Europa Universalis IV

[Raghar]

The issue is that rulers shouldn't be looking to make more enemies when they already have plenty, and they sure as hell shouldn't be trying to make said enemies out of otherwise friendly nations. Cooperation has always been more important than antagonization.

The algorithm was like this: Is this a bastard neighbor? If yes: Kill him. Is it a big country that can ate us? Get some friendlies. Yes it can be these people we tried to kill yesterday, they would be eaten by that big country anyway.
Friendly were these countries who knew the other country holds that fucker behind them, thus 1. they are doing things in theirs favor 2. they are protecting them from fighting two front war.

Then add personal grievances, like that Bush vs Sadam, and you'd have a nice algorithm.

 

[Delterius]

Is it a big country that can ate us? Get some friendlies.

And, suddenly, there goes the coalition mechanic.

But, advisers are one of few ways how to counter the "Asia you'd have -1 penalty".

I haven't played many asian countries, just Ming, which is hardly average but I don't it should take too long to be able to hire a lot of advisors, even with smaller nations (provided you grow them).

Really, the asian penalty is there for a reason. Anything west of Ming and east of Persia should be really hard.

But still there are other ways to counter the penalty - try garnering monarch points via inflation sacrifices. Invest in anti-inflationary policies. Also, maybe the other asian nations have that random event that plummets inflation by one percent so there's that too.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's always pretty easy to hire lvl 1 advisors as any nation. The cost goes up exponentially though, which is kind of stupid and basically takes away any ability to choose what mana element to focus on that hiring advisors might seem to give.

The +power from the inflation events and other events are mostly negligible since it's all lucky event based and with a comparatively high MTTH. The only serious power infusion comes from easily repeatable missions (25 military power for claiming a few rival provinces I was going to claim anyway, 25 admin for taking one, some more admin for coring...)

 

[Tigranes]

I'm fine with advisors as money sink and all, but I do wish they'd get better at their job. A 2-point inflation dude should be reducingi nflation faster, etc.

 

[suejak]

After reading interviews from the MEIOU and D&T modders, I'm getting the vibes they don't like EU4 much

There are a couple of issues with some of the systems, yes. EUIV was turned into more of a warfare simulator than it already was.

No shit.

There was a thread on their forums asking how/why the AI decided to be hostile to certain nations even when players never did a thing to them and kept high relations. Wiz (AI dev) responded and basically said that the player wasn't supposed to be able to influence AI much, because otherwise the player might be able to avoid fighting wars.

It wouldn't be a problem if the game had a decent combat system (HoI), or was based on a short time period which needs to model certain nations being heavily predisposed to hating each other (Victoria), but EU is neither of those. It's a sandbox game with one of the weakest combat systems I've seen in a strategy game.

There's a pretty big difference between "ganging up on the player because he's the player" (which is shit), and pushing one's own natural advantages irrespective of superficial "high relations". Think about it. There's so much more to think about aside from "Do I like this person? Yes - don't attack. No - attack!" Especially if you can get something from attacking them, then relations don't matter for shit. Think about all the times you improve relations just for the sake of biding time until you could attack. The AI ought to emulate similar thought processes.

I have no idea why you even brought that up, though, to be honest. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not EU4 is a "warfare simulator".

 

[Grinolf]

It's always pretty easy to hire lvl 1 advisors as any nation. The cost goes up exponentially though, which is kind of stupid and basically takes away any ability to choose what mana element to focus on that hiring advisors might seem to give.

You can. Like choosing which lvl 2 or 3 advisor to buy, if there isn't enough money for two of them. Or if there isn't enough money for lvl 2 or 3 advisor, firing two other advisors could help with it.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's always pretty easy to hire lvl 1 advisors as any nation. The cost goes up exponentially though, which is kind of stupid and basically takes away any ability to choose what mana element to focus on that hiring advisors might seem to give.

