|
Average Bear posted:I keep posting about how bad the expansion is because it sounds like half a dozen half baked ideas released with a $20 price tag. New diplomacy is straight up not functional, estates are tacked on, and the good features like threaten war are expansion only. I don't want EU4 to go down the bloated road of CK2 is all. New diplomacy is functional, it was just advertised as finally making the AI's insane decisions transparent, but they still aren't because in the same microsecond they add 150 provinces as VITAL INTEREST they also cancel all alliances etc with people who may happen to hold those provinces, so the one thing that really bothered people (allies suddenly deciding they hate your freaking guts out of nowhere even though they are at max trust) still happens. Also, before, if you were say, Scotland, and managed to ally France, you could call them into a war against England almost immediately. Now, the AI would still get upset if you didn't give them their cores and claims if they were part of the primary war target. They've done that since Art of War. Now you have to check a box and because of the stupid weighting sometimes the AI literally will not fight their weakened rival if the player declares the war just because, even if you promise them territory. The AI doesn't have this hoop to jump through, so if you join an AI ally against a mutual rival you have cores/claims on, it's a crapshoot whether you'll get your provinces or if the AI will just full annex that nation and then rival you because you have claims on their land. TL;DR except for Declare Colonial War, Cossacks literally didn't change anything except the display in Diplomacy because the AI acts the exact same way, the player just has to deal with more cramped interface and tooltip fuckery.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Can someone tell me how-to-manchu? I unified Manchu, but the Confucian conversion and rebels make it hard to get enough traction. Should I be conquering everything north of Ming? Also, should I be razing everything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
My very first idea group for Manchu was humanism so I wouldn't have to bother with conversion. You are a horde so conquer as much as you can as quickly as you can, and raze and then core everything you take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I never managed to get to adm 5 because of so much warring and coring 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Coring shouldn't cost you more ADM than what you are gaining from razing unless you are constantly conquering 1-1-1 provinces. The forced Confucianism state religion was why I held off on the Manchu decision until I had enough of Humanism to keep the religious revolts in check. Not very helpful if you already pulled the trigger, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:New diplomacy is functional, it was just advertised as finally making the AI's insane decisions transparent, but they still aren't because in the same microsecond they add 150 provinces as VITAL INTEREST they also cancel all alliances etc with people who may happen to hold those provinces, so the one thing that really bothered people (allies suddenly deciding they hate your freaking guts out of nowhere even though they are at max trust) still happens. Yes it literally functions but the point is that what we had before was confusing and occasionally frustrating and in the interest of "fixing it" the new system is twice as confusing and frustrating. By far it's the worst part of the new expansion. I do like those estates though, I'm sure I'll get like one run where they just completely screw me but mostly it's some nice bonuses for keeping my country stable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Iowa posted:Ouch. Found out today that the game will just automatically accept peace deals if it thinks you're losing bad enough. I get why that is, but it was a huge bummer to finally turn the tide on this big war and start sieging down my attacker when all of a sudden the game just goes "Naw, you lose." I'm a little salty. Are you sure it isn't just because you had -3 stability? If you decline a generous offer from the AI you will lose one stability, but at -3 stability you can't decline offers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Got owned by an expansionist Ming. Restarting. Hordes are crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Antti posted:Coring shouldn't cost you more ADM than what you are gaining from razing unless you are constantly conquering 1-1-1 provinces. Yeah my first attempt at qing was ruined by tag switching without getting humanism first. I just slowed down for a bit after each war when i was big enough to hold my own till I got a few humanism ideas and was smooth sailing after that
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Eej posted:If by "roleplaying" you mean picking arbitrary goals like achievement runs or things like Jewish Ethiopia, I can't imagine how you can have fun just min/maxing every game into a WC. But again, treating the game as world conquest simulator is also not for a lot of other people. I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant by 'roleplaying' at all, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
How come Persia's capital isn't in the Persian trade node? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Their default capital is Tabriz, which is in the Persian node.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Their default capital is Tabriz, which is in the Persian node. Nevermind, I am an idiot. That province is owned by QQ. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Anyone know any retailer that sells Cossacks cheaply? I can't seem to find any and it doesn't seems like it's worth the full price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Anyone know any retailer that sells Cossacks cheaply? I can't seem to find any and it doesn't seems like it's worth the full price. Nuuvem is the usual goto for cheap EU keys, iirc. Haven't checked what they're selling Cossacks for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:I keep posting about how bad the expansion is because it sounds like half a dozen half baked ideas released with a $20 price tag. New diplomacy is straight up not functional, estates are tacked on, and the good features like threaten war are expansion only. I don't want EU4 to go down the bloated road of CK2 is all. Oh ok so you literally just decided to make some poo poo up just to complain then, got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
