What are some of your unpopular opinions of EU4?

[MachopPower69]

Teaching a (real) AI to play the game would be an awesome experiment

The game has been dead since cradle of civilisation (I think that's the one that adds ages)

Have you been living under the Rocky Mountains or something? The game was never dead. In fact, it was more alive than Vic 2! The problem was that the bugs were never ironed out until PDX saw the backlash when 1.31 came out and said "Yeah, we should have expected people to hate the bugs. We should do something about it". Then when they did, it got buggier and buggier. 1.31 was unpopular due to it being as buggy as an ant colony, but for some people who never got the gamebreaking bugs (like me), it wasn't really a problem and my UPO was that 1.31 was a good update, but the dlc could have been better.

 

[petertju]

MoH was like the first of the patches that tried to address Asia, which previously had close to 0 flavor when compared to Europe; to this extent I think it did a ton of great stuff, but again IMO it loses a lot of its charm if you go into some awkward issues it generated, with how MoH worked(remember the great wall of Korea? ), banners feeling extremely out of place gameplay-wise with how you could easily get 1mln+ infinitely regenerating troops etc

Was a great patch in that it tried addressing massive content gaps, but its execution had a lot of issues is how I see it

I feel MoH is the last of the great DLC's. Like I said not at the top of the field or as good as Rights of Man, Art of War, Cossacks and Common Sense, but it's close behind it.

Also, unpopular opinion: Emperor is one of the best DLC's.

 

[Retrac910]

I enjoy pillage capital and concentrate development. Big capitals are fun and a province feels like a capital you want to protect.

 

[delusonalism_]

quantity ideas are overrated since 1.30

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Supply Limits are actually Infinite Supply metrics. Whether there's a siege next province over, or siege inside that Province, or a Naval Blockade, the Supply Limit stays the same, and Devastation really doesn't take it down like it would in reality. Armies moved on their stomach, you either planned like Xerxes invading Greece with massive supply drops along the Army route (which was a rare strategy), or more normally the Armies foraged/plundered all along their route, which itself caused Devastation (beyond this game's metrics/definition of "Devastation"), and once you did arrive at your objective (siege or battle location), you didn't have long to linger around unless the supplies were sent in.

The Supply Limit just sits there, always active, as if Magic is occurring in EU4, and Wal-Marts are everywhere for massive Armies to get supplies from. Supply Limits should be just that - the top-end/maximum "Limit" that is reduced as the Supplies then dwindle, and Attrition should then start to scale up as the Army runs out of Supplies (esp food), and Supply reduction rates should increase in particular Provinces that have weather conditions - such as Arid where your Fresh Water supply would limit your time in that area before Attrition becomes unbearable. Basic stat - when fully hydrated, takes about 4 days to die from lack of Water, whereas about 30 days from lack of Food (even if fully hydrated, yet the Water factor will kill ya in 4 days all the same).

It should be more difficult to move/sustain armies as they grow in size, and no age/era changes that much in this time frame. No railroads, no gas-engined delivery trucks, just horses and wagon-trains all the same (and donkey carts, and even just single donkeys in some places), so your "supply train" was organic/cattle driven, and that itself should have been an implemented system to give more/less supply and sustainment depending on age/era/geographic location and culture (some used Elephants, after all).

 

[Espadajusta]

On my opinion the main flaw of the game is the very poor combat system. I have played about 1k hours to EU IV and V2 and I hate it when I have to go to war. Every time, war consist in basically, moving your army to an enemy province, wait until it is controlled, then move to another province and so on. It takes hours, it is boring, and annoying. Controlling an enemy province is just automatic, it only takes time (and some casualties to attrition). EU II had a better system where you could choose to siege, assault (which means a battle with defenders that you can loose) or surround the province.

I think that the main problem for the AI is that for a given war, there are no strategic points, victory points or objectives that will make you win the war ( these should be related to the Casus Belli) So, the AI just doesn't know what to do. Give the AI clear objectives and victory points (like key provinces or fortresses in the war) and will be much better. Since there are no objectives, or any tactical possibilities to use, any war implies armies moving around the map taking provinces, which is absurd. If I declare war against France to take Martinica, why are the French sending their army to take my colonies in north Africa? Absurd. Then you are advancing to take the enemy capital, and the AI doesn't care, they prefer to use their army to take one of my provinces with no value for the war.

This stupid combat system it what creates so many issues with the game, because to compensate for that, many other stupid and annoying rules and mechanics must be created in order to avoid that big countries just go around eating smaller countries too easily. And I think that is the problem. Instead of fixing the original problem, they add more stupid mechanics to compensate.

 

[Swirly Mango]

A pop system would solve absolutely nothing on itself and almost all features that could be designed to work around a pop system can just as well be designed to work around a dev system

Absolute troglodytes don't even know what game they're playing when they say they want pops. Eu4 is "map-painter: the game", not vicky3 but pre-modern. It's a war game about making the most efficient country for war, once you get to fundamentals.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Rebellion armies should not have the same/same tech and morale as your Regular Armies do, nor Leadership that is at/better than your own as if that person was constantly focused on being a Military Professional. This was the clear delineation of the Profession of Arms - having a full-time employment and obligation to stay honed in matters of war, and with the best possible equipment, while constantly training your Regular Army soldiers to be as fit and ready as possible.