You can. Like choosing which lvl 2 or 3 advisor to buy, if there isn't enough money for two of them. Or if there isn't enough money for lvl 2 or 3 advisor, firing two other advisors could help with it.

12 power per year difference won't do jack for most practical purposes. That's not much of a choice.

After reading interviews from the MEIOU and D&T modders, I'm getting the vibes they don't like EU4 much

There are a couple of issues with some of the systems, yes. EUIV was turned into more of a warfare simulator than it already was.

No shit.

There was a thread on their forums asking how/why the AI decided to be hostile to certain nations even when players never did a thing to them and kept high relations. Wiz (AI dev) responded and basically said that the player wasn't supposed to be able to influence AI much, because otherwise the player might be able to avoid fighting wars.

It wouldn't be a problem if the game had a decent combat system (HoI), or was based on a short time period which needs to model certain nations being heavily predisposed to hating each other (Victoria), but EU is neither of those. It's a sandbox game with one of the weakest combat systems I've seen in a strategy game.

There's a pretty big difference between "ganging up on the player because he's the player" (which is shit), and pushing one's own natural advantages irrespective of superficial "high relations". Think about it. There's so much more to think about aside from "Do I like this person? Yes - don't attack. No - attack!" Especially if you can get something from attacking them, then relations don't matter for shit. Think about all the times you improve relations just for the sake of biding time until you could attack. The AI ought to emulate similar thought processes.

If making the AI like me doesn't, you know, make the AI like me, then what does making the AI like me do?

I have no idea why you even brought that up, though, to be honest. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not EU4 is a "warfare simulator".

Because the quote clearly demonstrates that EU4 is designed to operate with warfare as the basis of player interaction. Playing styles that are able to avoid warfare are summarily declared invalid and removed from the game.

 

[Ivar the Boner]

I played only two serious campaigns (from beginning to the end date) as Potato and then as Denmark. I noticed something funny, no one ever DoW'ed me, not even fucking once. And I had quite powerfull neighbours hating my guts, but no-one ever declared war on me even though game settings are on "normal".
I even played drunk once and declared war and annected 4 province HRE member as Potato and no-one did jack shit about it other than forming coalition against me (that got disbanded after couple of years).

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm completely paranoid and always keep my army at land force limit. Or even break this limit as I did as Denmark because I was so goddamn rich I could break my force limit, keep army/fleet upkeep at max, hire advisors and still make enough money to spam infrastructure.

 

[Kane]

The AI only DoW's you

a) when they get a fucking big coalition (i.e. you expand to aggressively)
b) when you are embroiled in a war with approx. equally strong enemies (i.e. they backstab you)
c) when you're a shit-tier nation

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Relations and royal marriages do keep the AI at bay a little as well. Alliance obviously means they're your bros (until one of you backstabs the other when war breaks out), but improved relations in my experience DO make the AI more peaceful with you (and gets them out of coalitions against you), and royal marriage has the stability hit that dissuades the AI a little as well.

 

[Malakal]

I get declared on all the time, especially as I was playing as a very big Poland the coalition of Russia, Ottoman Empire, France and dozen of HRE minors including emperor Austria declared on me every 10-15 years.

I even lost a few of those wars, mainly due to manpower mismanagement (ie assaulting in a previous war that seemed like a good idea when it was not). Didnt have to cede my provinces tho, mainly some gold and vassal provinces.

 

[Ivar the Boner]

I'm not sure when other countries decides they are your "neighbours". When I played as denmark I knocked Sweden and Norway teeths off as soon as they broke personal union with me and kept kicking those bastards for even looking funny at me until they were too weak to do anything. And my only "rival" then was... Lithuania. And no, I didn't had any provinces outside scandinavia. Everybody else fucking loved me (probably for beating the crap out of Sweden).

I'm quite shocked because I remember getting constantly dog-piled by half of europe when I played EU 3 as... anyone. EU 4 seems to be much easier.

