Europa Universalis IV

Try as I may I cannot make sense out of this.

 

You mean, that it was common occurrence, when one country destroyed all his enemy forces, it sent all her army to cover enemy terriitory (no matter how big this terriitory is) with thin layer of soldiers, who sieged all they can find? Ant all it happened after first months of war?
I am no expert in early modern warfare, but I for some reason thought, that scattering your army on such small groups and having untaken fortresses in your rear - things, that must be avoided.

And in HOD you can still siege multiple fortresses. But you need enough soldiers with right composition to be effective at it. And you would suffer from attrition in any case, not only if your enemy have full defensive ideas, like in EU4. Also you can effective siege fortess in the middle of enemy territory, but who sayed, that HOD was ideal?

Yes. Goddammit, yes. And it doesn't matter, that Vic is on of the most ambitious grand strategy series ever created, and vanilla EU until now was simple map painter simulator with inane warfare.
I am bow before such genious insight in essense of all Paradox games.

 

Wait a minute, why is the Zapotec territory so big and why is the Mixtec considered part of it?

 

Because Paradox didn't spend any single minute on improving american countries while working on EU4. So the only thing they have - exciting gameplay, in which you conquer your neighbour in one year and then doing nothing, while waiting europeans to show up, and suffering from arbitrary penalties during all that time. Well, with new start date time of waiting decreased, so that can be counted as improvement.
But to be fair, Paradox didn't promise anything for native american in EU4. The still could use political setup from one of the many EU3 mods though. It wouldn't be that time consuming.
Next video showed more serious Paradox fuck up:

Best moment on 15 minute. That guy start reading factions description, but can't make sence from Temple one. So the fact, that one of china's faction completely ahistorical wasn't fixed also. And China is claimed Tier 1 nation, on which they concentrated most of their attention.

 

I think that's more of a disconnect between game mechanics presented in a simple, straight-forward manner and the historical basis, not that they don't understand the historical basis.

I'm more bummed that they didn't fix the GOLD GOLD GOLD aspect of the New World unless there's something stopping colonization that I'm not aware of.

You know something's seriously wrong when even a faction like Byzantium, which is both historically not a colonial power, and in terms of game mechanics and distance shouldn't be going to the New World, still feels like it should dash for the New World just to snatch up an 1800 income CoT with zero effort.

 

Problem with native americans, that they are done very bad and from historical and from gameplay perspectives. So in the end and those, who wanted some crazy alternative history, where Aztec kicked european asses, and those, who wanted better representation of that region, left pissed off. So content only eurocentrists, who treat New World nation only as something existing only to be conquered, and don't care much about the fact, that they conquer something very different from what real europeans do.

And it isn't big change to switch Temple to more sensible variant, like aristocrats or something like that. They only need to rewrite most of the faction events. So Paradox not taking tough decisions, but just been lazy.
Atleast they fixed Japan, so the game now represent correct period of their history. But I still don't understand about what the thinking, when they created Japan for Divine Wind.

 

Am i wrong or does it seems like it will be easy to blob up horribly. I see that guy that plays England basically managed to take out France very early on, and if he wasn't larping he could annex it : S

 

It's not like EU3 was hard once you reached the size the England pretty much starts at. In fact England has a mission in EU3 that gives them cores on the northern half of France and Burgundy.

 

Both his natural enemies basically destroy themselfevs. Scotland by exhausting it's manpower in the very first war and falling in constant rebel circle. France by exhausting themselfs again, alienating all other powers by their expansion (they even manage to become dishonorable scum as can be seen in casus belli list) and not establishing worthwile alliances.
And if he taked more provinces, he would allienate his own allies, who win the war for him.
But main tactics, as it seems, would be not wasting ypur manpower and waiting, when enemy waste his in some stupid war. And AI can't no go in stupid wars. Then they would be done.
More funny, that Hundred Years War must be about trying to attract Burgundy on your side, but both player and Franse preffered fighting on two fronts simultaneously.