No one can argue that any other army in the land/kingdom was better prepared or lead, that's a flat-out false notion. Yes, some sub-Nobles below the King/Duke/Count would have their own armies, but they would not have the means nor the time for their own troops to match/exceed that of the most senior Noble. Why? Because their armies were like the Minor Leagues compared to the Major Leagues of armies - the sub-Nobles were actually the one supplying the Regular Army with their best troops. If they had an up-and-coming junior leader, guess who received that leader for their Army? Yep, the King/Duke/Count got the man, not the sub-Noble, and that was a Feudal system at its finest, that "trading horses" and favors included People themselves! Men moved up the ladder of seniority and leadership - by achieving status to work for the most senior Noble (i.e. the King/Duke/Count), and didn't just stay at home, stay local. If one could make the Military a full-time profession, it was a cherished thing that you were compensated in gold/coin by the senior Noble for your services in the military. Most men had to work farms, ports/fishing, cattle/ranches, tedious businesses - those Men did not have time nor did they take the time to daily train and hone their military skills! So, where on earth are all these Rebels in EU4 training at, and have the time/money to spend on raising up their military skills, their equipment, and military leadership training?

In general, any Rebellion should scale from worst-to-"best" at a much lower rate of quality in this game, and their numbers simply wouldn't be as high as portrayed in this game. Even the "best" rebels, in terms of quality - who would be Noble Rebel armies, would still be at least 2 tiers below your own Regular Army. Think: Natives with high Aggression, and that's it! And they wouldn't have cannons nor many cavalry - the senior Noble has control of the horses, as a reminder, in a Feudal system. Land, cattle/horses - that's Noble control, and sub-Nobles only have access to the land and resources based on what is granted/allowed to them. Separate from Feudal systems, a Republic would have even weaker rebel armies - they wouldn't have any Sub-Nobles who train their own Armies in that system, so their rebel armies should always be very weakened.

It's quite laughable especially when the Burghers have a Particularist army spawn with all of its Morale/Training and leadership as if a Regular Army -- seriously, think about it, do you think the guys worrying about making money most of all, are spending time in military training? Just look at Wall Street, or Vienna, or (modern) Tokyo - you think the guys in suits are suddenly turning into warfighters? It's the same/same approach for modern vs ancient times, those who are most focused on business are rarely military geniuses or consuming their time in the Military Profession. Even the New York National Guard, in its part-time status (not a Regular Army), would destroy all buildings and kill off all businessmen in New York City, if it was them vs 100% of Wall Street and NYC downtown who rebelled with 100% participation. Just making it real here - rebels in EU4 are falsely portrayed and overpowered in contrast to national/Regular Armies in game.

 

[Zaddy]

Absolute troglodytes don't even know what game they're playing when they say they want pops. Eu4 is "map-painter: the game", not vicky3 but pre-modern. It's a war game about making the most efficient country for war, once you get to fundamentals.

I agree with what you're saying but I don't think you should make it so personal...

 

[Blindbohemian]

WC being impossible should be a central principle of EUIV design.

POPs would add nothing to the game that can’t be done with a more abstract system.

Vassals should be borderline permanent, not annexable by magic after ten years.

 

[RedArmy]

I think we don’t need EU5.
EU4 is great.

 

[Skjalf]

Client states shouldn't occupy diplo slots, they are already far too integrated into your own government.

 

[Idle America]

On my opinion the main flaw of the game is the very poor combat system. I have played about 1k hours to EU IV and V2 and I hate it when I have to go to war. Every time, war consist in basically, moving your army to an enemy province, wait until it is controlled, then move to another province and so on. It takes hours, it is boring, and annoying. Controlling an enemy province is just automatic, it only takes time (and some casualties to attrition). EU II had a better system where you could choose to siege, assault (which means a battle with defenders that you can loose) or surround the province.

I think that the main problem for the AI is that for a given war, there are no strategic points, victory points or objectives that will make you win the war ( these should be related to the Casus Belli) So, the AI just doesn't know what to do. Give the AI clear objectives and victory points (like key provinces or fortresses in the war) and will be much better. Since there are no objectives, or any tactical possibilities to use, any war implies armies moving around the map taking provinces, which is absurd. If I declare war against France to take Martinica, why are the French sending their army to take my colonies in north Africa? Absurd. Then you are advancing to take the enemy capital, and the AI doesn't care, they prefer to use their army to take one of my provinces with no value for the war.

This stupid combat system it what creates so many issues with the game, because to compensate for that, many other stupid and annoying rules and mechanics must be created in order to avoid that big countries just go around eating smaller countries too easily. And I think that is the problem. Instead of fixing the original problem, they add more stupid mechanics to compensate.

"What do you mean, 'rolling dice isn't a realistic combat system'?!"
-EU4

 

[Espadajusta]

"What do you mean, 'rolling dice isn't a realistic combat system'?!"
-EU4

No combat system in a large strategy game is going to be realistic. But it needs to be interesting, challenging and funny to play. And EU IV is definitely not.

