, Hindustan / Vij, Thailand, etc. - it's actually worse for me if I run Muscovy, Ottomans, et al. Small nations play in a way very similar to large ones; the only difference is the initial growth phase, and once you understand how the game works you can leverage one into a solid position from a variety of angles. So as far as I'm concerned it isn't just that there isn't an end game; a game that claims to run for 400 years is interesting to me for less than 100. This is actually far, far worse than EU2 or EU3, where you could continue to do interesting things far longer into the game. And it's much less dynamic and has far more dead time (fast forward) than the release version.
I have no problem with the game's difficulty, though. Last week, I united Germany as Brandenburg => Prussia by 1600, so I understand the systems and can play the game just fine, even though I have no desire for a world conquest and have never tried one.
The problem is not that the game is too hard, the problem is that the game is obtuse and unpredictable in ways that sometimes translate into complaints of difficulty with many types of players. In order to counteract a small subset of power-gamers, Paradox put some systems that worked just fine in the release version of EU4 on a hair trigger and obfuscated others. The result is a game that is less fun to play than it used to be, because player agency is so harshly restricted. I am here to say so, and Paradox is here to find some way of tuning their systems to something more rewarding and satisfying than random chance. This isn't us asking for tips and tricks, this is us saying that Paradox has made a more punishing and more boring game unnecessarily, and moreover that such a game is a mistake in light of their own design goals.
Again, I find your non-existent end game to be more challenging than it was in EU2 or EU3, and I find myself playing much later. I would agree that there are fewer interesting things to do, but that has little to do with the any weaknesses in the end game.
Valid points, even if some of them still flirt with commentary about difficulty.
Which is why I reiterate the primary point I was trying to make - that it is distracting and counterproductive to mix valid points with
1) ridiculous hyperbole;
2) offensive language; and
3) complaints that are really about difficulty levels, despite disingenuous protestations to the contrary.
It seems you're upset...but take a step back and consider that the developers are people with limited time, lives and families. It is probably not realistic(or reasonable) to expect them to change a game feature to suit your liking, then test, and deploy on a 24 hour turnaround. A separate game mode is a reasonable way to please both groups of players, admittedly, taking more than 24-hours to put together. If you want a less bellicose AI, fair enough. (There is actually already an easy mode. Maybe you'd prefer they rename it?) But whatever it is, I'd prefer it be a separate mode so that I can play iron man and still have a very challenging and interesting game.
I don't expect them to do that. What I do expect is that they not make it worse, which is what they did by preventing coalition-shattering and making every nation stay in coalitino for a minimum of five years. You have constructed an elaborate strawman by claiming that I'm somehow asking for an unreasonable new feature request when "Coalitions make war a big ol' slog" is neither a feature request nor a demand for immediate action.
Why would I want a less bellicose AI? That bears no relation to anything I have requested in this or any other thread. Did you just do that to insinuate that I was a casualtard noob who should play on easy? I think you did. Shame on you.