|
Ah, I havent' played for a few patches. Nice to hear.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
On the flipside, it's a lot harder to westernise in a lot of places since westerners colonising tend to make trade companies, which you can't westernise off. (unless you feel like attacking a western power head on, which is suicide for many bad-tech-group countries)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Why can't you westernize off of a trading company anyway? I mean presumably said company would engage in uhh trade, which seems like a thing that could lead to the adoption of technology, techniques, ideas, doctrines and practices by the trading partner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Why can't you westernize off of a trading company anyway? I mean presumably said company would engage in uhh trade, which seems like a thing that could lead to the adoption of technology, techniques, ideas, doctrines and practices by the trading partner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
The tech penalties for non-westerns are pretty drat minor nowadays. Westernising is still something you want to do but you can definitely pass it over completely most of the time unless you are an American native. Even the sub-saharan African tech group is only something like 60% more expensive techs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Why can't you westernize off of a trading company anyway? I mean presumably said company would engage in uhh trade, which seems like a thing that could lead to the adoption of technology, techniques, ideas, doctrines and practices by the trading partner. I take it as part of the assumed internal/cultural element on the part of the westernizing country. The need for a western neighbor and to be behind on tech are there because without those pressures the country sees no reason to break from the norm. A foreign business having a major office in the region isn't as alarming as some far off barbarian king hoisting their flag over your land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
The British East India Company, notoriously un-alarming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Took 150 years to go from founding and regular commercial imperialism to marching private armies around and dictating laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The British East India Company, notoriously un-alarming. They conquered most of India by working setting up factories in ports with the blessing of the rulers, getting permissions to collect taxes for areas, and aggressively expanding from there. That required the consent of the rulers at first , so they weren't obviously seen as threatening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:From what I understand, it would be because historically there are no examples of any Asian or African country Westernizing (in the sense of EU4s "being Western") based on the influence of a trade company. Japan eventually Industrialized and westernized, but that happens outside of the scope of EU4.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Tipu is a great example of a French Protectorate. He didnt westernize (in EU4 terms) because the British trade companies - he had French trained armies because the French helped him so he would be a headache for the British. He was organized, tried new things like Rockets, and reformed his government, but I wouldnt say he successfully Westernized his state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Gort posted:On the flipside, it's a lot harder to westernise in a lot of places since westerners colonising tend to make trade companies, which you can't westernise off. (unless you feel like attacking a western power head on, which is suicide for many bad-tech-group countries) What's more annoying about attacking western countries in say, India, is that you'll occupy one province, swat the occasional army and only after four years will the Europeans surrender, because it's suicide to send a fleet all the way to Europe. Then you can use the core to westernize. In my Bengal Ironman game I got bored and sent my armies to sack European colonies in Africa while the "Length of war" peace treaty penalty wound down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:What's more annoying about attacking western countries in say, India, is that you'll occupy one province, swat the occasional army and only after four years will the Europeans surrender, because it's suicide to send a fleet all the way to Europe. Then you can use the core to westernize. In my Bengal Ironman game I got bored and sent my armies to sack European colonies in Africa while the "Length of war" peace treaty penalty wound down.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Some of my finest work, I must say. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
It felt so good finally being powerful and rich enough as my custom Malaya to invade Iberia and skullfuck the Spanish and Portuguese.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I'm thinking about giving EU4 another try someday. I hosed around a bit as Thailand and colonized Australia and made some failed attempts to reach the west coast of America. Then I gave up because it felt a bit dull and impersonal compared to CK2. When the enemy leader is just a name with some base stats and doesn't have face or personality it becomes a bit harder for me to care. But a lot of the expansions sound really neat so maybe I should give it another try but play it more like a Total War game. My original plan was to play as some country that ended up being colonized by a western power and to work towards conquering that power. Sort of like reverse colonialism. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I'm thinking about giving EU4 another try someday. I hosed around a bit as Thailand and colonized Australia and made some failed attempts to reach the west coast of America. Then I gave up because it felt a bit dull and impersonal compared to CK2. When the enemy leader is just a name with some base stats and doesn't have a name or personality it becomes a bit harder for me to care. But a lot of the expansions sound really neat so maybe I should give it another try but play it more like a Total War game. It has definitely changed quite a bit with some of the recent expansions. If you are thinking of getting back into it but are not in a hurry to do so, I would wait for the next expansion - it is likely a ways off but looks like it will be fundamentally changing how warfare works, for the better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
The random New World thing one of the expansions has sounds really neat. Since it actually makes the new world new and you can't really use your preexisting knowledge of America to your advantage. Maybe my mistake was in not playing a European nation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The random New World thing one of the expansions has sounds really neat. Since it actually makes the new world new and you can't really use your preexisting knowledge of America to your advantage. I hate to be that guy, but the random new world is one of the worst aspects of the game. It produces just plain awful "continents".
