|
Here's a song about transporting goods along the Congo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pDvLv-R2c?t=950 Maybe they can name the DLC "Blow Boys Blow" 3 Action Economist fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 18, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I really don't get why you want everything so railroaded. If Portugal wants to spend all that admin coring this, so be it. Well it's not much admin at all, since you get a 50% discount on it all; since all the trade is coming back it's an easy way to get richer and stronger. But it's also doesn't seem strange to want a history game to play out in a historical sort of way? I don't want to play a game where the exact same thing happens always, but there were good reasons Spain didn't conquer all of West Africa and 1600, and the Habsburgs didn't conquer everything across Southern Germany, and why Europeans built factories and engaged in political manoeuvring in East Asia, rather than just shipping 50k men from Europe. Honestly I'm pretty frustrated in general with things in the game that still make no sense, like the massive inflation of army numbers, that Personal Unions completely bind foreign policy of two countries, why the Netherlands wind up fighting a war against their former overlord plus all of the overlord's allies. These are pretty silly things that could make the game more enjoyable if properly explored in DLCs. And for god's sake how is Lithuania still more developed than France in 1444? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Bort Bortles posted:Yeah it would be neat if there was an attrition mechanic associated with tech groups or something, so Euros going to Central Africa would get murdered by disease but those tech groups can fight each other just fine. Would be very strange if westernizing crippled your ability to defend yourself. Some kind of culture or capital-location-based mechanic would perhaps be a better implementation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:But it's also doesn't seem strange to want a history game to play out in a historical sort of way? I don't want to play a game where the exact same thing happens always, but there were good reasons Spain didn't conquer all of West Africa and 1600, and the Habsburgs didn't conquer everything across Southern Germany, and why Europeans built factories and engaged in political manoeuvring in East Asia, rather than just shipping 50k men from Europe. To echo this, a big part of the fun of EU4 is the sort of 'what if' alternate history nature of it: playing out scenarios like "what if england managed to hold on to its mainland possessions, or even won the hundred years' war outright?" "what if poland-lithuania managed to overcome its entrenched aristocracy and become a modern absolutist state, instead of being partitioned between its neighbors?" "what if the incans managed to survive first contact with europe?" Playing out something that mostly looks like history, that's recognizable as real history, but with differences rippling outward: some from the player, some from the AI. Since it's eu4, a lot of those scenarios are going to be 'what if [country x] was enormously militarily successful and became a globe-striding titan', and of course there's fun to be had without a historical basis (the mechanics are fun to play with in themselves). But the game does gain something from its connection to real history. It's interesting to ask "why didn't the European nations conquer [North/West/East/Central] africa centuries sooner than they did historically?" It's not interesting if the game's answers are 'no real reason, I guess, and really that's gonna be the most likely outcome...'
