Europa Universalis IV

[Jarpie]

EU4 needs court like in CK2 what would affect monarch mana and research. I'm surprised they didn't put it into the EU4, but I expect to see something like that in expansion.

 

[Krash]

I wish I could enjoy vanilla Paradox games like you, Krash. You seem very happy.

MEIOU was the saving grace of EU3. I'm almost surprised myself at how much fun I'm having with EU4.

Uncored provinces rebel, costing tons of manpower to put down and weakening your empire. It also costs a great amount of time to core, and time is the most valuable resource in an RTS. What does coring cost in EU4? A small setback to ideas, which is meaningless to western nations who have too much power and which low-tech nations couldn't care less about because they'll lose all power when westernizing? Yeah, basically nothing.

Rebels are several orders of magnitude nastier in EU4. But that's obviously an issue of balance, not game systems, so how is this relevant? Same with monarch power.

How much have you actually played the game, serious question?

Anyways, the tactic in EU3 can be summarized as seizing as much land as possible, then waiting for it to core. As opposed to doing nothing? How is this a choice? It encouraged map-painting to an incredible degree, and creates a snowballing effect. Bad system.

Nice way to say that it's based around waiting for your mana to recharge.

The "mana" is (or more accurately should be) limited, so every time you use it for something, you can't use it for something else. CnC. Fuck, it's pretty much the definition of CnC!

Or just spam ships, because money is useless in EU4.

A balance rather than game system issue? Again, relevant why?

 

[IDtenT]

There is no point in ever arguing with Average Manatee

 

[Average Manatee]

Rebels are several orders of magnitude nastier in EU4. But that's obviously an issue of balance, not game systems, so how is this relevant? Same with monarch power.

How much have you actually played the game, serious question?

Anyways, the tactic in EU3 can be summarized as seizing as much land as possible, then waiting for it to core. As opposed to doing nothing? How is this a choice? It encouraged map-painting to an incredible degree, and creates a snowballing effect. Bad system.

Have you actually played the game? Serious question. Rebels are incredibly nerfed in EU4. In fact with Fabricated Claims and fast coring, it's possible not even to see rebels in captured territory. Then once you get rebels, they no longer retreat and reinforce like in EU3, they just die as soon as combat ends even if you haven't killed them all, and they spawn with far weaker units and generals (Very rare rebels still use the old EU3 system, but the majority don't).

The only thing that prevents the snowball effect in EU4 is arbitrary barriers. Coalitions that you can't negotiate with. Provinces that suddenly take 100 years to core. OE that affects your entire nation, including cored provinces.

Nice way to say that it's based around waiting for your mana to recharge.

The "mana" is (or more accurately should be) limited, so every time you use it for something, you can't use it for something else. CnC. Fuck, it's pretty much the definition of CnC!

Also, we're around grownups here, no need to change the name of monarch points to something you think makes them sound more retarded.

Next up: Every bullet in an FPS is an example of CnC! Do I shoot it now, or wait and shoot it later?

The fact of the matter is that monarch power is better described as monarch mana. How else can you describe waving your hand to reduce rebel risk? Making a core in a few months out of nothing?

Or just spam ships, because money is useless in EU4.

A balance rather than game system issue? Again, relevant why?

It is a game system issue. Money has been systematically removed from influencing anything major other than spamming ships and units.

 

[Krash]

Rebels are incredibly nerfed in EU4. In fact with Fabricated Claims and fast coring, it's possible not even to see rebels in captured territory. Then once you get rebels, they no longer retreat and reinforce like in EU3, they just die as soon as combat ends even if you haven't killed them all, and they spawn with far weaker units and generals (Very rare rebels still use the old EU3 system, but the majority don't).

We obviously haven't played the same game, EU4 forums is full of people crying about the excessively hard rebels, while I can't even recall them mattering in EU3, or MEIOU, which was significantly harder than vanilla. Also, there's been plenty of cases where I've seen rebels retreat. There are examples of nations say 40k manpower getting two rebellions with 30k each, seriously fucking you over.