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I hate to be that guy, but the random new world is one of the worst aspects of the game. It produces just plain awful "continents". Sometimes it will make something really awesome over there. The other 99 times out of 100 it's stupid for one reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I'm surprised there haven't been any mods that build upon the terrain generation and make it more like Civ 5. That game had amazing terrain generation. Hell, just give the generator a bunch of blurry as hell photos of different projections of the Americas and let it figure out what to do. It'd be better than what we currently got and moddable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:Got together all the data I needed, so I am now prepared to issue a Two months (Nearly a whole turn!) later, we have need of a replacement Venice. Who will answer the call?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Tipu is a great example of a French Protectorate. He didnt westernize (in EU4 terms) because the British trade companies - he had French trained armies because the French helped him so he would be a headache for the British. He was organized, tried new things like Rockets, and reformed his government, but I wouldnt say he successfully Westernized his state. He literally had the "Western Arms Trade" modifier 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:Two months (Nearly a whole turn!) later, we have need of a replacement Venice. Speaking as someone who has almost finished 1 turn, how utterly garbage is that game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:It has definitely changed quite a bit with some of the recent expansions. If you are thinking of getting back into it but are not in a hurry to do so, I would wait for the next expansion - it is likely a ways off but looks like it will be fundamentally changing how warfare works, for the better. Yeah the next expansion will probably get me to start playing agian. The problem with EU4 is that the only thing to really do is expand, prepare, then expand again. Its fun at first, but after 100 hours it gets dull since combat remains more or less unchanged and goes what feels like too long since you can wind up getting hosed by the RNG, leading to a 3 year siege of some backwater province.The only thing to really do in the mean time is to sit back, tech up, and maybe build a few buildings. theres diplomacy, but since the more interesting options are either situational or locked behind idea groups theres not much to do once you maxed out you diplomatic relations count. The new system looks like it will have fewer, bigger sieges that decide the course of the war and the ability to actually have your provinces grow so your not hosed if your in a poor region (AMERICAS) and can actually focus on developing your land instead of All Imperialism All the Time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
uPen posted:Speaking as someone who has almost finished 1 turn, how utterly garbage is that game? I really think a modern wargame designer could make a fantastic CDG based on EU4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Now that I think about it, a way to have developed cities as North American/Amazonian tribes would be nice, since theres plenty of evidence that there were walled, well planned cities and trade routes in both areas before they got genocided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Yeah the next expansion will probably get me to start playing agian. Agean90 posted:The new system looks like it will have fewer, bigger sieges that decide the course of the war and the ability to actually have your provinces grow so your not hosed if your in a poor region (AMERICAS) and can actually focus on developing your land instead of All Imperialism All the Time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Yup, I'm likely taking a break till it is out. I do not know how people play games through to 1820.... 750 hours of EU4 and the farthest I've gotten is 1750. I just can't be bothered to do the last 70 years. Guess I'll just have to put it on the fastest speed and do paperwork as things disintegrate around me or something if I'm ever going to get that achievement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
uPen posted:Speaking as someone who has almost finished 1 turn, how utterly garbage is that game? Fine for the most part. Combat's really swingy in the early game, but I expect that'll even out in a while. Each battle is just one pass of Fire and Shock, and you don't have Fire until you hit the first land tech. We've had a fight where two large similar-size armies meet, one gets completely destroyed and the other walks away untouched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Yup, I'm likely taking a break till it is out. I do not know how people play games through to 1820....I just get tired of the micromanagement. I get to 1820 fairly regularly in EU4, but I've never once made it to the end of CK2, and I have like 350 hours in that game. I keep starting ironman games with the intent of going all the way through and getting those drat achievements for doing the entire grand campaign, but it always fizzles out after 200-300 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