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well it's not much admin at all, since you get a 50% discount on it all; since all the trade is coming back it's an easy way to get richer and stronger. PleasingFungus posted:Would be very strange if westernizing crippled your ability to defend yourself. Good point. Maybe the new regions could be used instead, heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I've never seen AI Europeans completely conquer the parts of Africa that are there now. Portugal and Britain and sometimes Spain will fill in the coastal gaps around modern Ghana and fill out South Africa and Madagascar but generally Mutapa, the Horn of Africa, Congo, and the western African nations go unmolested. I mean sometimes Nigeria or Congo gets eaten but I think the only time I saw the AI really try to conquer west Africa they wound up losing it all to local rebels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Yeah the AI is still too bad at transporting troops to consistently be a threat to Africa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Here's a song about transporting goods along the Congo Blow Boys Blow - The African Fetishist Expansion
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It's interesting to ask "why didn't the European nations conquer [North/West/East/Central] africa centuries sooner than they did historically?" It's not interesting if the game's answers are 'no real reason, I guess, and really that's gonna be the most likely outcome...' Excellently put.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
As much as I want to play as the new nations I have to agree, the Euros (and pretty much everyone else) should be restricted to the African coastline because this isn't Victoria. I think it's funny that they said Zanzibar will be now be one of the most important trade nodes because it's probably already the second most important trade node. Three merchants and a few easy overseas conquests can funnel the wealth of Asia into your coffers. Taking religious and exploration and conquering the Indonesians is basically the first goal of any Ethiopia game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
gently caress, I wanted to play an East Africa game next but it's going to be so much more fun next patch I kind of don't want to now. I'm also expecting to see a huge AI Mutapa in most games, now that it doesn't have its only path for expansion blocked by a big Sunni power and friends. I like how they have once again opened up the internal map of Africa, since there is now an internal connection between the greater Kongo area and Zanzibar and its surrounds. More potential to get huge before the Europeans arrive and more provinces to colonise  E: Would be cool if they let Ethiopia (trade node) go directly to Gulf of Aden, though. The more trade you can funnel down to Zanzibar the better. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah that part actually has me kind of excited to play a Kongo game, finally get that achievement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Africa Changes are Cool and Good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
GSD posted:Africa Changes are Cool and Good. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Blow Boys Blow - The African Expansion Fetishist
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It's interesting to ask "why didn't the European nations conquer [North/West/East/Central] africa centuries sooner than they did historically?" It's not interesting if the game's answers are 'no real reason, I guess, and really that's gonna be the most likely outcome...' Well the main reason is that during the middle ages, north and east Africa were already being conquered by Arabs, along with parts of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:I think it's funny that they said Zanzibar will be now be one of the most important trade nodes because it's probably already the second most important trade node. Three merchants and a few easy overseas conquests can funnel the wealth of Asia into your coffers. Yeah, the new trade system is leaps and bounds better then EUIII, but it's still awkward, deterministic, and feels really gamey. I'm not expecting them to overhaul/replace it.... but I wish they would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Making Venice and Genoa not be black holes for trade goods would be nice, but I guess that's better than being able to set up a positive feedback loop of trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
The more I play, the more I'm convinced that Portugal should be given the ability to recruit Explorers and Conquistadors in their national traditions, and then it's AI told to skip Colonization ideas. Immediately going for Expansion, Trade, and Military Ideas would be a way better approximation of their general goal to break into Indian Ocean trade, while still giving them one colonist to play with in Brazil. Though truth be told I hate the whole colonization system in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Making Venice and Genoa not be black holes for trade goods would be nice, but I guess that's better than being able to set up a positive feedback loop of trade. I'd like the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the Baltic Sea to become big unified trade zones with special rules to keep them from being too easy to dominate. That way no matter where you are in them you can get access to trade from all over the region. PittTheElder posted:The more I play, the more I'm convinced that Portugal should be given the ability to recruit Explorers and Conquistadors in their national traditions, and then it's AI told to skip Colonization ideas. Immediately going for Expansion, Trade, and Military Ideas would be a way better approximation of their general goal to break into Indian Ocean trade, while still giving them one colonist to play with in Brazil. I'd like to see monarch have traits, either from birth or experience, that give them special abilities. E.g. Henry the Navigator has "Navigator" as a trait that allows Portugal to recruit explorers and conquistadors as long as he's alive. This would give Portugal an early leg into Africa, which they would then lose and end up having to muddle around in Morocco for a while. Certain traits could be "epic" and have lasting effects, so you'd get a "legacy of the navigator" bonus for the rest of the game. Or if Mehmet II conquers Constantinople he becomes "Mehmed the Conqueror" and then after he dies you get a "legacy of the conquest of Constantinople" bonus for the rest of the game. Et cetera. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, the new trade system is leaps and bounds better then EUIII, but it's still awkward, deterministic, and feels really gamey. I'm not expecting them to overhaul/replace it.... but I wish they would. I really like the game-y-ness of it, honestly. It's probably my favorite EUIV feature. e: to expand on that a little more, I really like the way that the trade system's directionality shapes play. the trade routes provide very clear goals for expansion (good) which are often in conflict with your other goals (tension! choices!), and those expansion routes help encourage vaguely historical decision-making. it's a lot of good things in one package. PleasingFungus fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I'd like to see monarch have traits, either from birth or experience, that give them special abilities. E.g. Henry the Navigator has "Navigator" as a trait that allows Portugal to recruit explorers and conquistadors as long as he's alive. This would give Portugal an early leg into Africa, which they would then lose and end up having to muddle around in Morocco for a while. This seems like it'd be enormously frustrating to play with. Welp, Henry died early, looks like Portugal's not colonizing this game...
