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 »

tractor fanatic: Sep 9, 2005; Pillbug

I tried limiting the seats to 10, but random provinces are still periodically gaining seats (maybe that event is bugged?), so as far as I can tell the 10 province limit only applies to the pop up. I'm up to 20 seats now.

# ? Feb 24, 2016 22:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 15:11

Too Poetic: Nov 28, 2008

Prop Wash posted:

The most recent DLC had that bug where elements of the UI would begin to disappear, but it only manifested after very long periods of uptime caused by how stable the game was

I wouldn't call 2 hours a very long period of uptime. It isn't the worst bug though. I'd rather the ui disappear than the ai being retarded and breaking alliance with me because they privateer my trade node to -200 opinion.

# ? Feb 24, 2016 22:53

YoSaff: Feb 13, 2012; Everything is fine.

I managed to get a Byzantium game off the ground for the first time but then the first war had me lose the PLC as an ally because they insisted I didn't honour my deal to give them land, when I gave them the only land I could (although it was to Moldavia, not to them directly). Is this working as intended or no?

(not that it would have mattered because Persia sprung out fully formed by like 1470 and became bestest ever buds with the Ottomans)

# ? Feb 24, 2016 23:19

Eej: Jun 17, 2007; HEAVYARMS

Moldavia is a vassal of Poland so nope.

# ? Feb 24, 2016 23:28

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 dumb tho because Poland doesn't border the ottos.

# ? Feb 24, 2016 23:45

TITY BOI: Apr 4, 2008; A REAL HUMAN BEING
AND A REAL TITY BOI

YoSaff posted:

I managed to get a Byzantium game off the ground for the first time but then the first war had me lose the PLC as an ally because they insisted I didn't honour my deal to give them land, when I gave them the only land I could (although it was to Moldavia, not to them directly). Is this working as intended or no?

(not that it would have mattered because Persia sprung out fully formed by like 1470 and became bestest ever buds with the Ottomans)

Here's a tip to avoid that in the future. Having the enemy revoke claims or cores counts as 'giving land'. Failing that you can just make them release nations (which doesn't count as you taking land) and then annexing those nations after the truce timer's up.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 00:30

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

TITY BOI posted:

Here's a tip to avoid that in the future. Having the enemy revoke claims or cores counts as 'giving land'. Failing that you can just make them release nations (which doesn't count as you taking land) and then annexing those nations after the truce timer's up.

Pretty sure they fixed that in 1.15 actually. And releasing land definitely counts as a benefit to you that requires you to give stuff to your allies.

One thing that doesn't is white-peacing, which you can exploit pretty hard. Lets say you have a strong ally. They have a neighbour they hate, and you have a CB on them. Said hated neighbour is allied to people you want to take land from. Declare war on the hated enemy, and promise your ally land. Proceed to take all the land you want in separate peaces with your hated enemy's allies. Then white peace with the hated enemy for zero trust lost with your ally, regardless of the relative war contributions.

You do wind up paying extra AE and province costs and such unless you make the cobelligerents, but as a minor trying to get established it's a damned useful tactic.

PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 25, 2016

# ? Feb 25, 2016 00:40

Too Poetic: Nov 28, 2008

CharlestheHammer posted:

That's dumb tho because Poland doesn't border the ottos.

Yeah it's pretty dumb that the AI wants land in defensive wars even if they dont have enough marked. I lost Hungary that way in my Byz game but it didn't matter because I decimated the ottomans.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 00:51

Stevefin: Sep 30, 2013

tractor fanatic posted:

I tried limiting the seats to 10, but random provinces are still periodically gaining seats (maybe that event is bugged?), so as far as I can tell the 10 province limit only applies to the pop up. I'm up to 20 seats now.

Its a bug that is supposed to be fixed next patch. One most of us in the MP game found out the hard way, including a republic veriation of the seats for a Tartarstan that is the size of Russia

Stevefin fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Feb 25, 2016

# ? Feb 25, 2016 01:25

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

I know this gets hashed out every page or two, but I've had my run ruined a few times 50 years in after Muscovy and the Ottomans decide to screw me.