The challenge of getting a small power to middle/large power status is my favourite part of the game and that's usually done by 1600. I've never gone past 1750 either, but I just hit 1700 in my westernized Qing game and there's still a lot to do so I'm pretty confident this will go the distance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
uPen posted:Speaking as someone who has almost finished 1 turn, how utterly garbage is that game? StashAugustine posted:I really think a modern wargame designer could make a fantastic CDG based on EU4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Bel Monte posted:I'm surprised there haven't been any mods that build upon the terrain generation and make it more like Civ 5. That game had amazing terrain generation. If it was moddable enough to port Perfect World into it I'd have already have done it. But like everything else in the game, modders can only get at the coefficients of the equations, the actual logics are locked off. Sheep posted:750 hours of EU4 and the farthest I've gotten is 1750. I just can't be bothered to do the last 70 years. Guess I'll just have to put it on the fastest speed and do paperwork as things disintegrate around me or something if I'm ever going to get that achievement. I tend to find that nothing interesting happens in those years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I tend to find that nothing interesting happens in those years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Indeed. It is the whole "tall vs wide" thing....EU4 only lets you really do wide. And wars have to be meticulous 100% sieges while being omnipresent about the enemy recruiting mercenaries like crazy so they can then instagib your little siege stacks and just be annoying rather than a threat, so as the game goes on and as countries get bigger, the wars get more tedious. It looks like the proposed changes will definitely alter this state of things. It'll be really cool when the location of forts actually mean something, too. France's belt of forts on the Lorraine frontier was a serious obstacle for any invader but in EU4 they'd just get walked by. One thing I will say is that EU3 had some issues where the Platonic Ideal of a state was the German OPM with a center of trade in it, and while wide was still better than tall after a point, it's probably for the better that EU4 made mid-sized to large countries a bit more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Finishing an EU4 game isn't that tough; it largely depends on how aggressive you've been in the rest of the game and how much you've grown, but as long as there's still AI lucky nations like France of the Ottomans you will still have countries that can make things interesting for you if you aren't allied. Setting out to accomplish a goal like dissolving the HRE is also something that can be a long-term project depending on how European alliances have coincided and can easily take you to the 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Drone posted:I get to 1820 fairly regularly in EU4, but I've never once made it to the end of CK2, and I have like 350 hours in that game. I keep starting ironman games with the intent of going all the way through and getting those drat achievements for doing the entire grand campaign, but it always fizzles out after 200-300 years. V for Vegas posted:The challenge of getting a small power to middle/large power status is my favourite part of the game and that's usually done by 1600. I've never gone past 1750 either, but I just hit 1700 in my westernized Qing game and there's still a lot to do so I'm pretty confident this will go the distance. Panzeh posted:It'll be really cool when the location of forts actually mean something, too. France's belt of forts on the Lorraine frontier was a serious obstacle for any invader but in EU4 they'd just get walked by. YF-23 posted:Finishing an EU4 game isn't that tough; it largely depends on how aggressive you've been in the rest of the game and how much you've grown, but as long as there's still AI lucky nations like France of the Ottomans you will still have countries that can make things interesting for you if you aren't allied. Setting out to accomplish a goal like dissolving the HRE is also something that can be a long-term project depending on how European alliances have coincided and can easily take you to the 1800s. If there was more national development I could do, such as spending admin to upgrade provinces I own (other than building buildings), then I would not feel the need to conquer more land (in my game as the Ottomans I have to keep going to war so I can spend my admin points on something other than stability). I dont like conquering endlessly because the tediousness of doing so. If I could I would conquer more slowly but upgrade my country as I go so the land I do own is more valuable; I would have fewer unaccepted cultures, provinces to convert, ect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
