Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense

«‹›751 »

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

Average Bear posted:

Is 1.16 coming out with or before mare nostrum?

What is Mare Nostrum?

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 08:07

Sindai: Jan 24, 2007; i want to achieve immortality through not dying

Johan said "we'll fix it in mare nostrum" in a dev multiplayer stream so everyone's assuming that's either the codename or real name of then next DLC.

And yeah 1.16 is the next DLC patch.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:18

Average Bear: Apr 4, 2010

Yeah I heard that was the next expansion. It's also in the EU4 design documents, which I own.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:20

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Sindai posted:

Johan said "we'll fix it in mare nostrum" in a dev multiplayer stream so everyone's assuming that's either the codename or real name of then next DLC.

And yeah 1.16 is the next DLC patch.

It was rather funny too as there was a long pause as everyone realized he said something he shouldn't have.

But I'm excited for it. Maybe changes with the Med? Gotta say I've gotten back into EU4 thanks to the changes to estates, random new world, etc.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:20

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sindai posted:

Johan said "we'll fix it in mare nostrum" in a dev multiplayer stream so everyone's assuming that's either the codename or real name of then next DLC.

And yeah 1.16 is the next DLC patch.

As someone asked within like 3 posts of this being posted on the official forums "Does this mean a formable Roman Empire????"

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:20

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

A Buttery Pastry posted:

As someone asked within like 3 posts of this being posted on the official forums "Does this mean a formable Roman Empire????"

actually it just means this

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:22

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

axeil posted:

It was rather funny too as there was a long pause as everyone realized he said something he shouldn't have.

But I'm excited for it. Maybe changes with the Med? Gotta say I've gotten back into EU4 thanks to the changes to estates, random new world, etc.

Yeah I am finally playing Ironman seriously now that things are really improved on the whole. The next big thing I would like to see fixed would be how Monarchies work w/r/t rulers/heirs/stats and how navies/sea battles work. Both are things I have posted about at length so I wont do it again unless someone asks :v:

PleasingFungus posted:

actually it just means this

Great now I want an inverted Switzerlake achievement where you own X provinces and none are inland.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:24

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Baron Porkface posted:

How can the Dhimmi estate get real influence?

It's really hard and often not worth it, but they're mainly going to get influence from events and estate interactions rather than territorial grants. My advice is to not give them any land, just keep them happy so you don't suffer any penalties.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:39

Koorisch: Mar 29, 2009

So which are the best ideas for Sweden?

I picked Quantity in the beginning to get more stacks so I could gently caress over Denmark, Norway and Novogorod/Muscovy and then I got Humanist and later Exploration and Expansion when I decided to go to America.

Note that I am not really too good at this yet and I still haven't managed to get all the expansions because they get kind of expensive. (El Dorado and Cossacks)

# ? Feb 2, 2016 18:44

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Bort Bortles posted:

Yeah I am finally playing Ironman seriously now that things are really improved on the whole. The next big thing I would like to see fixed would be how Monarchies work w/r/t rulers/heirs/stats and how navies/sea battles work. Both are things I have posted about at length so I wont do it again unless someone asks .

Great now I want an inverted Switzerlake achievement where you own X provinces and none are inland.

I'd like to hear what people think on those as I agree they're probably the next area that could use more depth. It's really saying something that revolts, internal management, alliances, etc have all been fixed and we are down to more minor stuff. But the fixed have made the time between wars when you consolidate power much more fun to play.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:21

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Playing a Republic is apparently way more fun when I can't decide whether I should stay a Republic. Really tempting to run RT down as low as humanly possible.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:28

Koramei: Nov 11, 2011; I have three regrets
The first is to be born in Joseon.

Mare Nostrum sounds like it'll be something to do with navies in general to me, rather than just the Mediterranean. Especially with people theorizing that the new manpower thing they showed off looked a lot like sailors.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:32

Raserys: Aug 22, 2011; IT'S YA BOY

More importantly, when are they going to fix the color selection for the custom nation designer

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:33

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Koramei posted:

Mare Nostrum sounds like it'll be something to do with navies in general to me, rather than just the Mediterranean. Especially with people theorizing that the new manpower thing they showed off looked a lot like sailors.

It'll add the naval mechanics from Hearts of Iron 4, mark my words.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:39

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

Gort posted:

It'll add the naval mechanics from Hearts of Iron 4, mark my words.

finally, i'll be able to choose exactly how many guns to stick on the mary rose before she tips over and sinks

# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:54

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Koorisch posted:

So which are the best ideas for Sweden?