Things are actually a bit more interesting than normal this game. Denmark owns half of Scotland, England is already in tatters, and Burgundy just beat France in a war, further consolidating their gains in Western Europe.

I decided to snake Ryazan around Muscovy so that I could get those juicy Novgorod provinces instead of them. An unfortunate side effect is that they are now allied with Denmark, who are tough.

My Poland-Ottoman alliance is tenuous because they are going to rival/war each other in the not too distant future.

Anyway, my question is for my first idea do you guys think Admin or Religious? I want to annex Ryazan before I make them too strong, and I am going to go for vassal Persia as well, but taking two admin idea sets in a row isn't feasible, especially since I need it for coring all my gains, but I can't decide if 25% coring reduction is worth it, since I can just feed most new cores to vassals after razing them. I also run with a decent amount of mercenaries. Typing this out makes it fairly obvious I should take admin, but I'll post this because I feel like I don't see this starting situation in Europe very often.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 02:40

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

Normally I would say go Religious because of the stupid amounts of converting you'll need to do, but being that you are a horde, Admin is definitely the pick since it'll let you settle down without having to wait for your third group to pick another administrative group.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 02:48

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

Pick the first two ideas in Admin at least, then go back to preferentially spending points on coring. Then Influence and then Religious.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 03:03

Schizotek: Nov 8, 2011; I say, hey, listen to me!
Stay sane inside insanity!!!

Muscovy should never have gotten that big. You should have given Novgorod all their cores and sold some provinces to them after pillaging the gently caress out of them instead. That way whenever Muscovy goes to war against Novgorod in the future you can declare and eat more of them. You might have already lost if you can't kill Muscovy in the next 20 years. Novgorod at any size is a pathetic enemy so helping them for awhile won't hurt you. Muscovy will straight up end your game.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 03:20

Morzhovyye: Mar 2, 2013

Schizotek posted:

Muscovy should never have gotten that big. You should have given Novgorod all their cores and sold some provinces to them after pillaging the gently caress out of them instead. That way whenever Muscovy goes to war against Novgorod in the future you can declare and eat more of them. You might have already lost if you can't kill Muscovy in the next 20 years. Novgorod at any size is a pathetic enemy so helping them for awhile won't hurt you. Muscovy will straight up end your game.

They've only taken what looks like 4 provinces off of novgorod (2 of them are lovely white sea wastelands) and annexed perm. He's already won the first war so I wouldn't be too concerned.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 04:18

Gay Horney: Feb 10, 2013; by Reene

My last attempt as GH looked pretty much exactly like that and ended when Muscovy and Poland both declared war on me in the same year, for whatever that's worth.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 04:44

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

Schizotek posted:

Muscovy should never have gotten that big. You should have given Novgorod all their cores and sold some provinces to them after pillaging the gently caress out of them instead. That way whenever Muscovy goes to war against Novgorod in the future you can declare and eat more of them. You might have already lost if you can't kill Muscovy in the next 20 years. Novgorod at any size is a pathetic enemy so helping them for awhile won't hurt you. Muscovy will straight up end your game.

Odobenidae posted:

They've only taken what looks like 4 provinces off of novgorod (2 of them are lovely white sea wastelands) and annexed perm. He's already won the first war so I wouldn't be too concerned.

Yeah, I couldn't ally/guarantee Novgorod, so I declared against Muscovy right when they declared against Novgorod. I managed to siege down Moskva, but my army was pretty much done. Luckily Muscovy took peace early from Novgorod and didn't grab everything they normally do. I peaced out with the two provinces to get a border with Novgorod and then declared immediately, grabbing what you see in the SS.

I agree that if they get the high development Novgorodian provinces you're pretty much screwed. In my other game they had an army of 40+ in 1480 after annexing their vassals and grabbing all the Russian land.

If they get all that and ally Denmark it's probably impossible.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 04:47

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Odobenidae posted:

They've only taken what looks like 4 provinces off of novgorod (2 of them are lovely white sea wastelands) and annexed perm. He's already won the first war so I wouldn't be too concerned.