 

[suejak]

If making the AI like me doesn't, you know, make the AI like me, then what does making the AI like me do?

They may like you, but for practical purposes, it may still be the best choice to wipe you out.

Positive relationships with AI countries have influence on lots of things, but obviously even a perfect relationship shouldn't rule out the possibility of war if the country serves to benefit from it. I don't know why you're narrowmindedly assuming that relationship only affects DoW.

Can you imagine how boring the game would be if all you had to do to prevent an obvious attack was get the country to positive relations?

 

[Kane]

I get declared on all the time, especially as I was playing as a very big Poland the coalition of Russia, Ottoman Empire, France and dozen of HRE minors including emperor Austria declared on me every 10-15 years.

I even lost a few of those wars, mainly due to manpower mismanagement (ie assaulting in a previous war that seemed like a good idea when it was not). Didnt have to cede my provinces tho, mainly some gold and vassal provinces.

Yeah the east is more volatile, as muscovy kazan and golden horde will gangbang you regularly every 5 years (starting in 1444). But I also had games where they left me completely alone and I could easily form russia. It's a bit random.

 

[Average Manatee]

If making the AI like me doesn't, you know, make the AI like me, then what does making the AI like me do?

They may like you, but for practical purposes, it may still be the best choice to wipe you out.

Positive relationships with AI countries have influence on lots of things, but obviously even a perfect relationship shouldn't rule out the possibility of war if the country serves to benefit from it. I don't know why you're narrowmindedly assuming that relationship only affects DoW.

I'm not talking about an AI nation dealing with a much weaker player nation (which already has a specific AI attitude). I'm talking about AI nations randomly deciding to rival their only worthwhile ally in the world when said ally is as big or bigger than them. This is literally the AI committing suicide, and is in no way rational or logical. Yet it happens all the time because the AI can't help but always get claims on everyone around them.

Can you imagine how boring the game would be if all you had to do to prevent an obvious attack was get the country to positive relations?

Can you imagine how boring the game would be if all you had to do to win wars was... well nothing at all? Have battles in the EU series ever been all that interesting?

The obvious way to fix this is to make relation raising actually hard. Like in EU3, where it actually took money.

 

[Grinolf]

The obvious way to fix this is to make relation raising actually hard. Like in EU3, where it actually took money.

The same EU3, where player swim in money by the begining 16 century and could easily diplovassalize all Europe except majors and non monarchies? Yes, raising relations in EU3 was so hard. Contrary to current situation, when it takes years and need diplomat for it. And if AE panalty is too high, even that didn't help.

If speak serious, only rivalry is obvious exploit in relation, and even that would be slightly changed in the new patch.

 

[Kane]

1.2 is out

 

[Kem0sabe]

Pretty big list of fixes, new features and improvements, also Paradox apparently needs to finance each new patch with new cosmetic DLC

 

[Kane]

pretty big list of CTDs and OOS as well. stay away for now.

 

[Raghar]

pretty big list of CTDs and OOS as well. stay away for now.

When I release game, I have nearly no bugs, and I don't remember a patch that would introduce bugs. When they release game, they have crashes and stuff.

What's OOS? Occupational Overuse Syndrome? Out Of Style?

 

[Krash]

Out of Sync

 

[Sranchammer]

I got excited for a second and thought that Out of Supply.

 

[Delterius]

People who frequent the Paradox forums: do they have any plans for turning the atlantic revolutions into a more interesting event? For once I'd like to see something other than a third of Haiti succesfully declaring independence. Ditto for the equally underwhelming christian reformations.

 

[Renegen]

Probably not, that's what historical mods are for, Paradox likes their gameplay to not be historically deterministic.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

People who frequent the Paradox forums: do they have any plans for turning the atlantic revolutions into a more interesting event? For once I'd like to see something other than a third of Haiti succesfully declaring independence. Ditto for the equally underwhelming christian reformations.

I might consider it.