Trying to do WC in 1.33 is a pain...

[ImAdrian]

I'm trying to do the three mountains achievement (WC as Ryukyu)... year is around 1680

Ottomans have 1M troops
Almost every province in Europe is a fort (high level also).
Small nations in africa/asia/america have at least level 6 forts.

Even while playing as shogun with many vassals, this is still such a slow painful advance, especially considering that the game runs so slow on speed 5... The run is definitely doable but I don't think I can take it anymore, mentally. Who seriously thought this is a good gameplay experience? Late game definitely needs to be tuned a bit - it's not hard, it's just wayyyy too tedious now

 

[Borgratz]

Regarding troop levels, I think the Ai being strong enough to be interesting to fight in a normal game beats tuning the game so that wc doesn't feel like a chore.

And I don't really see a way to have the game do both at the same time.

The fort situation might be worth looking at, as long as both you and the Ai can conquer them faster.

 

[Word_Smith]

Who seriously thought this is a good gameplay experience?

You did when you decided to do a WC lmao

 

[vaLor-]

The game isn't balanced around the ease of conquering the world, nor should it be

 

[Antonius66]

I do agree that the forts are just a stupid change. It does not make the game 'more challenging' it just makes it tedious which is not the same and is a major negative to good gameplay. Having to push through endless level 8 forts in every other province is boring, tedious and completely unrealistic to boot.

 

[Zaddy]

Regarding troop levels, I think the Ai being strong enough to be interesting to fight in a normal game beats tuning the game so that wc doesn't feel like a chore.

And I don't really see a way to have the game do both at the same time.

The fort situation might be worth looking at, as long as both you and the Ai can conquer them faster.

The problem is that these late game "you vs. 1 mil man Ottomans + random Muslim minors" are never interesting, because it devolves into a slow, grindy, micro-intensive slog. Those are the sorts of wars that make me never want to do a WC again. Once you're big enough to be fighting the Ottomans the game has long since ceased to be interesting, and making the AI more difficult won't really change that, because the scale of the wars becomes too big to be enjoyable. Compounding this is the awful performance.

The game isn't balanced around the ease of conquering the world, nor should it be

Sorry, this is just wrong. There's a dozen mechanics I could name off the top of my head that implicitly suggest conquering the world/large amounts of land is the entire point of the game, and the game rewards you for doing so. The only punishment for doing so is that the game becomes more and more tedious as you progress.

Even worse is the issue that the game does not add challenge as a blockade to conquering the world as time goes on, it only adds tedium. The game implicitly IS balanced around conquering the world, it just "balances" this by making it more and more miserable to play as you do so.

 

[Slow Bathroom]

Would it be more fun if the AI didn't build any forts and the Ottomans didn't have an army?

 

[ArtFart]

So you're saying conquering the world is difficult now? And that's a bad thing? The game isn't JUST about world conquest, nor should it be. I personally think it's absolutely fine as it is, wars in this game are still super short in comparison to reality, for example, the conquest of Granada in 1482 took 10 years, in game you can do it within months.

I, and the majority of the community, are not bothered about world conquests, so why should they balance it around that? It should be near impossible to world conquest imo.

 

[Zaddy]

Would it be more fun if the AI didn't build any forts and the Ottomans didn't have an army?

Would probably be the same level of fun (that is, not much at all) but would be less tedious.

 

[Zaddy]

So you're saying conquering the world is difficult now?

Not difficult, tedious. Important difference.

 

[ArtFart]

Not difficult, tedious. Important difference.

So it should be. Like I said, I think it should be near impossible, eg extremely time consuming and draining on a country, in order to do any large scale conquest like a world or continent conquest.

 

[MatthewP]

The problem is that these late game "you vs. 1 mil man Ottomans + random Muslim minors" are never interesting, because it devolves into a slow, grindy, micro-intensive slog. Those are the sorts of wars that make me never want to do a WC again. Once you're big enough to be fighting the Ottomans the game has long since ceased to be interesting, and making the AI more difficult won't really change that, because the scale of the wars becomes too big to be enjoyable. Compounding this is the awful performance.

I agree with this: huge late game wars in EU4 are not much fun, and especially not in a WC where you’re really just trying to wrap things up. But I also agree with the comment you responded to - the changes make the AI more challenging and competitive earlier in the game. That is fun, and it is more important than trying to make the tail end of a WC less of a slog. And btw, the changes didn’t really make large wars any less fun - they already weren’t. They just made them more common and longer for players who are running away with the game, who before didn’t hit any real roadblocks after 1550.

 

[Zaddy]

So it should be. Like I said, I think it should be near impossible, eg extremely time consuming and draining on a country, in order to do any large scale conquest like a world or continent conquest.