Anyone who has ever done a Golden Horde run has that reflexive response to any Muscovy that is greater than zero provinces.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 07:06

Tahirovic: Feb 25, 2009; Fun Shoe

Does For Odin allow you to form England/GB ?

Wish it was more explicitly stated which achievements allow Nation forming.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 08:24

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

Tahirovic posted:

Does For Odin allow you to form England/GB ?

It does.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 08:47

TITY BOI: Apr 4, 2008; A REAL HUMAN BEING
AND A REAL TITY BOI

New dev dairy: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-february-2016.910409/

I gotta say I'm not too thrilled with the corruption mechanic, it seems to be largely based on things outside your control (i.e. rolling a lovely monarch), and will only serve to compound those problems by making your tech more expensive as you fall further behind.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 11:22

Hefty Leftist: Jun 26, 2011; "You know how vodka or whiskey are distilled multiple times to taste good? It's the same with shit. After being digested for the third time shit starts to taste reeeeeeaaaally yummy."

TITY BOI posted:

New dev dairy: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-february-2016.910409/

I gotta say I'm not too thrilled with the corruption mechanic, it seems to be largely based on things outside your control (i.e. rolling a lovely monarch), and will only serve to compound those problems by making your tech more expensive as you fall further behind.

yeah, this seems really tedious and similar to why decadence sucked in CK2. it just seems like it's there to slow you down, what's the benefits of not having corruption aside from events?

i almost feel paradox needs to cap additional features in their games to a certain limit. the more each DLC adds, the more complex and micro a game gets to the point where it's kind of overwhelming. corruption and territories don't really seem that cool or necessary in honesty, it's just another two buttons i've gotta click every 10 minutes

Hefty Leftist fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Feb 25, 2016

# ? Feb 25, 2016 11:39

vanity slug: Jul 20, 2010

ThePutty posted:

yeah, this seems really tedious and similar to why decadence sucked in CK2. it just seems like it's there to slow you down, what's the benefits of not having corruption aside from events?

i almost feel paradox needs to cap additional features in their games to a certain limit. the more each DLC adds, the more complex and micro a game gets to the point where it's kind of overwhelming. corruption and territories don't really seem that cool or necessary in honesty, it's just another two buttons i've gotta click every 10 minutes

Holy poo poo yes. I remember EU4 looked so clean and pretty after moving from EU3. Now it's just as bloated. EU4 at launch was pretty accessible, now you have so much poo poo to think about and to take care of, I can't imagine playing EU4 for the first time.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 12:08

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

States vs territories seem really cool. I don't mind corruption since there's a way to directly keep it down. It looks like 1.16 will be an anti-blobbing update to the game, which is probably a good thing since EU4 tends to have almost 0 downsides to getting huge.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 12:08

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

I'm not sure about corruption adding to the power cost of things but I guess we'll see how that works when it actually comes out. Otherwise everything there seems amazing and a pretty major departure from how the game is right now.

Also lots of new possibilities to add to China with those mechanics.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 12:54

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

YF-23 posted:

States vs territories seem really cool. I don't mind corruption since there's a way to directly keep it down. It looks like 1.16 will be an anti-blobbing update to the game, which is probably a good thing since EU4 tends to have almost 0 downsides to getting huge.

States vs territories doesn't seem fun at all. Oops, I conquered into both Arabia and Egypt at once in 1460 and because my conquests are on either side of a wholly arbitrary border I can only choose one or the other to be "real" provinces for the next 5 admin tech! Heaven forbid I go for East Africa too.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 13:31

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Koramei posted:

I'm not sure about corruption adding to the power cost of things but I guess we'll see how that works when it actually comes out. Otherwise everything there seems amazing and a pretty major departure from how the game is right now.

Also lots of new possibilities to add to China with those mechanics.

Paradox finally listened to our calls of "China should be represented better" by making the rest of the world like China.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 13:36

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

Jazerus posted:

States vs territories doesn't seem fun at all. Oops, I conquered into both Arabia and Egypt at once in 1460 and because my conquests are on either side of a wholly arbitrary border I can only choose one or the other to be "real" provinces for the next 5 admin tech! Heaven forbid I go for East Africa too.