VDay posted:Oh ok so you literally just decided to make some poo poo up just to complain then, got it. We have known that since before release tho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
VDay posted:Oh ok so you literally just decided to make some poo poo up just to complain then, got it. What is he making up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
His complaints are all second hand and speculation, which is basically making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
You people are kind of insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Nah your just whiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
I mean, I'm concerned about EU4 going the way of CK2 too, though I think Bear's case against this expansion is overstated. Having put in something like 30-50 hours into Cossacks, I agree that diplomacy feels more 'fiddly' and less fun than it did before. It's nice that trust isn't a black box, and that the clunky cooldown on calling allies into offensive wars is gone. But the main effect of the trust system seems to be that alliances just take much longer to 'come online', even for wars against common enemies. In general, allies seem much more reluctant to come into wars at all. Not the end of the world, but I wouldn't call it a significant improvement - a tossup or slight downgrade compared to the old system, imho. The Estates are not internal politics. They're fiddly micromanagement that makes you click a few extra buttons after every war, or just every so often while doing same-continent colonization. They're also another set of cooldowns that you should be monitoring to trigger whenever they come off cooldown (for manpower, monarch points, settlers...), but there's no UI to help you keep track of them. I wanted to like them, I gave them a shot, but: in their current implementation, they're bad. The idea of modeling the role of internal factions in a nation is reasonable, and in principle could replace many other systems (e.g. Ming's nonsense, arguably tech groups/westernization, etc.) The Estates replaces nothing and helps nothing. They're a mess. Hordes seem baffling overpowered. They're a very strange focus for the game - their main participation in the period is (a) their conquest of China [which the AI is still almost incapable of managing] and (b) their conquest by Russia. But the AI is terrible at managing them, and they're fun to play, so no harm done. Just weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:I keep posting about how bad the expansion is because it sounds like half a dozen half baked ideas released with a $20 price tag. New diplomacy is straight up not functional, estates are tacked on, and the good features like threaten war are expansion only. I don't want EU4 to go down the bloated road of CK2 is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Is CK2 bad these days or something? People keep saying they don't want EU4 to end up like CK2 but I thought people were pretty happy with most of the expansions there. The last one I played was Way of Life so maybe Horse Lords sucked? Has there been one since Horse Lords? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Yeah I'm curious to see if they nerf Hordes in an upcoming patch. They're pretty bananas right now, and really, really easy to steamroll with. But the AI is pretty terrible at playing them, so they usually fall to pieces in the first 30 years, while they should remain dangerous for longer than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I mean threaten war works well. It's a good addition. Hordes are presumably pretty fun too, but that's understandable since that's a big focus of the expansion. AI can still make claims to territory without the expansion, which is frustrating when your own vassal occupies territory you want. Native attitudes, culture conversion and attitude setting are all in there too. Those are some good things that I like from this expansion. By the way, has anyone seen revanchism really take effect? Like in any noticeable way or is it a behind the scenes thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Hordes take pretty much constant warring to stay competitive don't they? They can be ridiculously powerful, but then Paradox isn't taking Austria or France or whatever out of the game either. I'm gonna be pretty annoyed if they get nerfed, I think they're in a very fun and unique place right now. I agree that the UI is pretty horrible for the new systems though. Relegating two extremely important things to the final tabs, it's really counter intuitive. I've played like 20 hours with my friends in multiplayer and they still get confused about the whole diplomatic feedback thing and totally forget about it half the time. I don't understand why trust needs an alliance, I don't understand why I have to manually tick it up when it's so important. If it's important, I guess; sometimes it really feels like it makes no difference- but if that's the case then it needs to be given more weight. Estates are great though. Some more tweaking and more integration with other features and they'll be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah I'm curious to see if they nerf Hordes in an upcoming patch. They're pretty bananas right now, and really, really easy to steamroll with. But the AI is pretty terrible at playing them, so they usually fall to pieces in the first 30 years, while they should remain dangerous for longer than that. UZBEKS seem to get pretty huge and form Bukhara
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:His complaints are all second hand and speculation, which is basically making poo poo up My complaints are all firsthand, and I think his assessment is mostly accurate. It's not a very good expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Is CK2 bad these days or something? People keep saying they don't want EU4 to end up like CK2 but I thought people were pretty happy with most of the expansions there. The last one I played was Way of Life so maybe Horse Lords sucked? Has there been one since Horse Lords? Just curious. Well, the devs of CK2 take a "more things = better" approach to development. A lot of features like the curia, tribal mechanics and stuff don't get revisited. It also adds on, by patch, new swaths of territory which people might not want to play in like india and the steppes. This causes pretty bad slowdown, especially in late game. I haven't played CK2 in like a year, so there might be other things too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Starting a small custom nation on the Egyptian coast turned out to be a tremendously poor idea. Obvious in retrospect. The Ottomans didn't even have to get involved at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:UZBEKS