The only thing that prevents the snowball effect in EU4 is arbitrary barriers. Coalitions that you can't negotiate with. Provinces that suddenly take 100 years to core. OE that affects your entire nation, including cored provinces.

How is fifty years not an arbitrary barrier? How is infamy not an arbitrary barrier? 24 - meh, we don't love you but whatever. 25 - You're the great Satan (suicide attack). Don't care you're on the other side of the world. Aggressive expansion penalty is so much better that I suspect Paradox didn't come up with it themselves. Also, there's plenty of ways to influence coalitions, including (but not limited to) increasing relations, setting rivals, etc etc.... OE isn't my favorite mechanic, but at least it's not fundamentally broken and can be tweaked until you get more reasonable results. The coring time can also be tweaked. Once again, balance, but not rigid shit system from the get-go, like the cores for nothing of EU3.

If you want something more problematic to complain about, consider the problems with coring for Russia - colonies on same continent = fucking expensive, but seizing say Tunis as Ottomans and getting core/culture shift almost free because it's "overseas" from Constantinople.

Nice way to say that it's based around waiting for your mana to recharge.

The "mana" is (or more accurately should be) limited, so every time you use it for something, you can't use it for something else. CnC. Fuck, it's pretty much the definition of CnC!

Also, we're around grownups here, no need to change the name of monarch points to something you think makes them sound more retarded.

Next up: Every bullet in an FPS is an example of CnC! Do I shoot it now, or wait and shoot it later?

The fact of the matter is that monarch power is better described as monarch mana. How else can you describe waving your hand to reduce rebel risk? Making a core in a few months out of nothing?

Funfact: rethoric potshots don't make you look clever. But this is getting into semantics.

Or just spam ships, because money is useless in EU4.

A balance rather than game system issue? Again, relevant why?

It is a game system issue. Money has been systematically removed from influencing anything major other than spamming ships and units.[/quote]

You very conveniently forgot advisers, enormously important as they are. Also, army and ships not important?

 

[Sranchammer]

I'm not sure you should use the EU4 forum population as evidence a game is difficult.

 

[Krash]

Well yeah they're about as reasonable as paradoxers tend to be, but even some of the old guard are complaining, which was surprising to me.

 

[Sranchammer]

If cores were to kept, tying it to stability could work rather well I would think. A decade or two of prosperity would logically make inhabitants less anxious to revolt. Ah, but that ruins my mad conquering war plans! you say. Well, that's the point.

 

[Kane]

Coring provinces in EU4 = awesome button?

That or teching.

I did get the idea that EU4 was designed around awesome button gameplay. The majority of mechanics have very little weight to them since the ideology is that the player sees something wrong and spends monarch mana to cast a spell that makes it go away. Vs. EU3 where things were much more about planning and the long term.

It doesn't look like you understand the basic concepts behind EUIV.

 

[Tigranes]

I don't think I can go back to EU3 and I'm generally happy with what they put out, but my 150 years on Normal with Mainz leaves me a little disappointed.

The main problem seems to be that because you now get more information in a clear and calculable way, everything becomes not so much predictable or repetitive, but formulaic. You now know exactly why someone won't ally with you and what you can or can't do to fix it, and how long it will take; you know if they will join your war; you know what peace deal to ask for; you know how many years it will take or how many points it will take to alleviate war exhaustion or whatever else; rebels are now easier than ever to stomp; and monarch power seems pretty plentiful anyway for all your ideas and short term get out of jail cards. Then, of course, coring is superfast.

Mainz is obviously not particularly difficult and I took it easy for the first game but I could just steadily gobble gobble my way into half of Germany; I suppose if I played more wacky and got into big wars it might be different, and I was too conservative. I was screwed once when I decided to larp and side with the Papal States against France. We'll see how it goes with different setups.

 

[Average Manatee]

Coring provinces in EU4 = awesome button?

