Europa Universalis IV

[Delterius]

am i the only person who thinks its kinda dumb to have stuff like 'hey i formed rome as france now i have roman ideas such as The Legions'

its like my extremely successful country decided to forgo what it is, put on a toga and joined a cargo cult

if i formed 'rome' as 'byzantium' i'd make a point of wearing those byzantine ideas until endgame

NIs were stupid from the beginning but its adding random made up bonuses to nations is what players call "flavor" nowadays.

I maintain there's excesses. For all the pseudo historicity of tying 'national ideas and ambitions' to these EU4 'nation states', within that framework one would assume that one thing is Venice forming 'Italy', or the Manchu forming the Qing - whereas Portugal forming Rome and saying its SPQR time is rather nonsense.

 

[Riddler]

I wouldn't consider either of those modifiers to be particularly important.

If you're playing tall you want prussia/russia-tier military quality or quantity bonuses and -dev cost. If you're playing wide you want -coring cost, -WS cost, -AE, stuff like that.

All of the majors seem to be getting stupidly, ridiculously OP buffs elsewhere though, like England being able to choose what their colonies produce (including gold), Russia getting massive buffs from serfdom, and other bs.

They've also got coring, infantry combat(admittedly a mediocre bonus), and discipline. Improve relations and a massive manpower boost are also big.

They are on the same tier as Ottomans now. Discipline, Core Cost, swap cav for inf combat ability. And Ottomans have trash ideas like tax modifier and trade power. And the ultimate trash ability, -10% war exhaustion reduction cost. I remember the old days of Kebab -33% core cost. Now their 20% is lower than some nations. Every Angevin idea is good except maybe legitimacy. At least they don't have trash like -10% ship cost like Ottomans.

That is after controlling both France and Britain. This is kind of the equivalent of forming Italy, which has even better modifiers.

Italy has a lot more dead ideas as well as several identical ideas that are slightly better. I prefer Legitimacy over Prestige in ideas so Angevin wins that one. Italy has Stab Cost and Fort Defense which are both trash.

Of their remaining different ideas Angevin has Discipline and Separatism and +1 Parliament issues while Italy has Galley Cost and Galley Combat Ability plus Global Trade Power. Much rather be Angevin here.

They've both got +15% National Tax Modifier.

Italy gets +5% more CCC and ICA in their respective ideas sure. They also have +33% vs +20% on National Manpower Modifier. Italy has +50% Improve Relations vs +30% for Angevin. So they certainly win by having 4 higher value identical modifiers. But then we finally get to +50% Heir Chance and -10 Years Of PU Integration. And +15% GC modifier which is very good. Since England probably pushes for Economic Hegemon their GC value is insane. Of course Military Hegemon is strong as hell but still.

Once you literally possess Mare Nostrum, as opposed to just the Italian idea, Gally bonuses don't matter. The cost modifier is always 100% useless but you don't even care about the combat modifier after you control the whole Med. So functionally Italy has 3 dead ideas by the mid game.

Roman Ideas are objectively superior to Italian ones anyways.

So, the only modifiers that matter are better for Italy?

 

[Axioms]

I wouldn't consider either of those modifiers to be particularly important.

If you're playing tall you want prussia/russia-tier military quality or quantity bonuses and -dev cost. If you're playing wide you want -coring cost, -WS cost, -AE, stuff like that.

All of the majors seem to be getting stupidly, ridiculously OP buffs elsewhere though, like England being able to choose what their colonies produce (including gold), Russia getting massive buffs from serfdom, and other bs.

They've also got coring, infantry combat(admittedly a mediocre bonus), and discipline. Improve relations and a massive manpower boost are also big.

They are on the same tier as Ottomans now. Discipline, Core Cost, swap cav for inf combat ability. And Ottomans have trash ideas like tax modifier and trade power. And the ultimate trash ability, -10% war exhaustion reduction cost. I remember the old days of Kebab -33% core cost. Now their 20% is lower than some nations. Every Angevin idea is good except maybe legitimacy. At least they don't have trash like -10% ship cost like Ottomans.

That is after controlling both France and Britain. This is kind of the equivalent of forming Italy, which has even better modifiers.

Italy has a lot more dead ideas as well as several identical ideas that are slightly better. I prefer Legitimacy over Prestige in ideas so Angevin wins that one. Italy has Stab Cost and Fort Defense which are both trash.

Of their remaining different ideas Angevin has Discipline and Separatism and +1 Parliament issues while Italy has Galley Cost and Galley Combat Ability plus Global Trade Power. Much rather be Angevin here.

They've both got +15% National Tax Modifier.

Italy gets +5% more CCC and ICA in their respective ideas sure. They also have +33% vs +20% on National Manpower Modifier. Italy has +50% Improve Relations vs +30% for Angevin. So they certainly win by having 4 higher value identical modifiers. But then we finally get to +50% Heir Chance and -10 Years Of PU Integration. And +15% GC modifier which is very good. Since England probably pushes for Economic Hegemon their GC value is insane. Of course Military Hegemon is strong as hell but still.

