Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Europa Universalis IV

Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
Yeah but if you mod acquire state down then suddenly you can take 5 provinces from france for a vastly less amount. Since infamy for acquire state/conquer is the same regardless of number of provinces or pops you either take far too little infamy for taking so much or far too much infamy for taking so little. Taking Alaska costing as much as taking London and so forth.

Ideally cost would scale with pops like base tax scales in EU.
 

Grinolf

Arcane
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,297
100 years in when I am strong enough to fight all of Europe and win I consider the game over. Why bother playing when you've already fought the greatest challenge you'll fight in the game?
Well, I wrote in my first post, that I speaking about a middle game and after. And in the early game getting a 100% war score is pretty easy in the most wars just by sieging every province, since there are very few blobs and mega coalitions aren't formed yet. Also I prefer not to mess with big guys at that time unless they are crippled by another war.

Also I could agree that Paradox ganes aren't meant to be played until the end date, but 100 years is way too short. It is mostly the time when you build your country properly, so some time after with stomping everyone with the result of your work is required for completing the game.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Well, pops and resources. I think they should also scale with the target, so for example it would be cheaper to take European provinces from Russia or Austria-Hungary than Britain or France.

I'd say the main problem is still the way WS costs are calculated. US states for example cost absurdly high values (New York state can easily hit 90-100 WS cost), and Russia occasionally has this same even occur. Meanwhile, it's trivially easy (and extremely fun) to go apeshit as glorious Nippon and devour all of China before China can westernize.

My personal pet peeve with my PDM version tho is that I really need to get around to customizing the way assimilation works down to a more "fun" level, namely so that assimilation is standard difficult for the Usual Suspects, while easier for history raping divergencies.

I'm also still miffed the modifier possibilities for military are so limited. If I'd ever bother to do something like expand the tech tree to cover more into the 20th century (I decided to raise my end date to 1960 for fun, and it actually turned out to be pretty fun because of the way Dismantling wars started to cause global mayhem in their aftermath), I'd have to implement more functional ninja nerfs against countries that would pose massive war problems later on, namely united China or India (at least in case of the British it's handled easily in PDM that their hindu spam cannot make use of of anything but the most scrub tier of units). Another thing I'd have to get around to doing is add in Russian Civil War (there is absolutely no excuse why this is never worked on, given its historical significance, it's not even that hard to do when PDM already has Chinese Civil War).

Mostly I just end up fiddling around with trivial things like tweaking Irredentism decision requirements, adding a way to increase slave pops for CSA (and an actual emancipation decision, which is rather difficult to achieve due to the heavy reform requirements that IIRC cannot be done without a Brothers of the Revolution ruling party and enough liberals in the upper house), tweaking political party localisation and selection (why must people include multiple parties with the same ideology when it causes the entire election calculation to go tits up?), fixing certain event properties (ie, Johannesburg gold rush modifier lasts far too little to create a meaningful impact to province population, and does not affect Life Rating like it definately should), decision coverage, adding new events and decisions, balance working (Proletarian Dictatorship decisions needed some work to make these dictatorships more stable and formidable), and twiddling around with event probabilities (a good example is Danubian Federation decision, which is by default pants-on-head retarded to do without save-scumming and suicide for the AI). Russian Civil War would probably just need adapting the PDM Warlord Era events and CBs to the Russian dismantlement states, adding a second "union" country tag to the mix for either Red or White faction leader (and of course a start-up event to remove No More War and reparation effects), and some victor decisions and events for reconquest of places like Transcaucasia and Kazakhstan.
 

MoLAoS

Guest
Tell everyone that only 15% play MP. Proceed to change SP to suit MP needs.
He wants it the other way around, so only 15% playing singleplayer while the rest focuses on multiplayer. I guess he's on a good way here, because ppl prefering sp will abandon the game :M
Or they just learn a bit of modding an overrule all of the changes they don't like in ~15 minutes.

That would just be caving to Johan, Tyrant King of Sweden. Screw him, I'd rather rage at him until he gives up game dev. I don't want to have to make a continuous series of mods to keep up with his bullshit.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,874
Location
Ingrija
Okay, gents. I am kinda burnt out with HoI3, CK2 and V2 at the moment, so I just might convince myself to get back to my least favorite among the series of games-that-play-themselves. Question is: EU3 vs EU4, which is better and why. The last EU I have played was 2; do I have any reasons to play 3 first or I can skip right to 4? Whichever gives the most plusses?
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
Okay, gents. I am kinda burnt out with HoI3, CK2 and V2 at the moment, so I just might convince myself to get back to my least favorite among the series of games-that-play-themselves. Question is: EU3 vs EU4, which is better and why. The last EU I have played was 2; do I have any reasons to play 3 first or I can skip right to 4? Whichever gives the most plusses?

