What do you think could be done against post-1600s snowballing?

[TolHydra]

Yes it often seems like these threads just assume what people who do WCs routinely think.

If it were any other person I'd have just disagreed strongly. But okay bbq. If you say so then you must be right.

I find it annoying how people who NEVER finished a world conquest keep putting words into the mouths of people who actually do it routinely.

I'm sorry that you think I'm a casual scum, whose opinion is invalid because I didn't play the game for 20 thousand hours. Oh wait no putting words into your mouth, right. Sorry

 

[Bobalay]

I'd like it if Absolutism was a lot harder to get and keep. I like the idea of a big mid-game mechanic that totally changes the rules but it feels like a little too much like a freebie. I'd like to see a yearly drain on absolutism, maybe related to the amount of territories you have (representing lands you don't exert very strong control over), and events triggered by high Absolutism that make you choose between getting hit with something bad or losing Absolutism.

 

[Siu-King**]

opinion

Which is yours.

But hey everyone else who does WCs must think it's tedious and boring, right? How can it be otherwise?

 

[TolHydra]

Nah, I give up. You win,

if there was anything short of posting swastikas and mumbling some anti-semitic nonsense to get myself banned from this site and never interacting with the likes of you, -because I seem to periodically forget- I'd be more than willing to do so. But seeing how admins suggest disabling your account and leaving it unrecoverable, guess I'll just do that.

 

[Siu-King**]

if there was anything short of posting swastikas and mumbling some anti-semitic nonsense to get myself banned from this site and never interacting with the likes of you, -because I seem to periodically forget- I'd be more than willing to do so. But seeing how admins suggest disabling your account and leaving it unrecoverable, guess I'll just do that.

> Go to a discussion forum
> "What do you think...."
> Get a second opinion
> I'm gonna delete my account and shut my ears because I don't want to hear it.

Don't get a heart attack because people still enjoy and have fun in post 1600 snowballing.

 

[bly08]

If it were any other person I'd have just disagreed strongly. But okay bbq. If you say so then you must be right.



I'm sorry that you think I'm a casual scum, whose opinion is invalid because I didn't play the game for 20 thousand hours. Oh wait no putting words into your mouth, right. Sorry

How many have you done though? The past few threads with the same complaints were all made by people who barely understand the game. Since you're making an assumption about all WCs it'd be nice to know what kind of experience you're speaking from.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

I would be totally fine for an option upon game start that chooses whether you want to play WC-style EU4 (ie current system), or a more 'historically accurate' model of EU4 with slower growing empires, more difficulty to stabilise, etc. Thus both parties are pleased.

I haven't done a WC and I don't really ever want to, so I love the idea of a more micro-management M&T-esque EU4. At the same time, there is a significant amount of people who enjoy EU4 the way it is. Even if they don't go WC, they'll still play to 1650ish, be satisfied, and start a new campaign. All styles of play are valid. So an option that would enable the 'realistic' mechanics (maybe as a DLC or something?) would be great.

 

[Less2]

Usually by 1650 or so I'm at ~5-7.5k dev and I've just taken 500 dev off a 2k dev Ottomans in a single war that wasn't even close to challenging. At that point I don't feel the need to engage in tedious re-warring of them and weaker foes. This is on VH/Historical, AI getting as many buffs as it can to stay competitive.

Income is definitely the largest issue. Paradox had a good idea with state limits but then lets you completely avoid needing states for income thanks to trade companies/monopolized trade nodes/easymode colonial blobbing in Peru and Mexico. Once your income is such that you can sustain a max merc FL higher than most AI's regular force limits and essentially ignore supply limits, it's trivial and boring. When your only enemy is an arbitrary time limit and arbitrary WS/OE limits rather than actual countries, the point of the game (being countries vs. other countries) is lost.

 

[Siu-King**]

How many have you done though? The past few threads with the same complaints were all made by people who barely understand the game. Since you're making an assumption about all WCs it'd be nice to know what kind of experience you're speaking from.

He said he will never interact with the likes of you and me again though.

 

[Siu-King**]

Income is definitely the largest issue. Paradox had a good idea with state limits but then lets you completely avoid needing states for income thanks to trade companies/monopolized trade nodes/easymode colonial blobbing in Peru and Mexico. Once your income is such that you can sustain a max merc FL higher than most AI's regular force limits and essentially ignore supply limits, it's trivial and boring. When your only enemy is an arbitrary time limit and arbitrary WS/OE limits rather than actual countries, the point of the game (being countries vs. other countries) is lost.

Trade companies used to be useless back then, and having state is the only real source of income and manpower - then, you really can't roflstomp everyone and get unstoppable by 1650

 

[makaramus]

lets admit it: even on very hard this game is too easy to snowball once you become "*color* blob" . I mean after that the game becomes declaring war simulater :/

and no its not someting you can solve by adding more cheats to ai to use aganist ai or even simply making ai better... its gameplay problem sadly

what should be done is ... I have no idea

 

[Horn and Ivory]

Well, this thread has gotten a lot more unpleasant in the time I've been away.