seem to get pretty huge and form Bukhara Didn't Uzbeks get a buff? Or did I imagine that. Bold Robot posted:Is CK2 bad these days or something? People keep saying they don't want EU4 to end up like CK2 but I thought people were pretty happy with most of the expansions there. The last one I played was Way of Life so maybe Horse Lords sucked? Has there been one since Horse Lords? Just curious. It's just lots of piled on features that aren't really integrated, a lot of map and timeline expansions that haven't been fleshed out. It seems to be a chronic problem now with Paradox games, that they can add all sorts of new features just fine, but integrating them into everything else rather than them just being their own thing either is way harder to do (maybe 'cause of the DLC model) or just nobody there is motivated to do it. I guess they can't really advertise a new DLC as "this fixes all our old systems but adds nothing new", but they can't really spend the time they need to on doing that when they can't sell it. CK2 is still fun though. It's on a worrying trajectory and maybe isn't as amazing as it used to be, but it's not bad by any means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Hordes take pretty much constant warring to stay competitive don't they? Pretty much. But rewarding you so much for blobbing is kind of a dumb thing. Koramei posted:Didn't Uzbeks get a buff? Or did I imagine that. I think so; as I recall they didn't use to start with cores on all their land, which made them collapse prone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Didn't Uzbeks get a buff? Or did I imagine that. For a while they started without cores on a bunch of their Siberian land in the north which caused them to collapse often, I'm not sure when that was changed. They're just large and don't have any particularly strong neighbors as Timmy usually explodes, my last few games Uzbeks have eaten a chunk of the Timurids and Oirat/Yarkand then reformed into Bukhara. Fister Roboto posted:My complaints are all firsthand, and I think his assessment is mostly accurate. My main complaint is the reworked diplomacy adds a bunch of UI elements I have to interact with and buttons I have to push, but in practice it seems to function the same as before. The fundamental problems everyone's been bitching about aren't resolved, it feels like feature bloat without any payoff. I get how a lot of players feel similarly about Estates. I think they're generally pretty good, could use some tweaking sure. Horde revamp is fun and the minor changes (culture conversion, threaten war, native attitudes) are all good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
To be honest I wouldn't be against them going back to just one unit type until they reformed, I thought that was a nice challenge and gave them a real sense that you had to rush to consolidate or you'd be screwed. Doing stuff like reducing the MP you get from razing though will just mean nobody uses the feature and they become bland. I don't see a problem with one type of team that rewards you for blobbing at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:My complaints are all firsthand, and I think his assessment is mostly accurate. Well you are just wrong, but not lying!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Expansion chat: Art of War was a really fun expansion. The addition of forts changed combat for the better, and since combat is a large part of the game, I was really thrilled at how this added depth to conquest. It also made the terrain feel more real. I think this was one of my favorite EU4 expansions. Common Sense was a great expansion. The development system felt like a big upgrade to the way provinces worked overall. It was cool to have some options in terms of how to develop your country, and the AI upgrading provinces makes for some interesting decisions in terms of where to conquer. It was a big improvement. Certainly one of the largest / most sweeping expansions. I have a hard time getting excited about Cossacks. The way estates were implemented didn't appeal to me from the description and I don't find playing with them very fun. I can manage them, but I don't like doing it. Being able to tag important territory I think was a vital feature, but could use another pass with some of the limitations. I know hordes are great but I don't find them interesting to play. Has anyone gotten a lot of mileage out of Random New World? It seems to have been implemented in a pretty robust manner but I don't see people raving about it. Down the road I'd like to see combat and armies get a bit more granularity like forts and development added. In the same way that now with CS you can differentiate your countries, it would be cool if you could differentiate your armies beyond just ideas and generals. I feel that more considerations in warfare (like forts introduced) makes for more interesting campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Koramei posted:To be honest I wouldn't be against them going back to just one unit type until they reformed, I thought that was a nice challenge and gave them a real sense that you had to rush to consolidate or you'd be screwed. This seems reasonable to me. However, don't forget the other expansion mechanic that rewards you for blobbing: the incredible excitement of the Inti religion!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Well you are just wrong, but not lying! I think it's funny that you just tell people they're wrong, and then say that the guy who's explaining his opinions is whiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Rakthar posted:Has anyone gotten a lot of mileage out of Random New World? It seems to have been implemented in a pretty robust manner but I don't see people raving about it. The RNW is pretty fun with the custom nation achievements, imo. Yeah I'd love for more depth to combat, one thing I've wanted for a long time is it to exchange some of the RNG swinginess for player strategy and involvement. Add ways for you to prioritize general stats, or pick them from a pool rather than rolling a 5 Fire dude in 1444 or whatever. Instead of rolling 0-9 in combat make it 1-6 or 0-4 and have army composition matter more. Basically, I'd happily buy an expansion that fleshed out actual combat and gave me more control over it. Edit: just spitballing, and I know we don't need EVEN MORE UI elements to fiddle with, but being able to exchange Army Tradition for shifting your military focus might be neat, like you have native attitudes now. Spend some AT to focus on Shock, you get generals which favor Shock pips and maybe some small cavalry bonuses. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:31
|
|