EU3+mods is better than EU4 in most ways. EU4 really dumbs down a bunch of mechanics in ways that mods can't fix due to hardcoding, though it has a more "competitive" AI to show for it.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
10,119
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
EU4. Unlike EU3, at least EU4 is more than just a stripped down version of other Paradox games.
This, no doubt.

But I would go with mods (MEIOU And Taxes, specifically). Vanilla EUIV is nice for the first time to get an idea, but after that, there is just more fun to be found using mods. Similar to games like Skyrim.
 
Unwanted
Douchebag! Shitposter
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
3,059
1406347895296.png


Now how could I pull that off in EU4?
(The fleet landed 300 Portuguese soldiers, forcing the lifting of the siege and relieving the fortress.) I'm not even nitpicking, the Portugese's early efforts in the Indian oceans is really impressive.

Been playing a game as the Incas. The Aztecs and myself are wrecking Europeans Expeditionary Invasion forces without even being Westernized. Never had such an easier time.
heck with these new tech rates and halved unit pipes, I wonder if you can even pull the Battle of the Pyramids and other humiliating victories against the eastern world in the 18th century.

Especially with the recent changes, colonizing as the Europeans did, in real life(tm), both in Asia and in the new world is not doable. The speed at which you can colonize and conquer the Natives will never match this :

Colonisation_1550.png

If you even try to go at a quarter of their pace you'll end up fighting Hundreds of Thousands of Native rebels equipped with the finest European weaponry and being lead by the most competent generals, for some reason. It could be solved by the player being able to claim large swathes of land in the Americas without having to actively colonize them, as was the case irl, but don't tell Paradox that, thinking things through and having good ideas can, apparently, hurt them.

Neither will you ever be allowed to pull what Charles 5 pulled off in Europe, but that's an entirely different thing. They can't even parameter that in the bookmarked 1500s start dates.

Trade hasn't changed at all, it's an alternative production which requires you to blob into the trade zone to work properly. The exception of the Mediterranean where you can perhaps bully others into giving you trade power constantly every 15 years or so.
Establishing a commercial Empire with small trade posts all over the Indian oceans like the Portuguese, later the dutch, did is utterly useless.
You'll never be as comparatively powerful as Spain/Portugal were in the 15th century, without blobbing into half of France, which they never did.

Absurd Royal Unions, nonsensical diplomacy. At least Victoria managed handled realpolitik alliances and coalitions much better.

Boring map painting. The exception of water, having natural borders and border defenses is utterly useless (like in victoria). Everyone more or less understands that the goal is to blob in a circular fashion, preferably in the tip of a continent before, to minimize the numbers of worried neighbors, and following the trade zone for extra cash.

What's ironic, is that as soon as they try to change this,*trying* to make this more than a circle blobbing simulator, people start complaining that they're ruining the dull, tedious, repetitive map painting experience. It's like people are asking to be bored and kicked in the balls.

4 expansions later and nothing changed. 2 specialized trade expansions and trade is still shit.

Paradox is the best company ever <3 ~~.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,501
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
What's ironic, is that as soon as they try to change this,*trying* to make this more than a circle blobbing simulator, people start complaining that they're ruining the dull, tedious, repetitive map painting experience. It's like people are asking to be bored and kicked in the balls.

Reading the Pdox forums is giving me pimples. And not just me, even Johan had a fit of rage.
 
Unwanted
Douchebag! Shitposter
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
3,059
Thanks for mentioning it. Looked that up and I'm pleasantly surprised

I don't give a **** about the AI in this issue.. Its a matter of problem for the players vs players..

1) there was no incentive to fight a war for less than 100% warscore gains. 2) there is no incentive to ever give up early in a war, since losses are not recovered quick enough.

That's right. After 1 year he finally gets it, and people are giving him shit for that.

Also, using MP as a metric is a good idea. It was however foolish of him to let it slip. Complaining about that is like complaining about building the game around the idea that the AI will be decent. A player is just what you want your ideal AI to be, minus the trolls. Humane.


The MP balance is relevant for the game to work as a "play any nation in a vibrant world". Explaining why its important to a bunch of players is a bit like trying to explain algebra to 3 year olds

He's starting to get angry. He's not making his point very clear.
It's hard to present complex concepts in any other language than your native one. Why aren't their main forums Swedish? Why do Swedes have this innate reflex to scale to the world's level?


Further thoughts, he does deserve to get shit for not having thought anything through during the devellopment of the game. Unfortunately this isn't the reason behind the drama, which just proves how clueless their fanbase is.

