|
You've also got a stronger Ottomans who don't have Timur threatening them so Byzantium's even more hosed and Zheng He's long dead so exploring as Ming might be frustrated depending on how much Paradox plan on screwing them over.
Crameltonian fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 27, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Crameltonian posted:You've also got a stronger Ottomans who don't have Timur threatening them so Byzantium's even more hosed and Zhgen He's long dead so exploring as Ming might be frustrated depending on how much Paradox plan on screwing them over. Since after all, China is just a one province minor; its only natural. According to certain devs. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Who do you plan to play as first when you get EU4? I'm going to play as the Inca and die horribly to the brutality of racist Swedes making it impossible for me to win. What about y'all? One of two things, depending on how I'm feeling when it comes out: France so I can become Europe's great land power and gently caress with the Germans and English for eternity, or Vijayanagar so I can try and keep my independence from Europe and work the new trade routes in my favor. I'd like to play as Persia, too, but apparently they're still part of the Timurids by EUIV's start date and for whatever weird reason I don't like playing anything but the earliest start date. Not for the first game, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
First Denmark because nationalism, and because no matter how badly I do I'm going to outperform history.  Then Burgundy->France, assuming that's still possible, to see how well the game deals with blatant aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Ottomans, Burgundy or Sweden is usually a good bet. A pity they aint' doing anything interesting with the colony system, it always felt like the most blatantly "boardgame" inheritance in the EU series (that and the merchants).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Well, have faith in a DLC/patch. I take it they're adopting the CKII DLC policy for EUIV so we'll probably end up getting a bunch of new content revamping poo poo. Still really don't want horde mechanics back though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Well, have faith in a DLC/patch. I take it they're adopting the CKII DLC policy for EUIV so we'll probably end up getting a bunch of new content revamping poo poo. Still really don't want horde mechanics back though. A DLC to remove a game feature would certainly be a unique occurrence 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
I know I'd pay for it if it demolished hordes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Since after all, China is just a one province minor; its only natural. According to certain devs. Explain, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Who do you plan to play as first when you get EU4? I'm going to play as the Inca and die horribly to the brutality of racist Swedes making it impossible for me to win. What about y'all? Papal States 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Explain, please. In a thread discussing multiplayer balance and how the faction systems made Ming empirically a worse country to play a dev said "Playing Ming in mp is like playing a OPM." Which was hilarious as a OPM has a better ability to compete with France than Ming ever will. So place your bets that in EU4 Ming will not be playable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:I'd like to play as Persia, too, but apparently they're still part of the Timurids by EUIV's start date and for whatever weird reason I don't like playing anything but the earliest start date. Not for the first game, at any rate. Shah Ismail founded Safivid Persia in 1502, which is still a ways away from EU4's start date.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:In a thread discussing multiplayer balance and how the faction systems made Ming empirically a worse country to play a dev said "Playing Ming in mp is like playing a OPM." Which was hilarious as a OPM has a better ability to compete with France than Ming ever will. That would be a silly thing to do in a game which claims to allow you to play any country in any time period. ...Or was that line "almost" any country? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Speaking of Darkest Hour + Kaiserreich, has anyone else had problems registering the game so that you can download the beta patch? I bought it from the Paradox web store a few days ago; Steam has no option to view my CD key and the Steam key mailed to me in my receipt doesn't work on the Paradox forums. I've put in a ticket, but while I'm waiting for a response I thought I'd ask if anyone else has had this problem and in exactly which way I'm missing something blindingly obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Portugal already owns Ceuta, Madiera, and Azores, while Castille already owns Canaries, speeding up colonization. I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's nice to get the AI to start colonizing, but already handing out colonies means I can't beat my competitors to the punch and grab all the nearby islands, locking them out of America for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Just making sure, are we talking about start dates because when the Dev Diary mentions 1444 that is the new start date? Just making sure I'm not completely stupid (probably a bad assumption).