Yeah, so you pick Egypt because it's a much richer region.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 13:43

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

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing at least would be terrain/topography affecting the system a bit. It should be easier/cheaper to extend your power across the European Plain (or Eurasian Steppe), than across the Himalayas or the Pyrenees. Given that this is dealt with on a region by region basis, it could probably be simplified into a single file, similar to the trade nodes file, defining the connectivity between different regions as well as within the different regions. Something like this:

code:

france_region = {

	cost_factor = 1.5       #Some forested and hilly terrain

	connection_cost_factor = {
		iberia_region = 2
		low_countries_region = 1
		north_germany_region = 1
		south_germany_region = 1.5
		italy_region = 2
 	}
 }

iberia_region = {

	cost_factor = 2    #Hilly forested terrain

	connection_cost_factor = {
		france_region = 2
 	}
 }

Which would translate to the maintenance on Iberian provinces being 2x2 = 4 times higher for a country with its capital in France. And the opposite direction, 1.5x2 = 3 times higher cost for French provinces for an Iberian country. This would encourage both the player and the AI to pursue a more sensible approach to their expansion, the latter especially if it weighs it alongside the value of the provinces in question, so it'll be more willing to cross the Alps because Italy is so drat rich. This might also make it possible to do away with the poison cores concept entirely.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 14:54

TTBF: Sep 14, 2005

I'm hesitant about these new changes because I feel the "behind in tech" corruption penalties may destroy any non-European nation bordering a Western colonizer or expander. If I'm playing as Vijayanagar and Portugal gets Goa by event, what can I realistically do about the resulting increases in corruption?

# ? Feb 25, 2016 16:11

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

TITY BOI posted:

New dev dairy: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-february-2016.910409/

I gotta say I'm not too thrilled with the corruption mechanic, it seems to be largely based on things outside your control (i.e. rolling a lovely monarch), and will only serve to compound those problems by making your tech more expensive as you fall further behind.

This is the first dev diary I've read for EU4 where I haven't been excited at all. This sounds tedious and unnecessary, especially corruption. I get the part at least where they are trying to get rid of the current Distant Overseas system, at least.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 16:16

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

I'm pretty much the opposite, I way oversaturated myself with EU4 after Cossacks and was totally unhyped for this expansion, but these mechanics have me back on the train. I understand it's gonna be divisive but I don't think it'll have the same problem estates do for some people where it feels like pointless busywork nestled away in an obscure interface- these are gonna be central mechanics, and they're way more intuitive and versatile (with, for instance stuff Buttery Pastry said) than the current system. About a month back I said I liked distant overseas just fine but this really does sound a lot better.

And the more I think about corruption the more I like it, it gives a really good way to weaken larger empires that can be tied into with other mechanics, but can also be satisfyingly slammed way down if you put the effort in. The icon kinda sucks though, the red clashes with the brown so it's simultaneously really hard to make out what it's supposed to be but also draws the eye towards it since it's so bright.

Hoping there are gonna be more interactions etc for estates with this too, I'm really hoping they're not just gonna be a feature left by the wayside. Some estate influence increasing and some decreasing corruption etc could be really interesting.

Jazerus posted:

States vs territories doesn't seem fun at all. Oops, I conquered into both Arabia and Egypt at once in 1460 and because my conquests are on either side of a wholly arbitrary border I can only choose one or the other to be "real" provinces for the next 5 admin tech! Heaven forbid I go for East Africa too.

Hopefully it'll be a bit more forgiving than that- like colonial nations being able to suck up a few provinces from neighboring colonial regions without them splitting off immediately.

Jeoh posted:

Holy poo poo yes. I remember EU4 looked so clean and pretty after moving from EU3. Now it's just as bloated. EU4 at launch was pretty accessible, now you have so much poo poo to think about and to take care of, I can't imagine playing EU4 for the first time.

There was an AMA the Paradox devs did a few days ago and they touched on this a little actually- as their games mature more, they design them more and more for the already established playerbase rather than new blood. So yeah, they're not even trying to make it accessible anymore. To me this DLC seems like one to just tell newbies to not buy until they've played a bunch already, but I know a lot of people are resistant to that attitude.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 16:37

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

Koramei posted:

The icon kinda sucks though, the red clashes with the brown so it's simultaneously really hard to make out what it's supposed to be but also draws the eye towards it since it's so bright.

