Europa Universalis IV

Can't, just watching Crimea blob and western europe become a mess of colors makes me sick.

 

Meanwhille on official forum people are discussing new trade mechanic based only on things, which were showed in LP videos. And it seems, they more or less figured how it's works.

 

The tutorials in Paradox games are beyond awful.

"Hello sir, I see you've downloaded one of the most complex strategy games available. Now would you like me to tell you how to push a button? Do you know how to read? Well then I guess you're set. Enjoy."

 

"Press a button, and something awesome happens!", even Bioware people knows this.

 

Paradox games are very easy to get into, there is no need for tutorial. I mean, what do you need, a half an hour to an hour to learn all the basics if yoy play Paradox game for the first time (and up to 15 minutes if not)? It's not a Dwarf Fortress that needs about 5 hours to show the player how it works.

 

Yes you could. I remember doing ok in my fiirst run of EU without reading any information about it. Even conquered bunch of stuff. But I played as France, and you can't do anything wrong with it. CK also doesn't really need a tutorial. But with Vic or HOI it wouldn't be that comfortable anymore. You have too mane stuff to worry from the begining, and you need atleast know the basis of the game.
And simly have informative tutorial is some sort of professional etiquette, even if no one ever use it.

 

as it should be.

"Educate your mind"

 

Not sure if this was posted yet, but...



Nothing super interesting or new, but it's funny hearing him talk about beating the Ottomans as if it's some great feat. Trade routes look more interesting this time around, at least?

 

Paradox games had this awful thing about hidden modifiers. Sometimes people figure them after spending a year or even two playing the game.

 

Hidden modifiers are not necessary a bad thing as long as knowledge of them is not mandatory to play game well. They could be used for simulationist gameplay, when you play history instead of elaborate game of chess. You should be able to see the effects, but would not know exact numbers which is fine.

 

True, but its still annoying to have some complicated and important mechanic full of hidden modifiers. Trade in EU2 was seriously annoying because of that. Either go all hidden modifiers or show it all in its numerical goodness, half-way is full retardo.

I didn't see the warfare video because I don't like watching ten minutes of jewtube video and some guy talking when I can assimilate the same info in two minutes with ten small paragraphs of text and some images. Check your broadband privilege, Paradox.

So, how is siege playing out? Siege in vanilla EU3 was shit. Plopping 2k guys and a few months to take most fortresses was shit. Also, Constantinople fell too easily in EU3, when it should have endured immense 100k armies for months, with naval superiority possibly extending it for years.

How much time it takes to recruit troops? IMHO I have a feeling EU3 vastly downplayed the time needed to build a ddecent army. It was kinda annoying in EU3 to play a small country and fight a big country, you lost simply because you could't possibly carpet all the enemy provinces in three months. At least EU2 had less provinces. In MMU obliterating the enemy army gave you more or less one year to do your sieging and stuff.

 

It is looking much harder, than in EU3. Byz have much less potential for expansion without fighting the Ottomans. And the Ottomans now in much stronger position and must be more willing about expansion. And Timurids no longer a threat fot them.
Of course, player will find various exploits against AI. And I don't know about Constantinople strait which was the main weapon against them in EU3. Honestly, Paradox should eliminate it, if it still here for some reason.

For trade routes see his last English videos and Russian one. And yes it looks very interesting. It gives a reason for much more sensible expansion contrary to take whatever you can, as in other Paradox games. And it might give a reason not to conquer someone with common trade interest. But I am not sure. that AI knows about that.

Sieges are the same, as in EU3. So yes it still, destroy enemy army and cover their territory with 2-3k troops. Even if you siege Constantinople, which must be impossible to take without any preparations beforehand.
Recruiment troops also not take much time, but manpower recovery are nerfed, so destroying the enemy army can cripple them completely, and make them easy pray for other countries and rebels. Scotland and Lithuania have some unhealthy tendency for that, from what is shown so far. But at realize, I hope, they would not be that fragile.
And mercenaries must be more useful, if you have the right ideas.

 

I dont see your point about sieges, surround the fortress and wait long enough and it will surrender or die of hunger. Not very hard. Assaulting them is another point entirely and caused huge losses even in EU3.

Is Constantinople self sufficient? No? Then 2 year siege should be enough, as it was in game.

 

It can be supplied by water. Mehmed bult a whole fortress to cut Constantinople from the Black Sea. And prepared a strong fleet in the Sea of Marmara, but still wasn't fully successful at blockading the city.
One of the Ottomans ruler was sieged Constantinople 7 years, but abadon it, when his country was attacked from the East.

 

Without the 1401 (or was it 1411?) start date where Ottoman pretenders control everything west of Constantinopole (a sacred date for all who are planning to fight the Ottomans) Byz future looks grim indeed.

 

Better start building vaults between Constantinople, ITZ coming.

But after a playthrough or two everyone with a brain will be able to exploit the AI and restore the empire.

 

Yeah, RTFM, bunch of cunts newbs, am I rite ?

You sound so very convincing.

 

Do you believe that posting dumb shit makes you any less dumber at the end of the day, or why do you do it ?

 

i was supposed to post that pic i once posted here, with donald duck reading mein kampf, but i got sidetracked by some hitler manga pics on google so i lost the link, and i am too bored to search for it again.

 

I actually think game is easy to get just by starting and playing a game. But they could include proper tutorial it wouldn't take them much time, and it would help people that like that approach better

 

Look no further.

 

EU is indeed easy enough to learn by going with the flow of the game.

Generalizing such an observation to all PSD games however only proves that people don't know what they're talking about seems a bit short-sighted to me.

 

well i could make a new meme with ponies reading books, but Donald is funnier.

 

Does anybody actually bother with tutorials? Usually I just dive into games on whatever is their "hard" difficulty and see if it fucks me up or not/I get frustrated, then I read the manual or look online. Always done it this way, even with Paradox games. If you've played at least some strategy games, a lot of what EU games try to do makes sense.

It's the min/maxing, getting fullest potential, not being too frustrated part where you have to look up stuff. I mean, is there anything inherently "hard" about clicking a recruit icon, building some troops, and moving them somewhere you want to attack/defend? Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out basic stuff like that within the first five minutes.

I am also not the smartest guy in the room, so it should be fine for most I would think.

 

It is absolutely fine, this is just a classic example of "people love to bitch".