Europa Universalis IV

Yeah, you start with a huge army that you can't pay for, and when you cut military spending the solidiers disappear and you can't maintain that army at all. Also, you can still use crises against the Ottomans if they're a secondary power, probably even if they drop below that, but I've never played that long.

 

It makes sence not overly centralize it, but I hardly doubt decentralization would work any better. Atleast I don't know any examples of properly decentralized empires. If you want my opinion (And I must let you know beforehand, that I don't have a experience of ruling large empire), I would plaice my "centralization slider" at 0. So it would be somewhat similar to modern day USA.

15 centure Russia also begane transforming from feudal state. In China feudalism was already gone long time ago.
Well, Japan was in middle of something, that resembles european feudalism. I am not sure about rest of the world.
But point is, that feudalism wasn't already effective as means of governance in reality of 15 centure Europe. And its disadvantages was already pretty obvious. So it disappearance was regular process, which already begane in Europe at the game start. There is nothing determistic, that it will continue.

Problem with CK mechanic, that it also don't properly represent everything even in it's own time frame on limited territory. ERE is prime example of it. And I don't think you ever want to try CK mechanic on China. So it would create no less problem, than it solve.

But we talk about vanilla. And in vanilla stability doesn't matter that much. That makes serfdom useless compared to Free Subject. It was original point of discussion.
And I have -2 stability as China in MM. And I survive it.

 

Yes, you can still use crises against Ottomans after they fall from GP. But good luck finding someone, who would want to defend them and let crises rise.
And if you find, it most likely be Russia. So you will be fucked.

 

With a empire of sufficient size, you can just plow thousands of ducats of income into stability investment whenever you get below +3, assuming you even feel like you need to. Stability penalties were never something to avoid in un-modded EU3, investing in things that ignore stability (tech/production/income with attached stability penalties) was the go-to route to success.

 

EUIV 30 minutes preview.



EDIT: This is part one, two more are up.

 

I only now remembered, that lied to you. There is one confirmed idea, that gives country a malus. It is unique for Burgundi and helps them dissapear completely from the world map more often. So there can be other ideas, which give not only bonuses, but they most likely be counry specific. Or why would someone ever want to choose something that gives him disadvantages, when there are plenty of other ideas, that don't do it.

 

Wait, what. Disappear from the world map? What does that even mean?

 

I slightly corrected my post. It is about Burgundian Inheritance. Very tricky episode to do, since it as much important, as it is unlikely to happen in the game without some help from devs or modders.

 

shit is looking fine, also i like the diplomat redo.

 

ALL ideas should give disadvantages, IMHO. In EU3 ideas were only good, but that made sense because sliders. Now without sliders, Ideas should have both good and bad to stop nations from being good at everything. That's why I liked sliders, you had to swalllow the good and the bad in order to further your goals.

Very artificial to make the Burgundian inheritance inevitable. Was it already a ongoing process by 1440? If not, then they should rather build better mechanics that will make it possible. Why just a Burgundian inheritance? Why not a Polish inheritance? Or a Portuguese Inheritance?

Emergent Gameplay >>> Historical Determinism.

IMHO, Historical Determinism is the gaming equivalent of Corridor Shooters with cinematics.

 

I think the Death & Taxes mod for EUIII gave the national ideas disadvantages aswell. So if you focused on naval forcelimit your land forcelimit suffered vice versa.
Made some cool choices IMO.

 

Ideas weren't particularly good implemented in EU3 also. They were poorly balanced and don't determined your gameplay. Well, exept QftNW, but it was the only case. Like you don't need even single naval idea in order to beat UK. Just build many ships and zerg it. And it isn't yet clear how much current ideas would determine the manner you play the game.
If that problem is solved in the EU4, then lack of direct maluses from picking that particular idea would not matter that much. And main disadvantage from choosing one idea would be inability choose some another idea in its place. MM was tried to do something in that line, and some of their plans looked very interesting.

It isn't inevitable.

and

It is not yet clear, how likely it would happen. And they have some sort of justification. But I don't understand, what they implied: tough luck of burgundian dukes or that something wasn't right with Valois bloodline.

Well, there are some jokes, that final idea for Poland would be patritions, but they already getting old.
Why Burgundy? Because it was very important and shaped Western Europe to what we see today. Even Burgundy in MMtM wasn't that different. And it was multiple times claimed, that Burgundian Inheritance was the only historical deterministic event they find themselfs in need to keep for MMtG.
But for my opinion, Paradox with EU4 trying too hard to keep pleased all two (or even three) camps. And most likely end up pleasing no one. For ones it would be too sandboxy, for others too deterministic.
Best variant, again in my opinion, would be make separate setting for each important but unlikely to happen historical event at the game start. Like that case with Burgundy or Prussian formation. And your setting choise will determine how much the game will try to help this events to occur in your playthrough.

 

Yes, it is as much miserable as it was expected. If not even more. But on positive side, official forum now revive and return to old good paradox bashing. After last two months of boredom it is definitely an improvement.

 

Apparently, Paradox is now using the powers of viral marketing.

 

Didn't realize they had integrated the advisors-doing-stuff elements from CK2, that's pretty neat. Looks like EU4 is kind of just a replacement for both CK and EU.

 

That is not viral its normal mouth to mouth.

 

Isn't that the definition viral marketing???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing

 

Well the generic and wide definition not withstanding I equate viral marketing with employees posting on forums/fb/other shit like that pretending to be normal customers praising the product. Mouth to mouth is when normal people recommend something they genuinely like. At least thats the definition for me.

 

i dunno, i like to micromanage my own family too..

 

I don't think you can call it a replacement for CK2 because of this. It is pretty logical step to eliminating unnecessary micromanagement. But it is still big question, how much moddable would be these envoys compared to envoys from EU3. And it isn't single instance, when it looked like that EU4 will be less moddable than EU3. But I am hope, that they give modders some new tools in exchange of removed ones.

What is really bad, that they not integrated siege improvements frim HOD, so we can still see old nonsensical carpet as main war tactic. And most of other military stuff from EU3 are still here also.

 

That's called "astroturfing".
Paradox's current campaign is pretty much a textbook example of viral marketing.

 

alternate

















historiessssssssssssss

 

Best part of CK2 to me. I really don't like the "fight yourself!" gameplay that is 99% of the difference between EU and CK. EU3 with CK2 advisor elements is ten times better than CK2 in my opinion.

 

EU is the best Pdox game because it's the original idea that started it all. CK Vicky HoI are just spinoffs with different mechanics which were created to generate moneys. I should have waited for EU 4 instead of buying CK2 and Vicky 2 . Damn you paradox.

 

Could you explain why splitting your army to besiege many fortresses is nonsensical? I am fairly sure it was a common occurrence during wars.