I do not think the most efficient way to play the game should also be the most soul-crushing. It's alright if you think it should be impossible. I'm ambivalent on the topic. I just don't think the primary way you have fun and interact with the game (war) should make you want to rip your hair out. What we have currently is a very unhappy medium where blobbing becomes migraine-inducing after like 1550, but there's also nothing to do besides blobbing.

 

[Zaddy]

I agree with this: huge late game wars in EU4 are not much fun, and especially not in a WC where you’re really just trying to wrap things up. But I also agree with the comment you responded to - the changes make the AI more challenging and competitive earlier in the game. That is fun, and it is more important than trying to make the tail end of a WC less of a slog. And btw, the changes didn’t really make large wars any less fun - they already weren’t. They just made them more common and longer for players who are running away with the game, who before didn’t hit any real roadblocks after 1550.

No doubt, this is not a new occurrence, it's been this way for several years now.

You do bring up an interesting point regarding the changes making the early game more interesting. For 99% of players, that's much more important than making the late game less of a slog.

 

[ArtFart]

I do not think the most efficient way to play the game should also be the most soul-crushing. It's alright if you think it should be impossible. I'm ambivalent on the topic. I just don't think the primary way you have fun and interact with the game (war) should make you want to rip your hair out. What we have currently is a very unhappy medium where blobbing becomes migraine-inducing after like 1550, but there's also nothing to do besides blobbing.

I'd disagree with you on "nothing to do besides blobbing". I recently had a very fun game playing a tall Ulm, I used diplomatic actions in order to build up vassals and mess with the emperor, I never once broke my free city status, meaning I never had anything more than 1 province. It is still more than easy to have fun without constant blobbing.

 

[Zaddy]

I'd disagree with you on "nothing to do besides blobbing". I recently had a very fun game playing a tall Ulm, I used diplomatic actions in order to build up vassals and mess with the emperor, I never once broke my free city status, meaning I never had anything more than 1 province. It is still more than easy to have fun without constant blobbing.

I can only speak for myself of course. I'm genuinely glad you had fun doing that. But from my perspective, that sort of game would not be enjoyable to me. It could be enjoyable in another, different EU4 with fun stuff to do while at peace, but that's not what we have from my perspective. All of my positions on how the game should be designed comes from that central premise.

 

[MrMcQue]

Sorry, this is just wrong. There's a dozen mechanics I could name off the top of my head that implicitly suggest conquering the world/large amounts of land is the entire point of the game,

Then ideally these mechanics would be changed and/or removed as well.

The 30 years war, the Anglo-Spanish wars, the struggles, reforms and wars of the PLC, the downfall of the Ming Dynasty, are all more than interesting enough in theory to support a game from 14xx to the 19th century. I really dig the fact the developers of Victoria III said that a world conquest will be practically impossible, and i hope for the same in EU5 in combination with an extensive expansion of diplomacy, internal politics, economy and cabinet-wars.

 

[Reman]

The Maginot AI this patch is extremely obnoxious. Sieging forts has never been a fun or interesting part of EU4 like battling enemy armies, juggling AE, or manipulating diplomacy are. Contrary to popular belief it also doesn't "improve" the AI to spam them, as they're an inefficient investment. You don't see top players building or upgrading forts outside of very specific scenarios.

Ubiquitous forts certainly make the game more tedious. Some might argue that going for a WC is already super tedious, but this is vastly overstated. A WC game remains interesting until about the last 25% or so of the world is left, which puts it about on par with an average game of Civ or Total War. The people complaining about WC tedium are likely the ones not doing WCs often, and are using motivated reasoning to denounce a playstyle they didn't like in the first place

 

[Zaddy]

Then ideally these mechanics would be changed and/or removed as well.

The 30 years war, the Anglo-Spanish wars, the struggles, reforms and wars of the PLC, the downfall of the Ming Dynasty, are all more than interesting enough in theory to support a game from 14xx to the 19th century. I really dig the fact the developers of Victoria III said that a world conquest will be practically impossible, and i hope for the same in EU5 in combination with an extensive expansion of diplomacy, internal politics, economy and cabinet-wars.

Well, I would be fine with that in a sequel, I'm not that attached to the gameplay of map painting vs. any other sort of subgenre of GSG. All I want is a game where a) player skill matters and b) is fun to play.

That said, none of the mechanics that make EU4 a map painter are going to be removed this late into the game's life cycle. That would require an entirely new game.

And none of this changes that fact that my point remains correct that the game does nothing but reward the player for expanding and encourages them to keep doing it.

 

[please add multithreading]

Its always interesting to see how people who never even left europe are the first ones to complain how easy the game is and how every new obnoxious change is good cause it makes the game "more difficult". In what world would anyone who plays countrys smaller then Bohemia say that having every place be more fortified then a bomb proof tunnel system is fun and engaging gameplay.