Europa Universalis IV

Yeah, that's really one change I can't really see any fault with. It makes things more personal than Badboy, while at the same time not causing immediate and total war upon aggressively expanding.

You aren't a true monocled Emperor until you get a coalition of all the puny nations against you every once in awhile. It's a sign of success.

 

Then it should be atleast be explained better in game. The text when making coalition against a country reads to me that the war that might come would be optional join to in rather than the commitment that Alliance requires but instead of that I'm now locked into perpetual war because one city state started the war it can't win, but we won't lose due to other factors yet I can't get rid of it.

 

It does explain rather clearly that in a coalition war only the war leader can make peace. Generally speaking entering or forming a coalition is much more serious business than forming an alliance.

 

Yes, but that's a shit mechanic. It leads to the two following problems.

1. Coalition leader is someone far away. Let's say Russia. France destroys and occupies, say, Spain. Spain can't peace out, and Russia will never peace out until they get seriously hurt. Spain gets 20 WE, 100k revolts everywhere, literally loses their entire empire to revolting nationalists because they can't give up.

2. France wants to take a Spanish province. Russia is warleader. France can only negotiate with Russia and take Russian provinces. France literally can't take the territory they started the war for.

Coalitions would work well, but at the moment the design is ridiculously shitty beyond belief.

 

this is being addressed

 

How is it being addressed? Stop beating around the bush. I demand satisfaction, goddammit.

 

It doesn't do that good a job at it either. Coalitions were often less serious business than alliances and they could often be broken up piecemeal, as members were seldom committed to the cause and reluctant to risk much. The smaller states that joined the Grand Alliance opportunistically are a good example of this. For instance, Louis XIV effectively broke the League of Augsburg by persuading the Duchy of Savoy (which he had conquered -- as in the example pointed out by Average Manatee) to switch sides, which led the other coalition members to rush to the negotiating table, resulting in the Treaty of Ryswick and the dissolution of the Grand Alliance. The coalitions against Napoleon were also notoriously flimsy, at least up until the War of the Fifth Coalition.

 

I still can't understand how people play all these glorified Paradox excel spreadsheet simulators.

I had some recent curiosity and downloaded CK2, gave it a couple of spins, and my god is it awful. The amount of grinding you must go through to actually make something happen, endlessly clicking through character windows and harvesting data to make some half-blind assessment that in the end can royally fuck up due to some random event. Is this your idea of fun people? I tremble at how dull your actual lives might actually be.

It's also funny how everyone turns a blind eye at ridiculous shit happening like getting a noble to surrender and offering himsef for imprisonment as a peace condition. Yeah, right.

The funny thing about these grand epic scope and supposedly complex games is that, in the end, it ultimately boils down to some stupid gimmick like assassinating fuck-everyone, getting a high stat councillor to forge claims (to actually get some adrenaline-inducing data-browsing action going), and marrying genius courtiers to get genius sons.

Uninstall this shit and play Civilization.

 

You're a faggot and I hope you get aids.

 

No it doesn't nor it isn't. Historically coalitions are flimsy at best, Jugashvili made a great post regarding them so I don't delve into it any further. You also mentioned that coalition does explain itself clearly. It certainly does not as this pic provides:



It says all other members will be called in to war, fair enough. However, it never mentions I'm unable to break off coalition NOR gives me option to work on my own terms when the war commences. Those are two things that it certainly doesn't inform about when joining coalition which is silly due to the fact that actually signed alliances do let you do that, break treaties.

Because of how this system works I'm part of perpetual war under one leader that is half a globe away, war I suffer from due to war weariness but can do nothing to help it and thus get all the negatives.

There is absolutely no indication of the scale that this commitment takes, I even used the hint button in attempt to get more info but nope. This is all. So please don't talk bullshit about this.

 

So i attacked Aztecs for sweet sweet gold they have, my 2k infantry groups a+click kill everything they have no problem. They get pissed at me and enter a coalition. So now everytime i want to attack them to annex the rest of them whole Europe jumps on their side (i was playing as France). It's a bit weeeiiird, native americans would not be able to contact europeans unless europeans themselves come to new world. Pretty lame.

 

Always persistent, always making efforts .. Give this guy his dumbfuck tag , hes working so hard to get it , all the time.

 

But he posts so rarely now. We don't give tags to half-assed dumbfucks.

