Because nomads were still very strong in the 15th century; arguably stronger than Eastern Europe even.
Why I still think EU is the worst one of PI's 4 major series
- Thread starter Huanglukuzhu
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Because nomads were still very strong in the 15th century; arguably stronger than Eastern Europe even.
If there were ever something that I should be appending all of my posts with, it's this. Welcome to my signature.
The OP has it right. EU's timeframe witnessed tremendous change in state and military organization, methods of governance, international relations, religion, the world economy, and every other imaginable criteria, but EU hardly represents any of it. It doesn't feel fundamentally different to play in the 15th Century than it does in the 18th, whereas in CK the 9th Century is very different from the 13th, and in Victoria the 1850s play very differently from the 1910s.
That's the main point, isn't it? EU4 is as flat as tinfoil. I agree on the Victoria Best Game part, as well - I'm not awesome at it, but it is undoubtedly what Grand Strategy Games should aim to be.
...anyway, I think we should return to the main topic and move eurocentric discussions to yet - another Chinese thread on the forum main page.
OP -> given how EU developed, I am pretty sure it will be much deeper here one day. In the first EU game we couldn't even play non - major countries! In EU3 the entire Africa and America had like 10 extremely ahistorical states which existed only as the insta - annex for Europeans and eventually masochist challenge for a player ( ). Europa Universalis 2 was ridiculously railroaded -> historical events appeared even when it made complete no damn sense and player's freedom was severely limited. Europa Universalis III Vanilla was ridiculously poor and boring when compared with Europa Universalis 4 - it had no missions, no decisions, no combat discipline, no revolutions etc. EU4 had ridiculously awful West Africa/Central America/South America until they finally get their historical glory in AOW and became interesting gameplay options.
I am pretty sure some addon or at worst EU5 will improve this particular area of peaceful gameplay and general depth of mechanics.
Not to mention the mods.
AOW is the step in the right direction with its Reformation, Religious Leagues and Revolution mechanics. Let's hope this trend will go further.
OP -> given how EU developed, I am pretty sure it will be much deeper here one day. In the first EU game we couldn't even play non - major countries! In EU3 the entire Africa and America had like 10 extremely ahistorical states which existed only as the insta - annex for Europeans and eventually masochist challenge for a player (
). Europa Universalis 2 was ridiculously railroaded -> historical events appeared even when it made complete no damn sense and player's freedom was severely limited. Europa Universalis III Vanilla was ridiculously poor and boring when compared with Europa Universalis 4 - it had no missions, no decisions, no combat discipline, no revolutions etc. EU4 had ridiculously awful West Africa/Central America/South America until they finally get their historical glory in AOW and became interesting gameplay options.I am pretty sure some addon or at worst EU5 will improve this particular area of peaceful gameplay and general depth of mechanics.
Not to mention the mods.
AOW is the step in the right direction with its Reformation, Religious Leagues and Revolution mechanics. Let's hope this trend will go further.
I guess the Asian world has fallen behind in tech mostly because of negating firearms for too long, letting Europeans advance in strategies and tactics. Also European shipbuilding in XVII+ centuries seem to be far superior to Asian and Chineese. Bit the main reason is that Europeans tasted riches of New World, boosted their population and culture instead of isolating themselves like Japan.
It depends from horde to horde of course, but the nomad armies post-Temujin were the most modern in the world, they incorporated Chinese siege engineers, explosives and guns. Of course a western horde would have to receive these goods through the silk road, which would make it harder for them to stay on top, but the hordes had a general policy of seeking out any technological advancement, or educated people wherever they conquered.
The real decline of the nomad armies was not because they had no access to advanced weaponry, but because the advanced weaponry evened the playing field to the point where their elite cavalry weren't much more useful that a peasant with a few weeks rifle training.
There are enough threads to discuss that matter...
Usually they have a title with 'China X' and mention Zheng He's Voyage.
This thread is devoted to EU4 gameplay.
I doubt nomads were on the same cultural level as Chinese and Muslims were.
We were talking about technology, not 'cultural level'. As Bagonad said, hordes at 1444 are potentially the most advanced in the world in regards to military practices.
Horde government is just a redecorated monarchy as well (both in-game and in real life), so it's not outlandish to put them at tech 4 on game start.
Most importantly, from a gameplay perspective, you don't want to disadvantage the Manchu against the Ming any more than they already are, which is the usual outcome of "Buff China" discussions.
Yes, too flat. I feel its system could be used for any grand strategy game of any background, but on other hand, none of them. It's just a grand strategy game, rather than a history sim game with proper depth.
...anyway, I think we should return to the main topic and move eurocentric discussions to yet - another Chinese thread on the forum main page.
OP -> given how EU developed, I am pretty sure it will be much deeper here one day. In the first EU game we couldn't even play non - major countries! In EU3 the entire Africa and America had like 10 extremely ahistorical states which existed only as the insta - annex for Europeans and eventually masochist challenge for a player (
I am pretty sure some addon or at worst EU5 will improve this particular area of peaceful gameplay and general depth of mechanics.
Not to mention the mods.