 

[Idle America]

No combat system in a large strategy game is going to be realistic. But it needs to be interesting, challenging and funny to play. And VIC2 is definitely not.

Never played VIC2, so I can't say anything about that. I just hate how EU4's combat just boils down to glorified dice rolls. In HOI4, the doctrines, technology, and makeup of your armies all play a major role in your odds of victory, whereas all the nations of a region type in EU4 get the same techs in the same order at around the same time, with no tech trees to choose if you want to focus on military, economy, etc.

Just another reason why I hate the mana system.

 

[Espadajusta]

Never played VIC2, so I can't say anything about that. I just hate how EU4's combat just boils down to glorified dice rolls. In HOI4, the doctrines, technology, and makeup of your armies all play a major role in your odds of victory, whereas all the nations of a region type in EU4 get the same techs in the same order at around the same time, with no tech trees to choose if you want to focus on military, economy, etc.

Just another reason why I hate the mana system.

Sorry, I mean EU IV

 

[PedroLuiz]

Have you been living under the Rocky Mountains or something? The game was never dead. In fact, it was more alive than Vic 2! The problem was that the bugs were never ironed out until PDX saw the backlash when 1.31 came out and said "Yeah, we should have expected people to hate the bugs. We should do something about it". Then when they did, it got buggier and buggier. 1.31 was unpopular due to it being as buggy as an ant colony, but for some people who never got the gamebreaking bugs (like me), it wasn't really a problem and my UPO was that 1.31 was a good update, but the dlc could have been better.

I feel like we have different metrics for "dead", it did receive plenty of new updates after RoM but it has lost plenty of it's appeal since

 

[Blindbohemian]

A few more:

1453 or 1492 would be substantially better start dates (for the game to be designed around, not as options) than 1444; I would even consider 1521.

The option to change National Ideas when switching tags is strictly bad for the game. There is nothing good about it at all.

Mission trees were a strict downgrade from the old system.

Development does nothing that the base tax system didn’t do better. POPs wouldn’t improve anything.

The game would be better if the “stability” feature just didn’t exist.

Changing culture with diplo points shouldn’t be possible. Nor should changing religion with missionaries.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Natives, especially Native Americans (in general), need to be significantly reduced in their starting tech's metric results, the pace at which they get power initially, and in general should not be tech advancing at a rate that equals any of the civilized/developed nations of the world at game start.

I've played against Native Americans that were rolling around with cannons in 1530. No, I'm not kidding - have you seen this too? Crazy sauce, with a cherry on top - as there are also Natives who apparently run faster than horses. Paradox, I know you want to embrace the "inclusion" era but let's not include cannons and guns for Natives until about 1750 at the earliest and even then, only very select few Native tribes were being trained to use guns by the British and Brit/Canadian forces, and even when you look toward the War of 1812, the Natives with guns were a significant minority (like 1% of all warring Native personnel in the entire N. American continent).

Your portrayal of Native Americans needs a serious sanity check and rebalance. Settling/colonizing the Americas should be a RACE not a Fight for it. It's all about who gets there first, who dominates first, not about who can outgun the Natives.

Here's another idea - in all tactical combat windows as the fight rages on, every time the "Fire" dice roll is on and factored, the Natives should get a near zero effect. And don't tell me they had bows and arrows that could do damage - Natives did not train to move in formations and organize their indirect fire, as their bows were for hunting primarily and they never used advanced tactics for bow-fighting like the Brits with Longbows, etc. They were very disorganized in general, for creating any volume of bow/arrow fire. When Natives did win, rarely, in early American history, it was simply because of overconfidence of Americans (like Custer) who ran into overwhelming number of Natives. When you're outnumbered more than 50:1, it doesn't matter that they're only carrying hatchets, you're getting scalped, so it's understandable that an overwhelming army should have increased damaging metrics once their ratios are significant, but otherwise all Natives should get the same result they got in real life - a very quick elimination. Sorry, that's being brutally honest - the fights weren't that long, nor memorable, as they were mostly slaughters in the early Americas.

EDIT: and to add another thought on incorrect pace/tech for Natives - Trade Resource extraction. Okay, so the Natives have Gold under the ground, but they're just pecking at the surface. They didn't have advanced Western Mining techniques to extract the stuff and process it out like the Swiss and Austrians developed in Europe. For Gold, Salt and any extracted resource, Natives should only be producing it at a rate of about 10% or less what a Western Tech nation would produce. And then Livestock - Natives didn't raise cows, and Bovine Cows didn't even exist in the Americas until Europeans brought them in. Natives hunted for meat but they were seasonal foragers, small-plot farmers, and hunters. The one exception was a tribe in Illinois area that mass farmed grain, but in the entire Americas - that was the only tribal group that did such, all others were small-plot sustainment farming (typically only producing enough for a 2-3 year span of preserved food at best, not abundant harvests to trade out). I think the entire Resource/Trade metric system for Natives should get an overhaul and Natives nerfed for all such production and trade metrics.

 

[st360]

Nations should have negative modifiers in their national ideas, not just positive ones.