I picked Quantity in the beginning to get more stacks so I could gently caress over Denmark, Norway and Novogorod/Muscovy and then I got Humanist and later Exploration and Expansion when I decided to go to America.

Note that I am not really too good at this yet and I still haven't managed to get all the expansions because they get kind of expensive. (El Dorado and Cossacks)

The "best" ideas always depend highly on what you plan to be doing. I will tell you that Humanism is a waste, especially if you plan on colonizing. Sweden has no innate tolerance, so the best you'll be able to get is +1 tolerance to heathens, and +3 to heretics but only if you switch to Reformed (+2 for Protestant and +1 if you stay Catholic). That's nice, but not worth 2800 admin points.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 20:11

Cockblocktopus: Apr 18, 2009; Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.

Bort Bortles posted:

Great now I want an inverted Switzerlake achievement where you own X provinces and none are inland.

With a bonus achievement for getting Switzerlake and Bizarro Switzerlake in the same game :evilbuddy:

# ? Feb 2, 2016 20:16

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

axeil posted:

Bort Bortles posted:
Yeah I am finally playing Ironman seriously now that things are really improved on the whole. The next big thing I would like to see fixed would be how Monarchies work w/r/t rulers/heirs/stats and how navies/sea battles work. Both are things I have posted about at length so I wont do it again unless someone asks .

I'd like to hear what people think on those as I agree they're probably the next area that could use more depth. It's really saying something that revolts, internal management, alliances, etc have all been fixed and we are down to more minor stuff. But the fixed have made the time between wars when you consolidate power much more fun to play.

Alrighty. I'll paraphrase and we will see where that takes us. And yeah I agree with you; so many things have improved that there is not too much more left!

Navies: We get different land units for different tech groups, why not naval units? I think "Naval Unit Variety" could be determined by culture group or location instead of tech group.
Overall what it means is that Chinese should have their gigantic Junks, Muslims in the Indian Ocean should have Dhows and Baggalas (Baghlahs), Mediterranean Euros and Muslims should be galley focuses, Atlantic Euros get Cogs and lead the way into Ships-of-the-Line, ect.
This would mean they would each have their own unit types with their own mechanics; the Chinese Junks and Muslim Dhows and Baggalas would probably be all-in-one that could protect trade/pirate, transport, and fight...all in one. Maybe even make their ability to fight based on troops they have to carry rather than cannons.
The European ships would obviously be the bleeding edge of naval tech so a non-European could somehow "Reform their navy" to gain the ability to build European style ships.

I also think that using navies should be more fun....right now they are pretty dang tedious, at least in my opinion.

Monarchies: All of the most powerful governments in the game's time period were some variety of Monarchy, yet in EU4 it is way more fun to play as anything but a Monarchy (I personally much prefer Republics or Theocracies).
Republics get to pick their ruler's stats, no stab loss on succession, no regencies, easy to manage "Republican Tradition" mechanic.
Monarchies? Regencies, stab loss on succession or heir death, heir existing or not is completely random, ruler/heir stats are completely random, length of rule is completely random (being stuck with a lovely ruler).

Therefore, how is it that the vast majority of the government types across the planet are some variety of Monarchy and are tied to such random and not-influencable-by-the-player mechanics? Monarchies ruled the game's time period; Republics were all often small affairs except a few exceptions.

I think Monarchies could be more fun if:
~There were ways to affect who your heir would be, Legitimacy of the heir was more clear (why is it that my Emperor's only (listed) heir has a weak claim? Add a reason as to why! Is it because he was born of a concubine? The mother is the emperor's wife but a harlot? Tell me why! Let me decide "welllll the current heir is 20 but born of a chambermaid and has decent stats, the legit heir is 5 and looks like he is an imbecile".
~They improved over time in different ways: make it so there is an MP income floor as the government improves in tech and the ruler can positively affect that, or just be at the floor. Or let the player pick a Prime Minister/Grand Vizier/First Prime that can modify the stats but can piss off an estate or add some other (potentially negative) modifiers.
~Let me influence my heir's stats in some minor way. If he ends up with a high enough Mil number let me influence where his pips would be if he ended up as a leader (so I dont get a 6 fire leader in 1450).
~other disorganized thoughts

While I am at it I would also love to get to influence what my military leaders are in some way. When I click that button to recruit a general give me three options and make me pick one (so I dont get a 6 fire general in 1450, or a 1/0/0/0 guy in 1450, because that is just as worthless but somehow even more painful).

# ? Feb 2, 2016 20:43

Bold Robot: Jan 6, 2009; Be brave.