That or teching.

I did get the idea that EU4 was designed around awesome button gameplay. The majority of mechanics have very little weight to them since the ideology is that the player sees something wrong and spends monarch mana to cast a spell that makes it go away. Vs. EU3 where things were much more about planning and the long term.

It doesn't look like you understand the basic concepts behind EUIV.

Then that should be taken as yet more evidence that EU4 is an incredibly simplistic and easy game, if I can dominate the world as the Aztec without, as you say, understanding even the basic concepts of the game.

If cores were to kept, tying it to stability could work rather well I would think. A decade or two of prosperity would logically make inhabitants less anxious to revolt. Ah, but that ruins my mad conquering war plans! you say. Well, that's the point.

That would be an interesting solution. Basically in a similar manner to how westernization works?

How is fifty years not an arbitrary barrier? How is infamy not an arbitrary barrier? 24 - meh, we don't love you but whatever. 25 - You're the great Satan (suicide attack). Don't care you're on the other side of the world. Aggressive expansion penalty is so much better that I suspect Paradox didn't come up with it themselves. Also, there's plenty of ways to influence coalitions, including (but not limited to) increasing relations, setting rivals, etc etc.... OE isn't my favorite mechanic, but at least it's not fundamentally broken and can be tweaked until you get more reasonable results. The coring time can also be tweaked. Once again, balance, but not rigid shit system from the get-go, like the cores for nothing of EU3.

50 years is not an arbitrary barrier because it coring isn't a barrier. You can keep conquering in EU3, you just need to deal with increasingly difficult amounts of rebels. OE in EU4 is a barrier, because conquering even modest amounts of land at a time literally ends your game, with 30% revolt risk in your home cities because you subjugated some indians.

I already said that infamy changed to AE was one of the few good changes in EU4. But again, infamy in EU3 wasn't a barrier. You could go over the limit, you got lots of bad events, but you could survive them. Some nations would suicide attack, yes, some nations suicide attack in EU4 still. Arguably entering a coalition in EU4 is more suicidal than anything a nation can do in EU3, given how the coalition mechanics work.

Or just spam ships, because money is useless in EU4.

A balance rather than game system issue? Again, relevant why?

It is a game system issue. Money has been systematically removed from influencing anything major other than spamming ships and units.

You very conveniently forgot advisers, enormously important as they are. Also, army and ships not important?

Advisors aren't enormously important, they have almost no importance in the grand scheme. And you have extravagant amounts of income to create way more army and ships than you need in EU4.

We obviously haven't played the same game, EU4 forums is full of people crying about the excessively hard rebels, while I can't even recall them mattering in EU3, or MEIOU, which was significantly harder than vanilla. Also, there's been plenty of cases where I've seen rebels retreat. There are examples of nations say 40k manpower getting two rebellions with 30k each, seriously fucking you over.

Then go back to EU3 and actually play it. Rebels are far more dangerous (absurdly so, in fact). Playing as a American/African/Asian nation rebels are a far bigger threat than your actual enemy nations. The only rebels that have resilient = yes in EU4 are pretender rebels, in EU3 just about every rebel type had it.

 

[Grinolf]

50 years is not an arbitrary barrier because it coring isn't a barrier. You can keep conquering in EU3, you just need to deal with increasingly difficult amounts of rebels. OE in EU4 is a barrier, because conquering even modest amounts of land at a time literally ends your game, with 30% revolt risk in your home cities because you subjugated some indians.

I already said that infamy changed to AE was one of the few good changes in EU4. But again, infamy in EU3 wasn't a barrier. You could go over the limit, you got lots of bad events, but you could survive them. Some nations would suicide attack, yes, some nations suicide attack in EU4 still. Arguably entering a coalition in EU4 is more suicidal than anything a nation can do in EU3, given how the coalition mechanics work.