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
 ok barring the rest of the egypt areas of the mamalukes i have left im just fabricating claims everywhere. Basically i've learned that attempting to take as many cores from these like 10 core missions im kinda lost. if i take as many cores i can never take all as thatd go over 100% WS which you cant. so i'm always left with 3-4 cores that i cant take because once the truce breaks i lose the mission cores but not the mission so i have to fab a claim on one which extends the process by a year. i assume that i take a few and have the country force separate and take it over again repeat etc. do i just finish the mamalukes then do the persia mission i mean i assume its going to give me it also how far out until my strat of the doing the tons of extra galleys for inland sea bonus/ cheaper than a dead cat works. like i assume u cant pass spain/france
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Take 100% WS worth, start the coring process, cancel the mission. It'll come around again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Henry the Navigator wasn't even king of Portugal. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It's interesting to ask "why didn't the European nations conquer [North/West/East/Central] africa centuries sooner than they did historically?" It's not interesting if the game's answers are 'no real reason, I guess, and really that's gonna be the most likely outcome...' If the answer to this is gonna be "the coring cost was too high" or "it was just too loving annoying and unfun to do" which all the system you guys came up with so far would be, then gently caress that. I want to play a fun game with some historical roots. But this game is so far from history it's not a big deal to keep away from more railroaded stuff. Portugal goes for North America instead of Africa/Asia so what, it's something different. I kinda like how unpredictable some of the nations are, it means you can't always plan around for them. If you know 100% what the AI is gonna do in every game it makes things either to easy or too frustrating, depending on who you play. vvvvv Maybe we just want way different things from this game Tahirovic fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Maybe your wrong tho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
There should definitely be some sort of attrition malus for non-african nations, at least in the central african regions. Maybe also in indian regions? Both would encourage using local protectorates rather than just conquering the region. And would be more historical!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:If the answer to this is gonna be "the coring cost was too high" or "it was just too loving annoying and unfun to do" which all the system you guys came up with so far would be, then gently caress that. I want to play a fun game with some historical roots. But this game is so far from history it's not a big deal to keep away from more railroaded stuff. Tahirovic posted:Portugal goes for North America instead of Africa/Asia so what, it's something different. I kinda like how unpredictable some of the nations are, it means you can't always plan around for them. If you know 100% what the AI is gonna do in every game it makes things either to easy or too frustrating, depending on who you play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If having entirely historically justified negative modifiers for Europeans traipsing around in Africa is railroading, then the tech group malus is too. Actually, anything that differentiates different regions or countries is. To me, the whole point is that different regions have different flavors, and Africa being deadly to Europeans while the Americas are not helps to distinguish the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:If the answer to this is gonna be "the coring cost was too high" or "it was just too loving annoying and unfun to do" which all the system you guys came up with so far would be, then gently caress that. I want to play a fun game with some historical roots. But this game is so far from history it's not a big deal to keep away from more railroaded stuff. Bort Bortles posted:This hits it hard - the AI European powers never go to India or China. Portugal gets a mission that outright gives it Goa, then the AI never does anything with it. The whole reason Europeans were exploring was to get to China. Most Euros did not give much of a poo poo about the New World until more realized that it was a great place to go, too; which was not until the 1600s and it was even later until Europeans started colonizing it seriously. In EU4, every European power is colonizing America by 1550 or so, while ignoring India and China. Bort says it well. I honestly don't mind that Portugal goes for North America sometimes, but I feel like they go there every drat game. I almost never see a Spanish dominated Caribbean, Mexico, New Granada (for lack of a better regional