Once you literally possess Mare Nostrum, as opposed to just the Italian idea, Gally bonuses don't matter. The cost modifier is always 100% useless but you don't even care about the combat modifier after you control the whole Med. So functionally Italy has 3 dead ideas by the mid game.

Roman Ideas are objectively superior to Italian ones anyways.

So, the only modifiers that matter are better for Italy?

Italy has marginally better ideas in 4 areas. But ICA and Manpower Modifier aren't exactly necessary at the level where you form the tags. Especially since GC boosts manpower. 20% Improve Relations is a moderate buff, better than the other two. 5% Coring cost doesn't really matter since most end game tags can stack that anyways. The bigger Italian advantage would probably be all the intermediary tags you form for perma-modifiers before forming Italy. Of course that is offset by starting off with France in a PU which you can feed the hell out of and then integrate early. Forming Italy generally takes 70-80 years unless you are super savescumming. However Angevin Empire gets a ton of mission bonuses and other benefits that aren't from NIs also. So they are probably broadly comparable unless you really grind the tag switching stuff for your Italian run.

Note though that you can help your PUs achieve their missions which means you benefit from some wild shit in the new France tree.

 

[None]

Another question: How do you get higher “colonist success“ percentages? It seems that colonizing high development places gives a lower sucess percentage or is it also based on how far away the colony is from the capital?

https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Colonization#Settler_chance

Outside of ideas: Burgher estate privileges and some policies. No way in hell would I ever give up a policy slot for what amounts to +15 settlers per year unless it is paired with something better or I have nothing else to put there.

 

[Space Satan]

 

[Zariusz]

I wonder when will they stop milking this poor game, like this is maybe the only time when i want for devs to move on. Just fix as much bugs as you can and start EU V or smt so modders can finally have a stable canva for modding without fear that next DLC or update will crash everything and force them to work on compatibility. Through years, many mods were abandoned because of that, for example my favourite map overhaul mod still is stuck sadly in 2020 - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1888326039

 

[Lady Error]

Why move on if it still makes money? The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too - and it's not like there is much they could do better in a sequel.

 

[Zariusz]

Yes i know that, its even less probable considering that as far as i remember, according to some Paradox diagram, lately most of their income from games comes from old titles rather than from new releases so milking them is currently their bread and butter. But this doesn't change that i would prefer otherwise.

 

[Average Manatee]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too

eu4 1.0 was laughably barebone, like half the features of eu3 1.0. i don't see why they couldn't sell an eu5 which is a barely interactable screensaver.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

All I know is that I most likely won't move from IV to V whenever the latter comes out. Not only due to lack of DLC content, but because the absolute shitfest that was CK3's post-launch dev cycle is quite likely to repeat itself.

 

[Malbrouck]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

Taking by the state of player counts on paradox games HoI4 is sitting at 30k, EU4(at 14k) is a little higher than CK3(11k) whereas Vic3 is fucking dead with only 5k, paradox needs to keep it's newer games alive rather than make EU5 or churn out more DLC, I don't think CK3 will die because despite most regions having no unique content it still has improved on some aspects of CK2 whereas Vic3 is a fucking joke, paradox needs to take a few years to learn what made their games good rather than continuing whatever the fuck they are trying to accomplish with Vic3.

 

[what am i doing]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

Victoria 3 dropped below 3k concurrent players on Steamcharts this morning. If they were hoping to turn it into another DLC milking franchise, they failed.

 

[thesecret1]

Victoria 3 dropped below 3k concurrent players on Steamcharts this morning. If they were hoping to turn it into another DLC milking franchise, they failed.

It's gonna be another Imperator. They'll try to resurrect it for a bit, and when that doesn't work, drop it. They ought to realize that if a game is to be a good milk cow, it needs to have an actually fun base and high replayability, so that people stay hooked on to it.

 

[Mortmal]

Why move on if it still makes money? The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too - and it's not like there is much they could do better in a sequel.

Same thing would happen than for the other games, CK3 is not nearly as good as CK2 , victoria 3 is boring after one playthrough . Stellaris ? 2016 release, its only getting very good now, thats 7 years of development constant tweaks , revamps, and price tag of 229 $ for it to become the game it was meant to be. Used to have to install a mod for AI to react, in 2016 it was not planning any offensive and more retarded than the average codexer, yeah that bad.
A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

 

[what am i doing]

A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

Vicky 2 was made in a year IIRC. And all it was really missing, IMO, was an option to have nations share their overlord's map colour so you could map paint with vassals. Sure things like markets and more sane pop growth would have been nice, but the fact that vassals make your name spread on the map but NOT your colour in the national mapmode is the one thing that actually constantly bugs me about the game.

 

[Malbrouck]

A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

Vicky 2 was made in a year IIRC. And all it was really missing, IMO, was an option to have nations share their overlord's map colour so you could map paint with vassals. Sure things like markets and more sane pop growth would have been nice, but the fact that vassals make your name spread on the map but NOT your colour in the national mapmode is the one thing that actually constantly bugs me about the game.