But you also have to blame Paradox's directive. They release unfinished, broken exploitable disappointments on purpose so that they can deploy their horde of DLCs afterward and pass it as costumer support, when these are in fact equivalent to beta patches. And get praised for their outstanding support and attention to the community. The novel business concept of having a core fanbase who are dedicated to your company in itself before being dedicated to specific products. They'll never question your business model.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
The problem is that whenever an adjustment like this comes its a knee-jerk reaction to something that happens in Johan's MP game rather than an actual well thought out change. And Paradox completely backed itself into a corner with the world conquest steam achievements. I don't give the least bit of shit about achievements but even I can figure out in 5s that their existence basically forces Paradox to make EU4 a casual map painting simulator.

Besides this, there are basic game mechanics that are just bad. And each update finds ways to make them worse. Monarch power is a joke. Trade is an abomination that somehow becomes more abominable. The whole idea of coring was dumb. Culture is hilariously stupid. NIs were just a dumb thing from the beginning. Etc etc.
 

aleph

Arcane
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,778
The problem is that whenever an adjustment like this comes its a knee-jerk reaction to something that happens in Johan's MP game rather than an actual well thought out change. And Paradox completely backed itself into a corner with the world conquest steam achievements. I don't give the least bit of shit about achievements but even I can figure out in 5s that their existence basically forces Paradox to make EU4 a casual map painting simulator.

Besides this, there are basic game mechanics that are just bad. And each update finds ways to make them worse. Monarch power is a joke. Trade is an abomination that somehow becomes more abominable. The whole idea of coring was dumb. Culture is hilariously stupid. NIs were just a dumb thing from the beginning. Etc etc.

Just out of personal interest. Is there actually anything in EU IV that you like?
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
Well, it has a really good UI and the combat AI, while far from perfect, is by far the best of any of Paradox's games to date. I could like the Coalition/AE mechanics except for the retarded restrictions on them (Can't separate peace coalition members are you fucking joking?).

I'd like it plenty more if not for the fact that EU3 did just about everything that EU4 does, better. And what it doesn't mods for EU3 did better than EU4 or any mods for EU4 do. And there's the problem of way too many features being copied from EU3 without being adapted to work with EU4 mechanics.

EU3 was shit on release, don't get me wrong. But EU3 received expansions that completely overhauled the game and make it much better, alongside excellent mod capabilities that let modders patch up most of the holes. EU4 has DLC that provide completely interchangeable 'features' (read: "make your nation stronger and the game easier by paying us money"), 2 of which were trade-oriented and somehow the trade mechanics are worse now than they were on release.

I'm sorry if not liking a distinctly inferior game that gets worse over time makes you feel bad.
 
Last edited:

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,501
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
Well, it has a really good UI and the combat AI, while far from perfect, is by far the best of any of Paradox's games to date. I could like the Coalition/AE mechanics except for the retarded restrictions on them (Can't separate peace coalition members are you fucking joking?).

I'd like it plenty more if not for the fact that EU3 did just about everything that EU4 does, better. And what it doesn't mods for EU3 did better than EU4 or any mods for EU4 do. And there's the problem of way too many features being copied from EU3 without being adapted to work with EU4 mechanics.

EU3 was shit on release, don't get me wrong. But EU3 received expansions that completely overhauled the game and make it much better, alongside excellent mod capabilities that let modders patch up most of the holes. EU4 has DLC that provide completely interchangeable 'features' (read: "make your nation stronger and the game easier by paying us money"), 2 of which were trade-oriented and somehow the trade mechanics are worse now than they were on release.

I'm sorry if not liking a distinctly inferior game that gets worse over time makes you feel bad.

You're overexaggerating, there has been many small stuff added to the game that definitely put it into better shape than at launch. I agree that there are a lot of badly thought out core mechanics in the game and Paradox seems shy changing them in the radical manner that would be needed.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
There's certainly some small things but far more bad than good. Even things that I would consider "good" have lots of bad effects. Like the monarach power focus feature. Being able to tone down the stupid RNG of monarch mana is a good thing, but then you quickly learn that if you just focus military at all times you pretty much auto-win the game even as Asians vs. Europeans, because Paradox still hasn't bothered to make ADM/DIP worthwhile enough not to skip or make MIL not a complete wipeout from being 1 or 2 techs ahead.

God, EU4 just makes me facepalm thinking about how its designed. And sewing random patchwork DLC additions is not the way to fix it.
 
Last edited:

aleph

Arcane
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,778
I'm sorry if not liking a distinctly inferior game that gets worse over time ...

Overly dramatic or what? Though EU IV is far from perfect, there is almost nothing EU III did better. Trade was pointless merchant spamming, AI in III was pretty stupid compared to IV, economy mechanics were a mess, sliders essentially pointless, and so on.
 