You know, that you perfectly describe what wrong was with OE, infamy and coring in EU3? Yes, you could easily ignore it and dominate entire world regardless.
And 50 years are very arbitrary, because after that time every province start consider itself as part of player nation without any effort from that player. Aside from periodically killing some rebels. And after that time one can forget, that such province ever exist.
"30% revolt risk in your home cities because you subjugated some indians" means, that your country spent resources on that indians lands, which needed been spent elsewhere and your bureaucracy can't manage resulted amount of work, which ended with various shortcomings in all your territory.

Advisors aren't enormously important, they have almost no importance in the grand scheme. And you have extravagant amounts of income to create way more army and ships than you need in EU4.

But why write so many post, about why it's bad, that MP generated from monarch are not been controlled by player, if MP generated by advisors, which player can control, are not important?

Then go back to EU3 and actually play it. Rebels are far more dangerous (absurdly so, in fact). Playing as a American/African/Asian nation rebels are a far bigger threat than your actual enemy nations. The only rebels that have resilient = yes in EU4 are pretender rebels, in EU3 just about every rebel type had it.

You talking about a bug, when rebels for backwardnation spammed with superior land tech (Or it was superior tech group? Don't remember exactly)?

 

[Cursed Platypus]

This game must be worst kind of shit I've played in a while.

Yet strangely addictive, until I get tired of being kicked in the balls by it's most retarded mechanism and completely historically inaccurate bullshit.

Finally got the strength the uninstall it.

 

[Sranchammer]

That would be an interesting solution. Basically in a similar manner to how westernization works?

Indeed. The problem I think would be how to simulate rekindled nationalism/religious awakening in case the country goes to shit. It would legitimize stability and decrease blobbing by a fuck ton.

Couple that with replacing monarch point system with building construction and you'll looking at a whole new ballgame.

Money would again be useful. It also could increase the likelihood of bankruptcies (very common in those days) as the player must walk a thin line

 

[Wilian]

Enjoyed the game thus far but I wonder if this brain fart is some sort of oversight or intended "feature".

Basically France/Aragon was having war against some small fuck far in the south, entirely detached from anything I did. Next thing what happens is Aragon declaring war on me, France as their ally joining in. Alright this far.

But after conquering all of Aragon's continental provinces along with few of the France ones I noticed my warscore was -35%, because of the nobodies somewhere in the south getting their asses kicked. I was losing the war I won on the map because the game decided to lump those two from what I can see entirely unrelated wars together.

What sort of logic is that?

 

[Cursed Platypus]

Enjoyed the game thus far but I wonder if this brain fart is some sort of oversight or intended "feature".

Basically France/Aragon was having war against some small fuck far in the south, entirely detached from anything I did. Next thing what happens is Aragon declaring war on me, France as their ally joining in. Alright this far.

But after conquering all of Aragon's continental provinces along with few of the France ones I noticed my warscore was -35%, because of the nobodies somewhere in the south getting their asses kicked. I was losing the war I won on the map because the game decided to lump those two from what I can see entirely unrelated wars together.

What sort of logic is that?

Bullshit logic. And now prepare to fight a 100 000+ army of Aragonese and French Patriot coming to rescue them. You see, in this game when you are losing, you get rewarded with free 10K doomstack per provinces.
I had a game where I was fighting the Ottomans as Rhodes with the Brozentines, Hungary, Polonia and Lituania helping me. We managed to completely rape him, and I snatched 3 new territories in the peace treaty. After less than 2 minutes of occupation, 60 000 rebels (20 000 per provinces), instantly popped up, full equip of course, and with badass generals. It's almost 3 times the size of the old ottoman army, I wonder why they were hiding them all this time...

Even if I manage to deal with them, more will just pop up, like some kind of fully prepared 100 000 men army was hiding in the montains all this time. There's no way to repress the revolts, they get magical weapons and magical professional soldiers. I will have to deal with at least 3 waves before the nationalisation is over. Ottoman might even get 3 free provinces back if you succeed.