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Who do you plan to play as first when you get EU4? I'm going to play as the Inca and die horribly to the brutality of racist Swedes making it impossible for me to win. What about y'all? I'm going to be playing England - I was always kinda bored with England in EU3 on account of not having that much challenge to it once you've conquered Britannia and established the wooden walls which no foe will ever penetrate. The need to use navies to shepherd trade routes could making playing England very interesting and right different from the usual "I BLOB UR LAND" strategies of the continental powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Jakse posted:Just making sure, are we talking about start dates because when the Dev Diary mentions 1444 that is the new start date? Just making sure I'm not completely stupid (probably a bad assumption). Yeah, that is the new start date.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Speaking of Darkest Hour + Kaiserreich, has anyone else had problems registering the game so that you can download the beta patch? I bought it from the Paradox web store a few days ago; Steam has no option to view my CD key and the Steam key mailed to me in my receipt doesn't work on the Paradox forums. I've put in a ticket, but while I'm waiting for a response I thought I'd ask if anyone else has had this problem and in exactly which way I'm missing something blindingly obvious. There used to be a line about deleting the last digit or so of some of the key formats to make it fit in the box properly. I don't know if that's still a thing or if it's your problem but it's probably worth double checking you didn't miss any instructions like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:That would be a silly thing to do in a game which claims to allow you to play any country in any time period. EV IV 1.01 Patch Notes: -Fixed bug that accidentally made Ming playable. Ming now properly removed from the map after 1 day, replaced with permanent terra incogneta. ThePutty posted:I know I'd pay for it if it demolished hordes. Hell I'd throw  at a DLC just focused on the hordes for EUIV or CK II. Hordes are awesome and I'd love the ability to start as Kazan and stay in the game long enough to settle down, become a proper monarchy and one day found Tatarstan. Plus if I can stay strong enough I might be able to prevent Russia from extending all the way to the Pacific leaving all sorts of new nations between Russia and where it ended up historically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Why did everyone hate the Aztec DLC so much? I thought it was a cute reversal of how actual history turned out, and it's completely optional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
ten dollar bitcoin posted:Why did everyone hate the Aztec DLC so much? I thought it was a cute reversal of how actual history turned out, and it's completely optional. I didn't know anyone hated the Aztec DLC, it's cheap and fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
uPen posted:I didn't know anyone hated the Aztec DLC, it's cheap and fun. The Paradox forums sure did. Because an Aztec invasion is totally ahistorical and stupid to have in an alt-history game. e: I have over 300 hours played on CK2 and never even saw them in one of my games. I'm the worst gamer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
uPen posted:I didn't know anyone hated the Aztec DLC, it's cheap and fun. Here in our lovely Something Awful bubble most people were either mildly amused by it or pretty ambivalent. Over on the official forums... people were ridiculously upset by it for reasons that will become apparent if you read those forums for any length of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
ten dollar bitcoin posted:Why did everyone hate the Aztec DLC so much? I thought it was a cute reversal of how actual history turned out, and it's completely optional. Because most of the posters on the Paradox forums are history spergs, common-or-garden spergs and/or ultra-nationalistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:EV IV 1.01 Patch Notes: Aw damnit, the East Asian Dimensional Rift DLC was terrible, definitely the worst!! NihilVerumNisiMors posted:The Paradox forums sure did. Because an Aztec invasion is totally ahistorical and stupid to have in an alt-history game. Wow, really? In every game where I enabled the Sunset Invasion DLC, the Aztecs have always shown up on schedule around 1250. This was ultimately the reason why I gave up on my glorious Islamic Republic of Syria (née Granada) game. The empire had collapsed after I declared independence, I couldn't swear fealty to any emperors, the mouth-breathing French and Germans were rolling down towards us from the Pyrenees, and the Aztecs pretty much ate up what was left of my Iberian holdings. 
DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Because most of the posters on the Paradox forums are history spergs, common-or-garden spergs and/or ultra-nationalistic. This is becoming increasingly obvious in the lead up to the megacampaign Raenir Salazar posted. I don't know how you lasted through four of these without going postal, duder! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Wow, really? I hardly ever meet the Mongols either because I abandon games like crazy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
uPen posted:I didn't know anyone hated the Aztec DLC, it's cheap and fun. There were a lot of people on the Paradox forums getting somehow offended at the idea of Aztecs getting enough technology to invade Europe. A few angrily huffed that they would have preferred an alien invasion DLC or somesuch because that would at least be clearly fantastical, instead of a "pseudo-historical" Aztec invasion. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction myself, but they appeared to consider it a crime against everything Paradox ever stood for. For more information, Google Darkrenown's custom title. It's a parody, but honestly not that far away from what people were saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
ten dollar bitcoin posted:Why did everyone hate the Aztec DLC so much? I thought it was a cute reversal of how actual history turned out, and it's completely optional. It was really really dumb and a bad precedent. CK2 is fun but already crazy ahistorical, it doesnt need to be moreso. If they really had artist free-time possibly they should have used it polishing the med face pack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
ten dollar bitcoin posted:Why did everyone hate the Aztec DLC so much? I thought it was a cute reversal of how actual history turned out, and it's completely optional. I know some posters didn't like it because they still felt it was overpriced for what it did. Which I can see, though I don't agree. But basically the whole point of the new dlc scheme was that you buy the parts you want; the people who got hella mad were all a certain... type of person
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Rudi Starnberg posted:There used to be a line about deleting the last digit or so of some of the key formats to make it fit in the box properly. I don't know if that's still a thing or if it's your problem but it's probably worth double checking you didn't miss any instructions like that. Yeah, I tried that but had no luck. I guess I'll wait for my ticket to go through. Thanks for the advice, though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Which EU3 mod was it that sets the base core time to several hundred years, but instead triggers core gains dynamically by event, checking several factors to reduce the MTTH?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Which EU3 mod was it that sets the base core time to several hundred years, but instead triggers core gains dynamically by event, checking several factors to reduce the MTTH? I believe it was Miscmods that did that, I remember seeing 300 years per core but it would never take that long unless you were conquering say Japan as France and never converted the locals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Tomn posted:For more information, Google Darkrenown's custom title. It's a parody, but honestly not that far away from what people were saying. Actually no, that's a direct quote from what someone said. Yeah. They can be that ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Shah Ismail founded Safivid Persia in 1502, which is still a ways away from EU4's start date. Yeah, that's what I was saying; I'd like to play Persia, but I probably won't do them first because they're not available in the earliest start date, which I prefer to use when setting up a game. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Thanks for the info, though, I always wondered when exactly "Persia" happened, Wikipedia's pretty vague other than "sometime after the 15th century." Anyway, is there any word on when March of the Eagles comes out, or when they plan to announce the date? The Napoleonic Wars are my favorite historical era so I'm really pumped for it, but everywhere I look is still just saying "Q1 2013." There's not a lot of time left in Q1 and I'm getting antsy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:A DLC to remove a game feature would certainly be a unique occurrence They'll add in a free and mandatory patch implementing the Chinese Factions mechanics. At the same time they'll offer DLC to disable it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Who do you plan to play as first when you get EU4? I'm going to play as the Inca and die horribly to the brutality of racist Swedes making it impossible for me to win. What about y'all? England probably, because nationalism and because it's a good, easy country to learn the ropes of the new mechanics with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
My first EUIV playthrough will probably be England, because it's one of the cultures I'm more familiar with and it's a kind of pseudo-nationalism. Also because playing England gives me the opportunity to check out colonisation, naval warfare and playing World Police in Europe while absorbing Scotland and the Irish. I'd be really excited to see an English Civil War event chain, too; get some alt-history with a proper English commonwealth going 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
I'll probably fire up Aachen to see how bad it was hit by the trade changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 04:25
|
|