AOW is the step in the right direction with its Reformation, Religious Leagues and Revolution mechanics. Let's hope this trend will go further.
But it's not a thread complaining about the eucentric or something related to this. I'd rather it's a eucentric game, and I can hire artists to build status for saints and churches for my royal family. Then new books come out, figuring that it's a way to leave GOD, and I should reform my kingdom's church.
Nonsense.
The HRE has a different outcome almost every game where I am not one of the HRE states, same for India.
As for big, strong nations, Ming is huge and has a ton of money, and can easily individually crush almost any of its neighbors early game, but it generally remains stagnant or fractures.
France in 1444 was winning the hundred years war, pushing out England and asserting its power. In 1444, the power of France was essentially guaranteed historically, yet I still see France fall to Burgundy in games.
Muscovy had already gotten the leverage over its past Khanate masters at the start of the game, but people have started to complain that Muscovy is too WEAK in 1.8.
Poland and Lithuania experience all kinds of different outcomes as well.
my thoguhts on the trade is the one with the most power, especially a "controlling share" (over 50%) should decide where its transfered, and there should not be 'end' nodes or even limitations on directions... You can push it any way you want if you get enough power in the node to do it, is how I would like it. Because that's realistic. What is the point in getting (even 100%) power in a trade node if it has only has one direction, which is from your other node, to it, towards europe.
Or at least, each region should have a "end node" that collects the central trade of its area, such as indian, constantine, siberian, asian, north american, south american, west/south african,
people are bound to disagree, but then,... I do not care if they do.
If i am having 500 heavy ships, and 500 Trade ships, and i still can't direct trade away from Europe, something is inherently wrong, no matter your response lol
Or at least, each region should have a "end node" that collects the central trade of its area, such as indian, constantine, siberian, asian, north american, south american, west/south african,
people are bound to disagree, but then,... I do not care if they do.
If i am having 500 heavy ships, and 500 Trade ships, and i still can't direct trade away from Europe, something is inherently wrong, no matter your response lol
As a game and as alternate history it feels lacking because it is hard to change the big things and explore new things and the way it is handled is unconvincing. It does not feel right because it lacks good mechanics to explain why some states, regions or civilisations stagnate or collapse while others prosper. This is a period where change was common but progress was slower but as it is handled we progress steadily but slowly through a host of not so important decisions.This makes feel a bit bland and scripted. Two examples:
- In tech you can play around a bit with the order in which you research technologies but the progression is the same and some regions are doomed to fall behind. The different proto-nations also have the same progression of unlocking the same ideas over and over again. The idea groups gives a bit of choice but then we get the same progression once again. Seriously, who designs a game about changing the course of history where in the central mechanics of developing your country are going through a historical progression without any choice? Where are the different social groups in your country trying to drive it in different directions? Where are the new ideas and systems that totally change how you do things?
- The direction of trade is also weird. Is not trade a two way process? Further, if you make it one way why should it all lead to Europe and not China where most of the world's specie ended up? The Europeans went all over the globe to find stuff to sell to China and as global middlemen they reaped the largest part of the profit. Make it represent demand and put the end node in China. Above all it is not open to larger changes such as creating new centers of trade.
- In tech you can play around a bit with the order in which you research technologies but the progression is the same and some regions are doomed to fall behind. The different proto-nations also have the same progression of unlocking the same ideas over and over again. The idea groups gives a bit of choice but then we get the same progression once again. Seriously, who designs a game about changing the course of history where in the central mechanics of developing your country are going through a historical progression without any choice? Where are the different social groups in your country trying to drive it in different directions? Where are the new ideas and systems that totally change how you do things?
- The direction of trade is also weird. Is not trade a two way process? Further, if you make it one way why should it all lead to Europe and not China where most of the world's specie ended up? The Europeans went all over the globe to find stuff to sell to China and as global middlemen they reaped the largest part of the profit. Make it represent demand and put the end node in China. Above all it is not open to larger changes such as creating new centers of trade.
Well, the whole tech group system is probably one reason why the game is so stagnant, Europeans start ahead and gain even further advantage over the game. The tech groups might be somewhat accurate for the late 17th century, but certainly not for 1444. EU should be split into two different games, 15th century - 1650 and from 1650 to Victoria, allowing for each period to be given more detail and accuracy. Also makes us all buy one game more, so do it Paradox. They could then keep the current techgroup for the 1650+ game, and develop a different system for the other one, allowing for far more flexibility in tech speed.
3 max. No one starts on tech 4, that is the tech you get first idea group, no one should start on that tech. Period.
your response makes no sense.
better they start at 3 with better early game military pips, or something along those lines, than upping their tech to 4 at start.
no one should be 4 at start, or they move the idea to admin 5. othwerwise half the world will be retardedly trying to spend on idea instead of up their tech, for the first 50 years.
Sure it does. Hordes, Asians, hell even Muslims were more advanced than Europe was at the time. If we can't move some of them to tech 4, then move Europe back a tech to accurately represent this.
As an aside, I don't really think starting on tech 4 would be that gamebreaking, honestly. Europe will still be the predominant colonizers, so it's not like suddenly everywhere that is colonizable is taken by non-European nations.