Because that's how it should work, when you get owned, you should get your provinces back for free while your oponent was spending hundreds dealing with those thousands of men the game graciously gave you.

 

[Kane]

Yeah rebel scaling is borked I hope they fix that soon. Even some 2000 disgruntled farmers can cause stacks of 40k spawning on the other half of the map in some backwater shithole with a taxincome of 0.5.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

 

[Malakal]

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

Only that you are not correct and Turks beat entire coalitions of western powers for the entire XIV/XV/XVI century. That they could field huge army is a sign of their advanced military tech allowing them to do so - they simply didnt have to rely on feudal levies. And a superior artillery corps, not to mention a fearsome fleet. A Janissary was a professional soldier who could easily beat knights of western powers. How can western powers be light years ahead if they cant field as many troops?

 

[Malakal]

Ideas are good. Tech is dumbed down with only 3 lines though.

If I were to completely overhaul EU4's monarch and tech system, I'd do this:

Monarch stats go from 0-3.
Advisor stats go from 1-5. This is to represent that an advisor with 100% dedication to a field can attain a much higher proficiency than a monarch.
Advisor's cost scales linearly with power. As it is now, having 1/1/1 advisors cost like 1/10th that of a single level 3 advisor, which basically eliminates being able to prioritize one tech field over another. By leveling out the cost curve, players can dedicate all of their income to a level 5 advisor, or to 2/2/1 advisors, etc.
Advisor costs go up with time and with empire size (similar to how tech cost increased in EU3 with empire size). If you have a fuckhueg empire you'll need a bigger advisor team that requires more money to operate.

So you would replace the randomness and RNG of monarch stats with randomness and RNG of advisor stats? Because even now I dont always have lvl 3 advisors ready to be hired even if I can afford their services. Your "solution" is just as random as the current "problem".

Besides the game is perfectly playable at the minimal monarch point gain rate of 4 monthly (0 skill monarch and 1 skill advisor). A new tech costs 150 months of saving points which is acceptable. You fall behind as non western nation but its as it was meant to be with the tech group system in place.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

Only that you are not correct and Turks beat entire coalitions of western powers for the entire XIV/XV/XVI century. That they could field huge army is a sign of their advanced military tech allowing them to do so - they simply didnt have to rely on feudal levies. And a superior artillery corps, not to mention a fearsome fleet. A Janissary was a professional soldier who could easily beat knights of western powers. How can western powers be light years ahead if they cant field as many troops?

They got pretty much humiliated as soon as they met an actual western power (austria), and Autria was busy fighting other stronger powers such as France. Ottoman were mostly seen as a nuisance poking from the east.
Also, even while outnumbering their oponent 3 to 1, they would get defeated or only obtain pyrrhic victories (against minor power like albania, serbia and such), which tells a lot about the quality of their soldiers and tactics.
And it's pretty easy to muster massive, badly equipped armies of levies, except they will suck and won't stand a chance against professional European armies.

A Janissary was a professional soldier who could easily beat knights of western powers.

Me knight iz stronker than ur janininissasry.

My point still stands about the reliance on number over quality.

 

[Kane]

Turks are also stupidly strong in early game. Their soldiers are stronger than those of other occidental countries in 1460. I don't know where those swedes get their info, but if they think they had a superior army just because they beat a bunch of tiny kingdoms and one Hungary who was on the brink of complete collapse, then they are retarded.
Turks always relied on number more than anything else, not quality or superior weaponry, this isn't the case in this game.
Also there's the fact that the neighbouring kingdoms whom they conquered where either backward arabs or crumbling empires. 15th century Western powers were already light years ahead in terms of warfare tech and organisation.

Osman I's small amirate attracted gazis--who required plunder from new conquests to maintain their way of life--from other amirates, siphoning off their strength while giving the Ottoman state a military stature that was out of proportion to its size.

