What frustrates me to bits with developers (venting thread)

[Chronicler]

I've been playing games by Paradox Interactive since they were Target Games, the Svea Rikes series was one of my favorites as a kid. After that I played several other of their games but finally fell in love with the Europa Universalis series.

I waited until now to play EU IV because I wanted a few expansions and a few patches to improve it before I tried, not having to relive some features of EU3.

So it's so completely frustrating, to see the AI doing the same mistakes as it does in EU3, despite constant suggestions on how to improve game mechanics, such as I outlined in my recent suggestions thread just now for colonization process in EU4 (partially of what I think at least) but for EU3. A quick and easy fix for the tropical provinces for AI nations is just to give them some extra settler growth or negate negative settler growth for them? Obviously the developers find the time for other changes. These changes I suggest are not just for players in single player games but mostly to improve competition in multiplayer games.

You play the game, you see the AI nations getting stuck and you just lose the fun of it.

Much of the getting stuck colonizing is the same as EU3, HRE mechanics despite changes is similar to EU3, Austria allies only weak minor nations every start of game and at least 2-3 of them are electors, so you just ally Burgundy, Hungary and maybe Poland and just DOW Austria and vassalize them, though that's an abuse of the system, (I just thought these changes were made so the system couldn't be abused), mission system though changed to the better is still too much like the old system where core missions (such as in core for the nation not as in ingame cores) stick around when you don't want them, am I strong enough as Portugal to attack Morocco and take the northern provinces? Maybe? Is it worth it? Most likely not. I sell Ceuta so that I can defend my nation with my navy and blockades, and then I get "Conquer Ceuta" as a mission....I just sold it.....I could go on all day, but it would get old fast. At the same time other nations have randomized missions, perhaps mission-system should be two different sets of missions, nation-specific and randomized? Who knows?

I could go on all day with this stuff, but it would get old fast, and it probably wouldn't do me any good or make me any friends.

If people need more specific things like the tropical provinces thing where AI nations get stuck I will oblige. That's what this thread was mostly about, though I thought I would mention some other things.

I would suggest to the developers though to fix easy things like AI not being able to deal with settler growth, for a game that has been out for over a year that should be minimum.

Overall though, it feels like this experience I paid over 600 SEK for is a bad in some ways, improved in other ways, copy of EU3.

 

[RobRoy3]

...mission system though changed to the better is still too much like the old system where core missions (such as in core for the nation not as in ingame cores) stick around when you don't want them, am I strong enough as Portugal to attack Morocco and take the northern provinces? Maybe? Is it worth it? Most likely not. I sell Ceuta so that I can defend my nation with my navy and blockades, and then I get "Conquer Ceuta" as a mission....I just sold it.....I could go on all day, but it would get old fast. At the same time other nations have randomized missions, perhaps mission-system should be two different sets of missions, nation-specific and randomized? Who knows?

Not sure I can agree with everything in your post, but the mission system is looking pretty disappointing these days.

For better or for worse, it's not that changed from EU3. More importantly, though, they haven't kept pace with the DLC/patches. It's really one of the more engaging aspects of the game (or it least it has been in the past and has the potential to be so again). But there are so many missions that don't just make much sense, aren't really feasible, have too little payoff, won't trigger anymore, or just haven't been updated to reflect new/changed mechanics.

And it's particularly irritating that there are problems with the missions, since fixing them wouldn't take much, if any, precious programmer time. Much could probably even be done by the community.

 

[henzington]

The missions have been fixed quickly when it led to exploits like infinite monarch points but otherwise I 100% agree that this is an area of the game that needs some updating.

 

[hashinshin]

A huge pass on AI ideas could be good.

If they want to continue to give AI pre-set ideas then they need to make sense for at least 80% of scenarios.

Maritime first as Ottomans makes 0% sense. Expansion first as Muscovy makes 0% sense. It makes AI play decidedly worse than players which makes them weaker.

 

[The-King]

Hey I remember you from eu3! wb.

 

[Mikalos]

Byzantium has the best missions: I know i'm a three province minor surrounded by a hostile enemy, no real allies to speak of and once the turks finish up the albania war will come after me with that take my capital mission, BUT i just gotta reconquer greece!

Honestly, considering i compare this mostly to the hilarity that was eu3 v.1 vanilla, i have to way, this game, not so bad

atleast you don't see things like all the electors voting for some random Indian sultante all the time in eu4

 

[artemis667]

Most likely not. I sell Ceuta so that I can defend my nation with my navy and blockades, and then I get "Conquer Ceuta" as a mission....I just sold it.....I could go on all day, but it would get old fast. At the same time other nations have randomized missions, perhaps mission-system should be two different sets of missions, nation-specific and randomized? Who knows?

I actually love the missions, even with the flaws of the system. They're better for some countries than others, at their best they throw in a bit of direction, at their worst - well, you can just ignore them. The exploitable ones shouldn't be in there, but I believe they're being/have been fixed. I do understand your complaint though, if you didn't want to dabble at all in North Africa, there should be an option to 'Ban' the mission - so you will never see it again - maybe for a simple cost of not being able to pick another mission for 12 months.

The thing about a game as complicated as EU4 is that there are always ways you can improve it. The grand strategy genre has more complexity and depth than any other genre in gaming, and there are unique challenges in trying to develop these games, particularly when you are attempting to take history and allow the player to recreate a plausible alternative history. So while I could make a list of the things that should be improved, and rant and get frustrated at the devs, it's far better to keep the criticism constructive, appreciating the fact that Paradox are the only company with the ability and the ambition to develop games in this unique niche. And they do listen (Too much at times )

 

[Freudia]

Expansion first as Muscovy makes 0% sense.

...? You what? This makes perfect sense. By the time Muscovy is taking expansion, Perm is being annexed. Beyond Perm lies Siberia. How does this not make sense?

 

[The-King]

...? You what? This makes perfect sense. By the time Muscovy is taking expansion, Perm is being annexed. Beyond Perm lies Siberia. How does this not make sense?

Because Expansion was supposed to be spent with diplo points. It was essentially Muscovy's diplomatic point sink in the early game. Now that it wrongfully costs admin it is a big waste of precious admin points.

 

[artemis667]

Because Expansion was supposed to be spent with diplo points. It was essentially Muscovy's diplomatic point sink in the early game. Now that it wrongfully costs admin it is a big waste of precious admin points.

If it's going to be a question of expansion or religion, expanding early into Siberia probably helps Muscovy more in the long run. AI Muscovy doesn't make a lot of early progress against the hordes anyway, that comes later.