Vic 2 is an exceptional game, whenever I speak to people about it their biggest gripes are always the lack of basic quality of life features, shame Vic 3 didn't do Vic 2 justice

 

[Axioms]

Why move on if it still makes money? The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too - and it's not like there is much they could do better in a sequel.

Same thing would happen than for the other games, CK3 is not nearly as good as CK2 , victoria 3 is boring after one playthrough . Stellaris ? 2016 release, its only getting very good now, thats 7 years of development constant tweaks , revamps, and price tag of 229 $ for it to become the game it was meant to be. Used to have to install a mod for AI to react, in 2016 it was not planning any offensive and more retarded than the average codexer, yeah that bad.
A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

Nonsense. If you spent a few months planning out a meticulous design dock and actually trying to create a systems based game instead of a content based one you could easily put together a mindblowing Paradox GS game in 4-5 years. Even if you were stuck with real time with pause.

 

[Delterius]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

CK3 didn't have a rocky start. It has had a rocky 3 years since.

 

[Average Manatee]

CK3 and Vicky3 both have really rocky starts that will possibly end in failure and Imperator sank like a stone. I think Paradox isn't keen to take another chance at failing with EU5 when they could churn out DLC.

CK3 didn't have a rocky start. It has had a rocky 3 years since.

It's weird to think that CK3 is a 2020 game. It has so little content that it feels like it was a 2022 game.

According to Steam roughly 2/3rds of CK2 DLC was finished before 2016, CK2 being a 2012 game. Granted a lot of the earlier DLCs were kind of low effort compared to later ones but the contrast between CK2 and CK3 is still huge.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

It's weird to think that CK3 is a 2020 game. It has so little content that it feels like it was a 2022 game.

According to Steam roughly 2/3rds of CK2 DLC was finished before 2016, CK2 being a 2012 game. Granted a lot of the earlier DLCs were kind of low effort compared to later ones but the contrast between CK2 and CK3 is still huge.

Incompetent team coupled with a focus on graphical gimmicks to the detriment of gameplay.

 

[Mortmal]

Why move on if it still makes money? The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too - and it's not like there is much they could do better in a sequel.

Same thing would happen than for the other games, CK3 is not nearly as good as CK2 , victoria 3 is boring after one playthrough . Stellaris ? 2016 release, its only getting very good now, thats 7 years of development constant tweaks , revamps, and price tag of 229 $ for it to become the game it was meant to be. Used to have to install a mod for AI to react, in 2016 it was not planning any offensive and more retarded than the average codexer, yeah that bad.
A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

Nonsense. If you spent a few months planning out a meticulous design dock and actually trying to create a systems based game instead of a content based one you could easily put together a mindblowing Paradox GS game in 4-5 years. Even if you were stuck with real time with pause.

All words...i'll apologize if i see it done.

 

[Axioms]

Why move on if it still makes money? The amount of work needed for EU V to reach a similar level of complexity would be off the charts too - and it's not like there is much they could do better in a sequel.

Same thing would happen than for the other games, CK3 is not nearly as good as CK2 , victoria 3 is boring after one playthrough . Stellaris ? 2016 release, its only getting very good now, thats 7 years of development constant tweaks , revamps, and price tag of 229 $ for it to become the game it was meant to be. Used to have to install a mod for AI to react, in 2016 it was not planning any offensive and more retarded than the average codexer, yeah that bad.
A good paradox game from release day, no dlc policy , would require 10 years of development a bigger QA team and a 250$ or more price tag, people will never accept that sadly.

Nonsense. If you spent a few months planning out a meticulous design dock and actually trying to create a systems based game instead of a content based one you could easily put together a mindblowing Paradox GS game in 4-5 years. Even if you were stuck with real time with pause.

All words...i'll apologize if i see it done.

I mean Paradox won't do it and there aren't any other companies who make RTWP games like theres so I suppose we'll never know.

 

[Lady Error]

So in my Portugal game the Ottoman is blobbing out of control and the best candidates to stop him together all hate each other. France and Spain are both jelly about my colonies and apparently will stay that way.

I mean I could potentially get together a super-coalition at some point from all sides - one of the perks of being all around the world. And go again way over force limit like I did against Spain, money is now not a problem since I cut him out of the Sevilla node.

 

[thesecret1]

Vicky 2 was made in a year IIRC. And all it was really missing, IMO, was an option to have nations share their overlord's map colour so you could map paint with vassals. Sure things like markets and more sane pop growth would have been nice, but the fact that vassals make your name spread on the map but NOT your colour in the national mapmode is the one thing that actually constantly bugs me about the game.

Well, the rebel popamole was asinine bullshit, inability to take provinces rather than states meant you couldn't reach historical borders (not enough granularity) in many cases, microing soldier pops so that you can actually refill damaged units was ridiculous, the inner politics part was far too simplistic... There were many issues with V2, it was amazing despite them. All I had wished V3 would do was fix such issues while keeping the core of the game the same. Instead we got a queue simulator.