 

Has to be mentioned that "historical plausibility" and "gameplay efficiency" are basically complete opposites. In real life, people constantly make mistakes and dumb decisions, especially when it comes to war. When people make perfect decisions (or even just not-completely-boneheaded ones) things like the Roman Empire and golden ages result. So it's only natural a player always making right decisions will create scenarios that seem historically impossible.

 

Looks pretty good so far. But I really didn't like that HRE states. It seems, that expansion inside there is even easier than in EU3, since so many states manage to eat their
neighbours. But I hope, that mods are fix it somehow.

And Paradox claimed, that it was older version of the game and AI was improved since then. So I hope, that AI would more prioritize conquering key provinces, like Constantinople and Novgorod, in release state.

Of course it is only Europe, so it isn't know how many crazy things happened in the rest of the World yet.

 

The northeastern hordeland above Ottomans/Byzantium looks a lot different than I remember from EU3. Is that actual changes, or just different starting date? (Never played any 1450 start date in EU3.)

Also, wow, what the fuck. They really babied Byzantium again. Wish they'd make it actually difficult for once.

 

Golden Horde collapsed between EU3 and EU4 start date. Not unimportant role in that event played some unknown guy named Timur, who razed their capital. They still had some power for the next 30 years after EU4 start date and there must be also Astrakhan Khanate, which revolted in 1460es. It has separate tag in EU3, but I never seen it appeared not in vanilla not in mods.

 

Does Golden Horde actually recede naturally if you play through from 1399 start date in EU3, or is that just one of those things they automagically make happen with start dates that won't happen otherwise? Never seen them disappear so thoroughly in my playthroughs, but maybe that is down to me demolishing Timurids.

 

I didn't see any Timurid-Golden Horde wars even despite them been classified by the game as rivals.
Golden Horde in vanilla EU3 had a tendency be eaten by Austria/Bohemia (depending on who Emperor are), than gradually desintegrate. And because of craziness of EU3 rebel mechanic, all rebel states poped up completely out of place.
Mods usually done things much better, so you can see Crimea, Kazan, Nogai and Kazakh Khanates rebel successfully and mostly in right places. Never Astrakhan Khanate though, since it very close to their core territory, and they are pretty stable there.

 

Poland seems to be extremely strong now, with a mix of military and administration ideas. Soon it will be time to create the Jagiellon empire again.

 

Oh wow, France got absolutely wrecked. The times they are a changin'.

And Mighty Georgia actually expanded. Wow.

 

That reminds me that I constantly saw Golden Horde & Timurids being allied in my playthroughs as Byzantium. So much for being rivals!

 

To be fair, EU3 horde mechanic is so retarded, that such movie was beneficial for both sides. It was the only means for them to have a calm border. And that border was with the only guy, who have no less troops than them. They are really have no reason to fight with each other.
Horde AI also wasn't smart enough to not conquer stuff, but instead make some vassals, which they do IRL.
Well, not suprising, that Paradox abadon horde mechanic in EU4 instead of fixing it.

 

Those borders are fucking horrible.

So much for historical bonuses. Also, Ottomans didn't take Constantinople until 1600s, what the actual fuck?

 

What? Those borders, compared to EU3, are amazing and make perfect sense. Remember the Austria/Bohemia snake into Asia? Remember random english provinces in Finland? Nowhere in sight. You get contiguous kingdoms with viable borders.

Also IRL look up Charles V empire or Poland in the XV century.

 

Holy fuck.

Get opportunity to talk to developer of game. Ask developer of game how they're planning to ruin the game, because thinking is so last century. I just... I can't do this anymore. We're doomed. IT'S ALL OVER. WE'RE FUCKED, if this is how human beings do things.

 

He could make a point about Paradox never having normal tutorial in their games. And fan made guids been superior to official ones. And he will be right.
But he choose the path of retardation, so it is no more hope for this pour soul.

 

It's just the whole approach of, "The game is too hard for me, therefore the problem HAS to be the game, not me" that blows my mind. Not an ounce of self-reflection, not the tiniest sliver of doubt.

 

Some changes from EUIII.