I'm skeptical that navies could be made fun but I like the monarchy ideas. Even just a simple way to spend legitimacy to pick or roll a new heir would be great.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 21:09

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Bort Bortles posted:

I think Monarchies could be more fun if:
~There were ways to affect who your heir would be, Legitimacy of the heir was more clear (why is it that my Emperor's only (listed) heir has a weak claim? Add a reason as to why! Is it because he was born of a concubine? The mother is the emperor's wife but a harlot? Tell me why! Let me decide "welllll the current heir is 20 but born of a chambermaid and has decent stats, the legit heir is 5 and looks like he is an imbecile".

To add to this, I'd like to go a step further and have their relations mapped, similarly to CK2. They wouldn't exist as independent entities though, obviously, but it'd be a way to see all your potential heirs, and how they relate to the rulers and heirs of other states. Like, if the king of France is the second heir to your small duchy, you might be very careful about letting your first one risk his life leading troops. Basically, make it so you have an idea of what's going on with all those royals, instead of losing an heir and suddenly you're the prize of an upcoming succession war between a tiny neighbor and your rival, which is clearly something a real ruler would have been aware of unless a complete imbecile.

Bort Bortles posted:

~They improved over time in different ways: make it so there is an MP income floor as the government improves in tech and the ruler can positively affect that, or just be at the floor. Or let the player pick a Prime Minister/Grand Vizier/First Prime that can modify the stats but can piss off an estate or add some other (potentially negative) modifiers.

I was thinking something similar with the Prime Minister, except he could himself be tied to an estate. Like, your starting PM's would probably be nobles, but you could also have a Cardinal who gains the king's favor, and during the Enlightenment the burghers might start to gain influence at court too. Basically, whichever type of PM you chose would have appropriate positive and negative events associated with them, and a more capable one could be a bigger challenge to deal with if the estate he's associated with gains too much influence. More capable meaning giving a bigger boost to monarch point generation. That would basically mean that you might risk a powerful PM to get some much needed monarch points when you have a poo poo ruler, but when you have a great king you could decide to go for a weak and useless one, as the extra points aren't worth the trouble.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 21:12

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

A Buttery Pastry posted:

To add to this, I'd like to go a step further and have their relations mapped, similarly to CK2. They wouldn't exist as independent entities though, obviously, but it'd be a way to see all your potential heirs, and how they relate to the rulers and heirs of other states. Like, if the king of France is the second heir to your small duchy, you might be very careful about letting your first one risk his life leading troops. Basically, make it so you have an idea of what's going on with all those royals, instead of losing an heir and suddenly you're the prize of an upcoming succession war between a tiny neighbor and your rival, which is clearly something a real ruler would have been aware of unless a complete imbecile.

This would be pretty sweet if they could find a way to include it without needing to add a whole bunch of new interfaces or mechanics. I know they want to keep it simple but this would be a much much more interesting way to have PUs and all that kinda stuff work.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I was thinking something similar with the Prime Minister, except he could himself be tied to an estate. Like, your starting PM's would probably be nobles, but you could also have a Cardinal who gains the king's favor, and during the Enlightenment the burghers might start to gain influence at court too. Basically, whichever type of PM you chose would have appropriate positive and negative events associated with them, and a more capable one could be a bigger challenge to deal with if the estate he's associated with gains too much influence. More capable meaning giving a bigger boost to monarch point generation. That would basically mean that you might risk a powerful PM to get some much needed monarch points when you have a poo poo ruler, but when you have a great king you could decide to go for a weak and useless one, as the extra points aren't worth the trouble.

Yeah I paraphrased my ideas, but you are seeing what I am seeing. I shouldnt be tempted to take Diplomatic ideas when I have Religious ideas just so I can become a Theocracy, all because I have had a constant string of lovely rulers, regencies, and low stab because my heirs keep dying.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 21:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Bort Bortles posted:

This would be pretty sweet if they could find a way to include it without needing to add a whole bunch of new interfaces or mechanics. I know they want to keep it simple but this would be a much much more interesting way to have PUs and all that kinda stuff work.

In terms of interface, you could probably limit it to a mouseover on your current heir to show the names, ages, legitimacy, and stats of your first three heirs with a marker to indicate if a personal union is possible with any of the three. A click on a button next to your heir could bring up a window showing more heirs, and detail which specific countries they're heirs to too if any, and possibly allow you to exclude an heir from the line of succession at the cost of legitimacy or whatever.

Bort Bortles posted:

Yeah I paraphrased my ideas, but you are seeing what I am seeing. I shouldnt be tempted to take Diplomatic ideas when I have Religious ideas just so I can become a Theocracy, all because I have had a constant string of lovely rulers, regencies, and low stab because my heirs keep dying.