term), Peru and Argentina; a big part of that is just Castile underperforming and France (and the other AIs) being huge bullies this patch, but it's odd to see Portugal consistently dominating in the West constantly). When have you ever played a game when Portugal is holding Malacca, Hormuz, Goa in the 1510s? Or Macau by like 1540? And then to in turn get squeezed out of Indonesia by the Dutch? You can certainly argue those events shouldn't happen all the time (and I'd agree with you), but that sort of political turbulence seems like it would make the game way more fun. For example, as an Indonesian power it would be way more fun to try and play the Europeans off against each other (while they try to do the same to you), rather than just colonizing islands with no resistance for 100 years, and then sinking all the European navies when Sweden declares war on you in 1740 or some poo poo. Why is it never possible for European powers (who aren't England) to have a colonial war that doesn't devolve into a total war in Europe? Hell, why are wars so total to begin with? Both the attackers and defenders should be under pressure (both political and financial) to come to terms once one side is losing by a sufficient margin; probably 10-20WS in the early game, with states gaining increasing capabilities (mostly financial) for prolonged action as the game advances. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, one thing I've always wanted is for CBs to limit "applicable theaters" for lack of a better term. Colonial War CB should only involve fighting in the colonies, and so on. Global wars get tiring really quickly, and it leads me to play a lot more passively in the later centuries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
GSD posted:Yeah, one thing I've always wanted is for CBs to limit "applicable theaters" for lack of a better term. Colonial War CB should only involve fighting in the colonies, and so on. But that isn't true to history. The last battle in the American War for Independence was fought in India.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:But that isn't true to history. The last battle in the American War for Independence was fought in India.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hell, why are wars so total to begin with? Both the attackers and defenders should be under pressure (both political and financial) to come to terms once one side is losing by a sufficient margin; probably 10-20WS in the early game, with states gaining increasing capabilities (mostly financial) for prolonged action as the game advances. The way the game currently encourages total war is by frontloading the costs of a war (fighting), and backloading the rewards (occupation & ticking warscore). How would you go about reversing that? e: note that shattered retreats, forts & increased warscore from battles have done a ton to improve this from how it was in EU3, but haven't reversed the overall dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The way the game currently encourages total war is by frontloading the costs of a war (fighting), and backloading the rewards (occupation & ticking warscore). How would you go about reversing that? Perhaps battles could give double warscore for a limited duration? Or increased war exhaustion once you've got enough warscore to fulfill the casus belli?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Every time I read suggested gameplay changes in this thread I feel bad for the jokes I make about Wiz
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Is there any mod that generates a Random World rather than just a Random New World? The one in the workshop seems broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I've seen Spain and Britain both go into India and take pretty good chunks of land. They just don't start doing it until like 1780, which is... semi-historical I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The way the game currently encourages total war is by frontloading the costs of a war (fighting), and backloading the rewards (occupation & ticking warscore). How would you go about reversing that? I won't pretend to have all the answers to this; I'm no game developer. My instinct is to make fighting wars way more expensive. Ideally the monetary cost of doing this should force you rely on other power brokers inside your realm, so good relations with your estates or parliament. Make it so that having an army on campaign requires real investment to sustain, and trying to drag out either a losing or winning war past 50WS or something piss off said actors. This would go hand in hand with the other change I'd like to see, that being smaller army sizes in general. Plus a supply system to prevent the deployment of thousands of troops overseas,or 120k troops in 4 provinces attrition free, just waiting to all jump into mega battles. Likely faster battle resolution too, because I'm so sick of the current battle meta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:31
|
|