 

By the way, does anyone know how revolutions/revolutionary republics work in this game? As I recall in EU3 when you got the revolution event you simply had to let the revolutionaries take your capital, sit there for a year, and your gov't would change to rev. republic after an event. I got the Revolution event and a "counter-revolution" tag as Spain (EZ mode, I know) so I ordered my armies to stand down and let the revolutionaries do their work. However, once the revolutionaries enforced their demands, my gov't mode changed to Bureaucratic Despotism and I still had the counter-revolution tag plus random revolutionaries popping up everywhere. The new revolutionaries were not even reactionaries/absolutists: when I looked at their demands it turns out they wanted to change the government to a Bureaucratic despotism... again!

 

And even worse problem is they would need 6 months for message to arrive to EU. Ships were not exactly fast.

 

Coalitions are a good addition to the game. They just have a few kinks that need to be worked out. Main thing is that if somebody is whipped bad enough they need to be able to bail out of the war and coalition (should probably make it a litter harder to join up again though in the nearish future and would definitely hurt relations with all members, perhaps an "Abandon Coalition" wargoal in coalition wars that is rather pricey and is generally the only thing AI subordinate members will accept).

 

If anything, ships are too slow in this game. Sailing was the only reliable means of transportation and it accounted for the vast majority of goods transported. Bad roads and infrastructure meant that moving stuff by land was extremely slow and unreliable in comparison, and yet I've seen armies outrun ships in this game. Seafaring is also terribly gimped; even investing a lot in naval tech and stopping by the Azores/Canary Islands, your ships will hardly manage to make it to the New World, let alone get back in one piece, due to naval attrition and the fact that it takes an age to get there (it only took Colombus 5 weeks to sail from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas in his first voyage). The "limes" tech makes long-range sailing viable, but people were sailing back and forth across the Atlantic way before lime juice was used to treat scurvy.

 

A year from now, after 15 pieces of DLC, 2 expansions and countless versions of Death and Taxes later, we will all be looking back and laughing at how silly coalitions were at launch.

 

Changing coalitions from "cant separate peace ever" to "can peace out at big stability (like -2) and prestige/legitimacy cost" would mostly fix them. Natives did enter alliances with European powers and we had coalitions like Venice-Persia-Mameluks in history so both distance and different religion doesnt matter much.

 

we don't even give tags to full-assed dumbfucks.

 

I'm fine with this for game balance reasons - I like that it takes both humans and AI a while to discover the world and colonise, and coupled with settler times & times taken for diplomats to get back from missions across the sea, there is at least some sense of just how far away everything is. Doesn't stop my Hindustan empire from colonising New Zealand and Manhattan, but...

Westernisation seems odd. I prepared very thoroughly (2000 gold in bank, third largest army in the world, everything cored, all nearby factions beaten down to the ground) and then saved up diplo-power until I could go from -3 to 0 stab in one go, and it only took me 20 years of stable rebelstomp. But afterwards, with 15 miltech and Western infantry I attacked Indian Madurai with 18 miltech and they had slightly superior troops. Seems like at the same miltech Indian and Western troops don't differ much, and the primary benefit of Westernisation is to lose the tech penalty and catch up?

Now I've nearly caught up to European nations in tech, and France has invaded so we will test that theory...

 

Funny how this is only because I dislike games the Codex cockwhores all over, and can actually back it up with a casus discutio (how pretentious can you get if you write casus belli instead of "cause of war"? FFS)

Get your head out of your ass and realize you're only playing a glorified spreadsheet simulator specially designed to cater to your sense of intellectual superiority.

 

It takes a while for Westernization to produce visible effects. The late-level Western troops are noticeably better than their late game non-Western counterparts, as you may see here: http://eu4wiki.com/Army

Non-western trees often cap with mediocre troops. As Manchu, my MIL infantry tree capped at Reformed Asian Musketeer, which pales in comparison with the better troops in the Western and Russian tech trees. Westernizing and investing in the military for a couple of decades actually allowed Chinese armies to defeat larger Russian ones.

 

No, it's only because yur arguments are utter rubbish like that:

Since "casus beli" despite being from latin language is widely used even today in various countries. The same thing with ad hominem, a priori and others latin terms. Contrary to "a casus discutio", since I didn't see anyone, who used it. I have a strong suspition, that you pull that term from your ass in order to look smart.