I think the key to having EU games last a long time would be to redo the tech mechanic to be more like the Victoria II mechanic. What I mean by that is that technology in Victoria II drives gameplay changes and has massive effects on what happens in the game. You get to a certain tech and the nature of warfare changes, you get to a certain cultural tech and communists start popping up, you get to a certain economic tech and railroads and factories start popping up, and techs even trigger the Scramble for Africa. What this does for the game is that you can have a very compelling game that doesn't necessarily revolve around conquest. You can start out as an unindustrialized territory and change the very nature of your nation without expanding territorially. You can start out an agrarian monarchy and end up an industrialized communist state, and its not merely a number or label that changes but actually affects gameplay significantly. You'll either be a colonialist state looking to crack open markets and to get your liberalized economy running or you can end up being a centralized state that directs all industrial production from within and seeks to impose its vision of society onto other states. Obviously this would not be exactly the same in EU time frame but I'd like to see the EU tech system redone in a way similar to it. Perhaps you start out the nations of Europe at Late Medieval level and maybe Venice or other important entrepots with the East begin with a headstart, then once a nation begins exploring, it opens up the era of Exploration and the colonialism aspect comes into play which then reduces the impact of the Eastern influence. Then perhaps the Dutch rise to prominence and have their own ways of gaining power and wealth that do not focus as much on direct overseas conquest as the Spanish. And while this is going on, Prussia and Austria could be insulated from these influences and go along a different path of dynastic intrigue and 'tall development' that give Prussia an outsized influence due to its militarized nature. And while this all goes on, some nations begin to fall behind like the PLC and Russia. Then you get to the end game and somebody has a Revolution that stirs everything up in the late game. This is just a rough idea of what I'd like and I'm sure it makes more sense in my head than it will to anybody else, but essentially what I want from EU is for games to feel considerably different not only depending on the choices you make and who you play but also as the game progresses. This is a game that starts in the twilight years of the Byzantine Empire and ends after the Napoleonic Wars, and that massive shift in history just doesn't come through in the game like the shift from post-Napoleonic to Interwar does in Victoria II. I want to start out concerned with dynastic succession and HRE politics, spend the midgame trying not to collapse under religious strain while competing overseas and spend the late game battling some revolutionary hydra. Don't get me wrong, the devs have done a whole lot to improve certain time periods of the game but the last hundred years especially seem neglected. It'd be cool if there was a Revolutions DLC that improved that but I think having the shifts in atmosphere and gameplay be represented by a core mechanic like the tech system would be even better. It would even open up some cool alt-history potential. Perhaps if you are a player nation in Asia and have a lot of success bringing modern ideas to your nation, then your neighbors begin to develop alongside you and perhaps the endgame there would be Revolutionary Japan scaring everybody shitless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
I've probably played something like 5000+ hours of EU and CK games combined and I have only ever had a few games go for over 200 years, all of which were EU3 Magna Mundi games - say what you like about that mod but it was really fun starting as some shithole tribal nomadic state with the aim of modernising and settling down and making a huge empire, having to fight against lovely events and AIs loving with you the whole time and getting screwed by the RNG, slowly removing all of the horrible 'your government sucks and your people are goat herders, gently caress you' modifiers in spite of all of the odds being stacked against you. Which kind of ties into what the previous post says, the game is more fun when you can see big obvious indicators of how you've changed the world - with meaningful gameplay impact - other than just having more provinces a particular colour.
RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 18:57
|
|