Arcks

Educated
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
91
I'm sorry if not liking a distinctly inferior game that gets worse over time ...

Overly dramatic or what? Though EU IV is far from perfect, there is almost nothing EU III did better. Trade was pointless merchant spamming, AI in III was pretty stupid compared to IV, economy mechanics were a mess, sliders essentially pointless, and so on.

Yeah, I can understand not liking EU IV, but liking EU3 instead? What? They're both incredibly mediocre, with EU3's only saving grace being mods, which only really polished that mediocrity. By the time divine wind was out, there wasn't a single great mod left.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
15,511
Trade was pointless merchant spamming,

Trade involved strategic ports to extend merchant range (as historical), and since it required cored land and cores weren't the retarded EU3 system we have, building up a trade network to get trade from Europe took centuries. Owning CoT was actually immensely valuable and worth fighting another nation to take, since you kept bigger trade bonuses and everyone else trading in the node paid you to be there. Trade leagues existed to determine who you kept as trade allies and who you shoved out of your CoTs. CoTs themselves were dynamic and you could fuck up other CoTs and make them disappear over time. Trade bonuses were more meaningful, 5% trade chance being potentially what let you go from 0 merchants to 5 merchants in nodes. Non-trade nations could establish regional dominance in their own trade nodes due to the very powerful province effects, and monopolies existed if your trade chance was high enough.

Now lets look at EU4. Completely static routes. It's literally impossible for people on the wrong side to pull trade their way, completely opposite of history where both sides could benefit. Let me reiterate that again: Literally everyone except Venice, Netherlands and Spain is gimped in trade because of the new retarded trade system. Spamming Light ships is 99% of your trade power, and once you've placed your light ships you have no interaction with trade at all. Buildings are a joke, the provinces are a joke. The west europe trade node is a joke. If you play MP then the whole thing ends up being a retarded zero-sum game where both sides spam light ships until the profit from trade = the maintenance from light ships, meaning trade is useless, and there is literally no other way to play the game.

AI in III was pretty stupid compared to IV

Don't disagree. Though the most recent DW patches improved it quite a bit.

economy mechanics were a mess
Maybe you are too dumb to understand monthly/yearly income? Economy was much better in EU3 as you received essentially 0 natural income from anything other then cores, and cores were actually not retarded things that happen in 5 years like in EU4. In EU4 absolutely everything gives you money and the only thing to dump it on is advisors (who are retardedly implemented and cost should scale with country size) or going over force limit.

sliders essentially pointless
Holy shit you are retarded. Sliders were incredibly important, and were the EU3 equivalent to EU4's country-specific idea line, which is stupid railroading bullshit that just buffs GPs and nerfs smaller powers for no reason at all.
 
Last edited:

aleph

Arcane
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,778
Trade involved strategic ports to extend merchant range (as historical), and since it required cored land and cores weren't the retarded EU3 system we have, building up a trade network to get trade from Europe took centuries. Owning CoT was actually immensely valuable and worth fighting another nation to take, since you kept bigger trade bonuses and everyone else trading in the node paid you to be there. Trade leagues existed to determine who you kept as trade allies and who you shoved out of your CoTs. CoTs themselves were dynamic and you could fuck up other CoTs and make them disappear over time. Trade bonuses were more meaningful, 5% trade chance being potentially what let you go from 0 merchants to 5 merchants in nodes. Non-trade nations could establish regional dominance in their own trade nodes due to the very powerful province effects, and monopolies existed if your trade chance was high enough.

And yet, in essence, it all reduced to higher or lower chances for successful merchant spamming.

If you play MP then the whole thing ends up being a retarded zero-sum game where both sides spam light ships until the profit from trade = the maintenance from light ships, meaning trade is useless, and there is literally no other way to play the game.

You could, I don't know, invest in trade related NIs+idea groups...


Maybe you are too dumb to understand monthly/yearly income? Economy was much better in EU3 as you received essentially 0 natural income from anything other then cores, and cores were actually not retarded things that happen in 5 years like in EU4.


Please enlighten me. How is that either realistic or leads to better gameplay? Or is it maybe just complexity for complexity's sake?


Holy shit you are retarded. Sliders were incredibly important, and were the EU3 equivalent to EU4's country-specific idea line, which is stupid railroading bullshit that just buffs GPs and nerfs smaller powers for no reason at all.

Like the quantity-quality slider which buffs GPs and nerfs smaller nations? Or the centralization-decentralization slider where centralization is always better? Or do you mean the fact that going narrowminded+serfdom fucks you over in the long run compared to innovative+free subjects? Does this really sound better than NI + idea group which at least give nations some specific flavor?


Btw, you seem incredibly hung up about cores and coring.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom