Upcoming Britain DLC, underwhelming?

[Sfan]

Third Rome improves the experience, seriously? It is one of the most clumsy and nonsense DLC I've ever seen, both in gameplay and immersion.

Not only it breaks immersion for anyone with at least cursory knowledge of the region, it also breaks AI which stops buying artillery.

Well, I may lack the historical knowledge, but since its release I played 2 campaigns with Russian principalities and 5 Orthodox games, and they were all very fun. And I really enjoyed my Golden Rush too with the buffed Muscovy. I'm happy to pay 10 euros for that experience, I wouldn't have done it without the expansion. So let's say it improved my experience even if some people disliked it.

 

[Wagonlitz]

As I see it, the only thing that seems worthwhile is Anglicanism and the new missions. Coal comes too late, and the rest are worthless additions. I might be willing to pay the same as for Third Rome, but only because the free patch adds things that I have wanted for a long time. If it's more expensive, then it really becomes hard to justify getting.

It's 10 € to preorder. Think Third Rome was the same.

 

[Bearjuden]

I hope they will go with mandatory incremental expansions in the future. Modular DLC were fine when there were a few of them, but now it is evident it bites them back when you see sets of assorted mechanics which don't interact at all.

I'm personally fine with having so many, but only if after, say, three years, everybody gets the DLC regardless of whether or not they payed. You pay for the privelege of playing with it when it comes out, not waaaaaay later, but eventually everybody is working off of the same mechanics which means Paradox can integrate them and work on them as needed. Plus then they have three years of feedback to work with when they do improve it. But I have no idea how financially viable that is. Paradox has never said why they have that policy, which makes it impossible for us to speculate on the viability of changing their expansion policy.

Edit: in case it was unclear, I don't think dlc should be mandatory in that time period, just that everybody eventually gets them. I'm a sucker for modularity.

 

[Telenil]

Mandatory expansions would be *way* worse: you would have to pay for every new content, not just the paid part of the DLC, even if you don't play it. If you don't pay, your version will not be prioritized for bug fixes. You couldn't choose to disable a particular DLC if you don't like a mechanic.

Can you imagine what the game would be like if there was no free content and you had to buy DLCs in the order they were released?

 

[XYN]

Mandatory expansions would be *way* worse: you would have to pay for every new content, not just the paid part of the DLC, even if you don't play it. If you don't pay, your version will not be prioritized for bug fixes. You couldn't choose to disable a particular DLC if you don't like a mechanic.

If said mechanics is part of free patch accompanying a DLC, you can't disable it anyway. You can't even complain about it without getting "but it is free why are you complaining" (although, the public here is often hyper-sensitive about everything and doesn't understand that complaining is good and healthy. The devs understand though, so whatever).

Can you imagine what the game would be like if there was no free content and you had to buy DLCs in the order they were released?

You mean, like it was for ages with expansions and when DLC didn't exist yet?

Yes, I can imagine^W remember it perfectly.

Personally, I do not want "free" content. I want honest exchange of money for goods which would also not hinder the developers developing these goods.

Incremental additions would also mean more efficient testing and better balance, and I suspect easier development - for every paid DLC you have to make and maintain the code which works both with the present DLC and without. Especially messy it ought to be for the AI which has to be able to function adequately in any possible combination of DLCs enabled.

 

[Granatenwerfer]

IMO it is too early to come to a final valuation.
Paradox makes great games and so I think we should wait for the next development diaries.

 

[schondetta]

Its just whelming. Its only "over" if there was a sudden and acute decrease in expectation which I see no evidence for

 

[peenerz]

I feel like the wrong decisions were made in this expansion.

It's supposed to be an immersion pack, something focused on Britain. They could have reworked parliaments. Added a clans estate for Celtic culture. Added highlander infantry. Instead they chose to add mechanics like innovativeness, which is implemented poorly and a huge wasted opportunity.

All innovativeness does is decrease power costs and military tradition decay (which I don't really understand, how does being innovative equate to preserving military tradition?). However these bonuses are rather meager, especially when you compare them to the work you have to do to reach 100 in the first place.

Being innovative leads to inventions. Creations. What they could have done was introduce inventions into the game, like in Victoria 2, where unlocking a technology would give you the chance of discovering certain inventions that would give small bonuses to your nation. Innovativeness could have been a modifier to increase the chances of discovering inventions. The higher innovation you have, the higher base chance of inventing something.

https://vic2.paradoxwikis.com/Inventions

Of course, this wouldn't happen. Being an immersion pack, a mechanic that would rework the game would no way be included. They took an idea that could have been expanded upon even more and put into a full fledged DLC and put it as a small worthless modifier in an immersion pack instead. Reworking parliaments or estates specific to Britain would have been a much better and less wasteful idea.

 

[Vampiresbane]

I feel like the wrong decisions were made in this expansion.

It's supposed to be an immersion pack, something focused on Britain. They could have reworked parliaments. Added a clans estate for Celtic culture. Added highlander infantry. Instead they chose to add mechanics like innovativeness, which is implemented poorly and a huge wasted opportunity.

All innovativeness does is decrease power costs and military tradition decay (which I don't really understand, how does being innovative equate to preserving military tradition?). However these bonuses are rather meager, especially when you compare them to the work you have to do to reach 100 in the first place.

Being innovative leads to inventions. Creations. What they could have done was introduce inventions into the game, like in Victoria 2, where unlocking a technology would give you the chance of discovering certain inventions that would give small bonuses to your nation. Innovativeness could have been a modifier to increase the chances of discovering inventions. The higher innovation you have, the higher base chance of inventing something.

https://vic2.paradoxwikis.com/Inventions

Of course, this wouldn't happen. Being an immersion pack, a mechanic that would rework the game would no way be included. They took an idea that could have been expanded upon even more and put into a full fledged DLC and put it as a small worthless modifier in an immersion pack instead. Reworking parliaments or estates specific to Britain would have been a much better and less wasteful idea.

I don't disagree with this. I'd add a revamp of the naval warfare system to your invention, reworked parliaments, and clans estate suggestions, but that's pretty much my opinion as well.

 

[Dakka]

I’ve been ghosting this thread since it started and I think I should probably end my silence and drop my two cents:
Yes, this far the features shown have been “meh”. But for the most part we didn’t see any major problems with Rule Brittania until Innovation was announced. I honestly think a lot of the backlash is due to this mediocre/poor/ignorable feature.
But let’s look at the price tag (using USD as the currency, as it is what I’m familiar with) and compare it to what we are getting:
Unit Packs and Music: These two are combined into the Immersion pack, and when these items are on their own for other major packs they tend to sit at a combined total of $5 US. That’s half the price of the immersion pack. So that means tha all else contentwise is essentially $5 US.

Actual gameplay content for $5:
- Anglicanism: a religion unique to the region that actually deserves to be differentiated from standard Protestantism, as it was historically. We have some unique fire-and-forget abilities that fit the goals and pursuits of England at the time. I don’t see an issue with his religion. It’s not “meta competitive”, but from a historical and narrative standpoint it fits England very well

- Unique Missions for England: this is expected as it is, in fact, an immersion pack for England

- Naval doctrines: though we haven’t read the diary on it yet, we have seen some screenshots and it looks like a pleasant little addition that can specialize your Navy in according to your specific needs. It’s not game-changing, but it’s a nice little feature that can further be expanded on should naval warfare get an overhaul. And if not, at least it adds a little bit more depth to the seafaring game than there was before.

-Innovation: a feature that has been bemoaned enough and to add to this, for me, would feel like preaching to he choir. We can ignore this for the purposes of my argument.

-Knowledge sharing: a great tool in regards to multiplayer, Despite being relatively useless for single player.

- Trade Steering: from what I have seen, may be a bit redundant, but with further inspection not only grants you another nations merchant power, but also denies them their own use. Imagine as England forcing this on Lubeck? You now have all the merchants granted from the Hanseatic league not only giving you their trade power but also pushing that power toward the English Channel without having the utilize your own merchants.

-Other Features: I’m sure there will be other features added in that weren’t major enough to include as bullet points for the DLC. They had initially mentioned that they plan on making Ireland harder to control for Tommy, so it is quite possible that the DLC will include Irish and Scottish events that make the area as a whole much more flavorful.

So in conclusion: is it the best DLC ever? No. Is it worth the money? Well, if you were planning on buying the units and music anyway, that’s quite a bit (in Paradox terms) of features for a measly additional $5. Is it essential? No, but that’s the point. The DLC is designed for those that just want an extra bit of goodies for the region it focuses on. Decrying a small DLC like this as “the death of EU4” is frankly ridiculous. It’s basically just a glorified American Dream or Purple Phoenix. It’s not meant to be a major addition to the game. It’s just a bit of salt for the main course, if you will. And Lord knows it is providing its fair share of salt in this forum.

TL;DR it’s a well priced flavor DLC that is designed to be cheap and skippable, but adds some extra to a nation you like. No reason to begin rioting online.

 

[Dakka]

I would also like to add:
It is not unheard of for past DLCs to get updated or worked on. I know there have been a few instances already (RNW, Trade Companies, and some others that I am blanking on but know they exist).
Parliaments were added in Common Sense, estates were added in Cossacks. In the past when older DLCs have been improved upon, they were talked about in DD’s at the end of the development cycle for said DLC.
It is not completely out of possibility that improvements to these features related to other expansions will not get some update and will be talked about closer to the release of Rule Brittania

 

[GoatMagic]

Yes, this far the features shown have been “meh”. But for the most part we didn’t see any major problems with Rule Brittania until Innovation was announced.

It seemed coal was more poorly received then innovation. A supposedly super resource for making tons of money later in the game when the game is already broke with tons of money. I remember tons of people complaining about Anglicanism and how it gets a bonus conversion rate against heretics and lower development costs. Pretty silly considering Anglicanism never really spread and England is already in too good a place with development way too early.

This seems to be the most negatively received update in a long time. The map changes are really the only thing that people seem in general happy about.

 

[Dakka]

Anglicanism and how it gets a bonus conversion rate against heretics

That was removed in favor of Innovation gain.

A supposedly super resource for making tons of money later in the game when the game is already broke with tons of money.

Jake has stated in another thread (I can’t remember which) that the upkeep of armies will scale as time proceeds (I would assume similar to ships costing more as tech increases), so I don’t know if commenting on the amount of money in the late game is discussable at this time until we see the updated numbers. It could be that the sheer amount of money in the end game may be culled significantly. I think it was brought up in the thread talking specifically on the topic of Late-Game Money

 

[GoatMagic]

Jake has stated in another thread (I can’t remember which) that the upkeep of armies will scale as time proceeds (I would assume similar to ships costing more as tech increases), so I don’t know if commenting on the amount of money in the late game is discussable at this time until we see the updated numbers. It could be that the sheer amount of money in the end game may be culled significantly. I think it was brought up in the thread talking specifically on the topic of Late-Game Money

Yea it was, the response kind of read like a "oh crap" response to community blow-back rather than revealing some planned feature change. Maybe that's just me being extra cynical. Point being, I don't remember the last time so many features in an upcoming patch were so negatively received. I could probably find a post unwelcoming of the changes with more agree than disagree in the first 10 responses in each these dev diaries.

 

[GoatMagic]

That was removed in favor of Innovation gain.

BTW could you point to where this was stated? I can't find anything claiming that.

 

[Dakka]

that's just me being extra cynical.

I think so, yes. I personally didn’t read it that way at all. :S and in my experience the devs are generally more than willing to give credit where credit is due and admit when someone has a good idea to fix something. I think enough complaints have popped up in regards to the massive amounts of legitimate inflation that Paradox have taken it upon their own initiative to either shrink income or increase spending.

I could probably find a post unwelcoming of the changes with more agree than disagree in the first 10 responses in each these dev diaries.

I don’t doubt it, but you can do the same all across EU4’s development. I remember there being quite a bit of hate for Third Rome as well. You also must remember that the disappointed man yells loudest, and I won’t hide the fact that I was massively disappointed when the focus was announced as England rather than a nation that genuinely needed a lift-up. But I have accepted that this is what they are doing and I am willing to make arguments for or against features that either serve or serve against the longevity and fun of the game. For example, I see a great amount of potential in secondary trade goods, as I do in cultural modifiers. I also think Innovativeness as it stands is worthless but if other ways of gaining it were presented it could become something more interesting.
It’s ok to not like something but still refrain from going full Aztec and preaching DOOM because of a few poorly executed features, especially for a DLC still in development that can still be adjusted and changed.

 

[Dakka]

BTW could you point to where this was stated? I can't find anything claiming that.

Look at the screenshots in the Innovativeness DD

 

[GoatMagic]

I don’t doubt it, but you can do the same all across EU4’s development. I remember there being quite a bit of hate for Third Rome as well.

I dont doubt it for Third Rome. Putting my claim to the test, the negativity holds true for 3/5 past dev diaries, with map changes and mission changes being only positive initially.

My quick glance at the 15 dev diaries leading up to the release of Cradle of Civilization yields 3 dev diaries with positively received negative reactions to new features (not counting people bringing up concerns like "I hope you guys took ottoman blobs into account with this change..."). So 3/15, mostly people concerned about Islamic converting and some islamic school power creep.

Look at the screenshots in the Innovativeness DD

Thanks

 

[caedussl]

Yea it was, the response kind of read like a "oh crap" response to community blow-back rather than revealing some planned feature change. Maybe that's just me being extra cynical.

It's definitely being cynical. People have been talking a lot about too much money in the game since Cradle, it makes little sense (and doesn't sound at all like Jake) for them to just realize, as of this week, that they need to find a way to increase maintenance late game. Especially when Jake said he thinks it's really stupid that Napoleonic Infantry cost less than Late Medieval Infantry.

 

[CharlieMRCR]

I wouldn't say I'm underwhelmed or overwhelmed. I'm just whelmed. It's also a bit early to say.

Coal looks interesting. I counted 5 just in England, which means 25% goods produced modifiers. +1 in Spain, +1 in France = 35%. Looke like there a A BUNCH in the HRE too. Across a global empire, even a 35% good produced means a lot more ducats, which means you're going to have a much easier time keeping all your advisors capped at +5 monarch points. Although, who knows how much the Furnaces cost. If it's similar to other "manufactories" though, the ROI should be pretty quick if you're already well into a WC run.

Mission trees could also be good if they helped speed the game along. I wouldn't mind missions forcing me down a particular route so long as it increases the pace of the game.

The second biggest problem though (the first being this is more DLC) is that this is supposed to be an England update, but I don't think it addresses England's core problem, which are meh ideas. They have Discipline and Goods Produced +20%, but that's it. Making navies better would be a bigger buff to England. I don't like this policy of slathering nations with even more mechanics to try and make them more interesting. Not while there are core issues that could be improved upon.