Totally agree. Gameplay aside, I think the way heirs and personal unions just sorta happen behind the scenes help to undermine any attachment you might have to monarchies, which makes the annoying gameplay effects even worse. It might be easier to live with the bad parts of monarchies if you kinda felt like there was a bit of weight and history behind the royal house. Hell, maybe have that be an actual in-game thing. A stable continuation of the monarchy for centuries could make your royal marriages result in greater relationship boosts, give you cheaper stability costs, result in faster legitimacy recovery, things like that. Basically rewarding you for maintaining the status quo, which is kinda the point of a monarchy. Maintaining the same dynasty could make these bonuses grow faster.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 21:58

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Bort Bortles posted:

This would be pretty sweet if they could find a way to include it without needing to add a whole bunch of new interfaces or mechanics. I know they want to keep it simple but this would be a much much more interesting way to have PUs and all that kinda stuff work.

Maybe add an "assassinate heir/ruler" option in espionage ideas so there's finally a reason to take them in non-MP games? Getting your dynasty on the throne by convenient "accidents" would be pretty fun. Even more if you could use it to give yourself PUs. To make it not crazy though, make it so that getting caught is an automatic DOW by the assassination target or massive infamy hit+coalition?

# ? Feb 2, 2016 22:09

Poil: Mar 17, 2007

Isn't assassination a natural cause of death for monarchs?

I started a game as Austria all smugly worrying if it would be too easy, screwed up immensely and lost a war against Venice. :negative:

# ? Feb 2, 2016 22:29

Node: May 20, 2001; KICKED IN THE COOTER; Taco Defender

So I can't read the achievement text very well. For Baltic Crusader, does

code:

happened = {
has_switched_nation = no
OR = {
tag = TEU
tag = LIV
}

russian_region = {
type = all
religion = catholic
}

russian_region = {
type = all
owned_by = ROOT
is_core = ROOT
}


}

possible = {
NOT = { num_of_custom_nations = 1 }
normal_or_historical_nations = yes
normal_province_values = yes
ironman = yes
start_date = 1444.11.11

OR = {
tag = TEU
tag = LIV
}
}

mean I have to include the uncolonized Russian region provinces, too?

# ? Feb 2, 2016 23:11

RabidWeasel: Aug 4, 2007; Cultures thrive on their myths and legends...and snuggles!

Yes you need every province in that region to be owned by and cored by you. Make sure your colonies all finish!

# ? Feb 2, 2016 23:17

VDay: Jul 2, 2003; I'm Pacman Jones!

If you just go to the Region mapmode in-game you can see which provinces are in the Russia region. You need to colonize/conquer the three initially uncolonized provinces to the right of Perm.

# ? Feb 2, 2016 23:23

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Or do what I did, and leave Russia alive long enough for them to colonize those two provinces, then just take them.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 00:10

Prop Wash: Jun 12, 2010

It is pretty insane that the same company that makes CK2 can't produce even the most rudimentary dynasty management screen for Europa. I think it would add a lot to monarchies, not just in terms of mechanics but also how attached players feel to the stories of their nations. It doesn't have to be as ridiculously elaborate as CK2.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 00:24

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

It's not that they can't, it's that they won't; they don't want to blend the branding between the two IPs.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 00:27

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

PittTheElder posted:

It's not that they can't, it's that they won't; they don't want to blend the branding between the two IPs.

Making the most common and most historically dominant government form more fun to play wouldnt hurt though. That is all that I am saying; I dont think anyone wants CKII lite in EU4, however, dynastic politics were a big political driver in this timeperiod as well as CKII's, so it should not be as neglected as is it is currently. Right now it is more fun, less aggravating, and more powerful in game mechanics to play as not-a-monarchy.

Now, considering the amazing poo poo that Wiz & co have done, and how great EU4 is right now, I am fully confident that they know this and will be doing something about it soon.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 00:52

Bold Robot: Jan 6, 2009; Be brave.

I could see tracking that kind of thing taking a decent amount of memory or whatever, though I don't know poo poo about programming. I can live without family trees but agree that making monarchies more interactive by letting us spend legitimacy on poo poo would be a huge boost to fun.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 05:15

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Bold Robot posted:

I could see tracking that kind of thing taking a decent amount of memory or whatever, though I don't know poo poo about programming. I can live without family trees but agree that making monarchies more interactive by letting us spend legitimacy on poo poo would be a huge boost to fun.

I'm not really sure how it could take a decent amount of memory. Unlike CK2, they wouldn't be active agents, but basically just country modifiers (with no effect most of the time) which were occasionally shared between countries.