Ottoman Military Establishment

The Ottoman state originated as a gazi amirate. The gazi spirit was cultivated by the ruling class, and the mythology constructed around it became part of Ottoman ideology. A clearcut distinction was never made between the civil and military functions of government. Military concepts and procedures permeated the operations of the court, ministries, and bureaucracy. The two basic functions of government in the Ottoman Empire were said to be the making of war and the collecting of taxes to support the making of war. Each year the sultan mounted and frequently led a carefully planned campaign designed to achieve a particular objective--the conquest of a new province, the reduction of a troublesome fortress, or the suppression of a rebellion--within the season allotted for it. A new force was assembled for each campaign season.

Highly mobile Turkish light cavalry, skilled as mounted archers, had carried early Ottoman expansion across the Dardanelles into Europe, but these tribal troops proved inadequate for garrisoning conquered territory in the Balkans and were unreliable for more prolonged campaigns that took them far from the Anatolian heartland. The Ottomans impressed prisoners of war and recruited their Christian vassals for campaigns against Muslims. But other arrangements were required for recruiting, training, and maintaining a permanent regular army that included infantry--an arm in which the traditionally mounted Turkish gazis were deficient--and artillery. In the fifteenth century the Ottomans adopted the devsirme (literally, collection of booty) for military purposes.

Expeditions were regularly organized to collect a tribute of Christian boys from the Balkan provinces. Those taken became Muslims and underwent training that instilled in them a corporate identity. These "slaves of the state" were committed to celibacy and to a lifetime of service. The most promising recruits were selected and prepared for admission to the Ottoman ruling class at special schools in Constantinople and Bursa, where they engaged in Islamic studies, learned Persian and Arabic, and received advanced military training. The rest were sent to work on the land and to do service in the regular army, through which some eventually rose to prominence.

At the height of its effectiveness in the sixteenth century, the regular army never numbered more than 20,000 men, none of them ethnic Turks. It was divided into three branches: artillery, cavalry, and an elite infantry corps, the janissaries (from the Turkish yeniçeri; literally, new troops). The janissaries formed a self-regulating guild administered by a council of elected unit commanders with the rank of dey (literally, maternal uncle). During the reign of Murad III (reigned 1574-95), standards were relaxed to allow Turks to enlist as janissaries. Regulations prohibiting marriage and ownership of property by janissaries were also dropped. By 1700, when the devsirme was terminated, the ranks of the corps had increased to 100,000 men and had become predominantly Turkish in composition. This quantitative adjustment destroyed the qualitative advantage that the janissaries had always exercised over their adversaries. Frequently rebellious and forceful in demanding privileges, the janissaries became stronger than the government that they served, unseating viziers and deposing sultans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and bending state policy to their will.

Looks to me like the sultans were masters of diplomacy and bureaucracy, establishing the first US marine corps in history. Only in the later years of the veining empire, quantitative measures were put in place. Which turned out to be a crucial mistake.

So, no, ur wrong Cursed Platypus. Ur completely and utterly WRONG.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

irrelevant bullshit]

Tell me, how do I screencap those wikipedia boxes showing 100 000+ ottoman armies engaging outnumbered European armies? And having a hard time or just outright losing of course. From the 15th to the 19th I can throw as many examples as you may desire.

Questioning western's innovations and superiority in military technology from the renaissance onward is just retarded.

 

[Malakal]

They got pretty much humiliated as soon as they met an actual western power (austria), and Autria was busy fighting other stronger powers such as France. Ottoman were mostly seen as a nuisance poking from the east.
Also, even while outnumbering their oponent 3 to 1, they would get defeated or only obtain pyrrhic victories (against minor power like albania, serbia and such), which tells a lot about the quality of their soldiers and tactics.
And it's pretty easy to muster massive, badly equipped armies of levies, except they will suck and won't stand a chance against professional European armies.
My point still stands about the reliance on number over quality.

Battle of Nicopolis 1396, Ottoman force of around 15k beats crusader armies of around 16k with about 10k French knights and other troops. France not western enough for you?