I find it annoying how people who NEVER finished a world conquest keep putting words into the mouths of people who actually do it routinely.

So, I'm part of the demographic of people who've done one WC (just to prove to myself I could) and haven't done more because I find it so tedious. I'm sure I can't be the only one. I've no issue with other people doing it, or with other people using strategies such as stateless nationalism to do it - I just don't use them myself.

The 'problem', such as I experience it, is that campaigns have nowhere else that's interesting to go, other than blobbing, after a certain point (usually when you've thoroughly defeated the other big nations around you) - so if you don't like blobbing, your campaigns will tend to peter out. In my case, unless I had a particularly slow and rocky start, this usually happens in the late 1600s.

I've no interest in making blobbing harder, and I've no quarrel with people who like it. So rather than advocating for blobbing to be made more difficult or more tedious or more diminishing-returns, what I want is more interesting non-blobbing gameplay of some sort or another past 1700. In my case, what I like is spectacular, reasonably even wars on multiple fronts, so what I ask for is Napoleon-style coalitions with huge risks and huge rewards. But I'm sure there are other good possibilities.

 

[WeissRaben]

I would be totally fine for an option upon game start that chooses whether you want to play WC-style EU4 (ie current system), or a more 'historically accurate' model of EU4 with slower growing empires, more difficulty to stabilise, etc. Thus both parties are pleased.

The problem is, those are two different games. Even more: those are two drastically different games, with different needs, different outcomes, different audiences, and vastly different design. Let's be clear: I've dropped Hungry Hungry Hippo (The Strategy Game) a fair bit ago, and from what I see it never got better, and I would buy that latter game in a heartbeat. But I don't expect for a single moment for that to happen, because it's not how the market works. Time to wait for Victoria 3, hoping for it to come out whole and not dumbed-down from development.

 

[gigau]

Guys, whatever the opinion, let's not be abrasive.

People have different playstyle, different experiences, different languages,...

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

The problem is, those are two different games. Even more: those are two drastically different games, with different needs, different outcomes, different audiences, and vastly different design. Let's be clear: I've dropped Hungry Hungry Hippo (The Strategy Game) a fair bit ago, and from what I see it never got better, and I would buy that latter game in a heartbeat. But I don't expect for a single moment for that to happen, because it's not how the market works. Time to wait for Victoria 3, hoping for it to come out whole and not dumbed-down from development.

I don't think it would have to be too drastic. I'm basically envisioning MEIOU&T with a smoother interface and better performance. Obviously not a straight rip, some things would need to change and not everything in the game would have to become MEIOU&T. But from what little I've played, that mod does a pretty good job of pacing expansion and internal management. Enough so that people who hate doing WC's wouldn't have anything to complain about. And because it's a DLC, people who prefer WC's don't have to do it.

 

[Badesumofu]

I'm always a bit wary of these threads because they frequently amount to non-WC players complaining about how easy it is blob and how boring it is. Well fine, if you don't like it, don't do it. If you find the game too easy then play VH-OPM start.

 

[Badesumofu]

I don't think it would have to be too drastic. I'm basically envisioning MEIOU&T with a smoother interface and better performance. Obviously not a straight rip, some things would need to change and not everything in the game would have to become MEIOU&T. But from what little I've played, that mod does a pretty good job of pacing expansion and internal management. Enough so that people who hate doing WC's wouldn't have anything to complain about. And because it's a DLC, people who prefer WC's don't have to do it.

Fundamentally you're asking for an entirely different game which M&T really is. That's very much something that belongs in the mod space rather than the DLC space.

 

[Rikissa]

In most of my games in which I aimed for WC I had a barely functioning, barely stable, p-o-s country around 1600

 

[Brynjar]

Apart from improving the AI (diplomatic and army/fleet management), I struggle to see any good way to improve it without changing major parts of the game. That could turn away a lot of players.

A M&T like dlc (mods got a major flaw for a lot of players: They disable achievements) could probably do it, but the amount of work needed may be too much, and it may have a too small target group to be a viable solution.

 

[Bayes]

Ive modded my game to give the AIs alot of bonuses scaling with the ages, power cost increase for player and penalty at certain dev for player etc to make the game more to my liking. For me personally its made the game alot more interesting, I like the tension of feeling threatened and constantly on edge playing eu4. Chasing a goal like a WC doesnt do that for me, I become bored of the game almost the very second I am the largest power and there is no alliances that can beat me.

Different blokes different strokes, I do appreciate watching players like Siu - King do crazy stuff with a wc and I think its a bit rude to suggest its inherently uninteresting. It doesnt seem like Paradox is going to make the game more fitting to me considering the recent additions of absolutism and lvl 5 advisor but well thats the way they decided to go.