Bort Bortles posted:

Making the most common and most historically dominant government form more fun to play wouldnt hurt though. That is all that I am saying; I dont think anyone wants CKII lite in EU4, however, dynastic politics were a big political driver in this timeperiod as well as CKII's, so it should not be as neglected as is it is currently. Right now it is more fun, less aggravating, and more powerful in game mechanics to play as not-a-monarchy.

Yeah, like I said the last time this point was made, when people talk about Europe and dynastic politics, it's usually about this period. Invariable tied to the countries those dynasties came to represent though, which would be one thing clearly differentiating the two. And I mean, keeping it as simple as what I suggested in terms of heirs isn't really changing the focus or taking away from CK2, it's just giving the player information they clearly should have. Adding a tiny bit of interactivity by being able to disinherit a terrible terrible heir wouldn't blur the lines that much either I don't think.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 06:30

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Bold Robot posted:

I could see tracking that kind of thing taking a decent amount of memory or whatever, though I don't know poo poo about programming. I can live without family trees but agree that making monarchies more interactive by letting us spend legitimacy on poo poo would be a huge boost to fun.

You could pretty easily do it without a full family tree if all you want is to have a couple heirs listed, some of whom might be connected to other royal houses. CK2 is tracking thousands of characters at any time, while you could do the few hundred monarchies on the map with a thousand entities probably. The computational complexity arises when they need to interact with each other, but it should be possible to group them into sub-trees (by region or religion or whatever) to cut down on that. You could likely dispense with family trees entirely, and just have it run on the current royal marriages, though having a family tree would be really nice, if only so that we could create the mega-Habsburg realm that was Charles V. But really the structure will depend on what exactly you want heirs to be able to do, and how countries can interact with their heirs, and other nations heirs. That design will drive the implementation.

More than anything I'd love to see a system where you can support heirs in other countries, and other countries support heirs in yours, and there's low levels of conflict involved in that. The various monarchies of the period spent a huge amount of time and treasure doing that.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 07:01

Thanqol: Feb 15, 2012; because our character has the 'poet' trait, this update shall be told in the format of a rap battle.

I hope the next big thing is a total redo of how naval combat works. Right now trying to sink an enemy fleet is almost comedic; you fight, they retreat into port, you siege down the port, you fight for another few ticks... and that's if you get a fight at all with how diligently smaller fleets will avoid conflict. I constantly have to pause, check movement directions, and update my own fleets on intercept courses, which they never reach in time. Most often my interaction with the navy screen is when I declare war and get told that one of my trade fleets got sunk somewhere.

What I want is to click a button that tells my fleet to go hunt down the Spanish Armada. Go clear warships out of the Caribbean. Given how annoying, mobile and finicky naval chases are I'd way prefer the way protect trade/piracy works to be the default way navies engage too.

Now that navies can't even blockade straits I cannot see the reason to manually control them.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 07:43

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

That's weird as when I fight naval battles they are usually decisive. One battle is all it takes to decide controls the seas for all the war.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 08:14

YoSaff: Feb 13, 2012; Everything is fine.

Poil posted:

Isn't assassination a natural cause of death for monarchs?

I started a game as Austria all smugly worrying if it would be too easy, screwed up immensely and lost a war against Venice.

Last night I tried a quick England game for "One Night In Paris", Wars of the Roses got averted AND Castile were willing to ally me and enter the war for land. It all went completely wrong.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 09:20

VDay: Jul 2, 2003; I'm Pacman Jones!

I always forget how it works because I don't play in the HRE a lot: is the religious league formation a MTTH event after you hit 1550? Or does the first country that reformed need to manually "activate" the league?

# ? Feb 3, 2016 09:58

420 Gank Mid: Dec 26, 2008; WARNING: This poster is a huge bitch!

Thanqol posted:

Now that navies can't even blockade straits I cannot see the reason to manually control them.

Navies can block straits unless the same person controls (completed sieges included) both connected provinces.

Still I'd love to have a "Repel invasions off the Ivory Coast" or "Blockade the South Atlantic" mechanic where an automated fleet would attempt to patrol/contain enemy fleets, either using trade nodes or a new naval map zone like the new regions on land

# ? Feb 3, 2016 10:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 08:07

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

VDay posted:

I always forget how it works because I don't play in the HRE a lot: is the religious league formation a MTTH event after you hit 1550? Or does the first country that reformed need to manually "activate" the league?

Thats a weird well to spell 'succumbed to the devil's will'

# ? Feb 3, 2016 11:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense

«‹›751 »