The icon should just be an oldschool devil really.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:01

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Koramei posted:

There was an AMA the Paradox devs did a few days ago and they touched on this a little actually- as their games mature more, they design them more and more for the already established playerbase rather than new blood. So yeah, they're not even trying to make it accessible anymore. To me this DLC seems like one to just tell newbies to not buy until they've played a bunch already, but I know a lot of people are resistant to that attitude.

Yep. Eventually they will release EU V, which will get pared down to the most accessible presentation of their favourite bits of EU IV, and I'll buy it, too.

As for these changes, I like them on balance but they are definitely anti-accessibility (possibly because all but the best anti-blobbing measures will be anti-accessibility). I think these might play out more smoothly than they sound, though. First, states will incentivize you to expand your power first in regions you control territory in rather than ones you don't. This is an incentive to pretty borders! It is also somewhat flawed, of course. For example, a Mediterranean-focused Aragon which conquers southern France and Genoa spans three states but definitely has fewer provinces than a Spain-focused Aragon. That's kind of annoying.

I want to hear more about what colonial cores will do. I am willing to look the other way on that annoying Aragon example if it means that early game massive conquests hit diminishing returns faster and are more prone to collapse.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:09

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Node posted:

This is the first dev diary I've read for EU4 where I haven't been excited at all. This sounds tedious and unnecessary, especially corruption. I get the part at least where they are trying to get rid of the current Distant Overseas system, at least.

The only mechanics change that seems remotely appealing to me is the espionage revamp, that looked alright. The map changes especially in Africa will be great. Naval manpower, corruption, and territories/states all seem mostly like feature bloat honestly. They're not really adding anything new to the gameplay, just more micro busy-work and numbers to stare at/manage.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:18

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

I don't have a huge problem with the states vs territories system, honestly - it's gamey, but this is a game, and it seems like it's a reasonable approach to modeling the inability of earlier states to effectively control huge swathes of territory. If they're replacing the distant overseas system with this entirely (and it sounds like they are), then it's a pretty small tick up in complexity. No new mapmodes, just combining existing systems - regions + autonomy + govtypes + admin tech - into something new.

It also reminds me of Vicky 2, which is nice.

Corruption, on the other hand, seems like an extremely ham-handed attempt to 'fix' the strong incentives to fall behind on admin/diplo tech in the early game. Not so big a fan there.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:20

KOGAHAZAN!!: Apr 29, 2013; a miserable failure as a person

an incredible success as a magical murder spider

How many features of EU3 did IV actually drop? Not refactor or streamline or rework the interface for, actually drop? I can think of province decisions and cultural tradition/advisor purchases, but both of those were extremely peripheral mechanics that didn't interact much with the rest of the game. Meanwhile, they made the idea system more complicated, implemented the new trade system (much more complicated) and added the monarch point system.

It seems to me that IV was actually a lot more complex and feature rich at launch than 3 was at the end of its lifecycle. I wouldn't put money on V dropping a lot of the stuff people in here are moaning about.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:22

Fidel Cuckstro: Jul 2, 2007

It looks like Bohemia is part of the Polish cultural group, but the North German territory.

As usual the Czech can't catch a break :qq:

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:32

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

A Buttery Pastry posted:

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing at least would be terrain/topography affecting the system a bit. It should be easier/cheaper to extend your power across the European Plain (or Eurasian Steppe), than across the Himalayas or the Pyrenees. Given that this is dealt with on a region by region basis, it could probably be simplified into a single file, similar to the trade nodes file, defining the connectivity between different regions as well as within the different regions. Something like this:
code:
france_region = {

	cost_factor = 1.5       #Some forested and hilly terrain

	connection_cost_factor = {
		iberia_region = 2
		low_countries_region = 1
		north_germany_region = 1
		south_germany_region = 1.5
		italy_region = 2
 	}
 }

iberia_region = {

	cost_factor = 2    #Hilly forested terrain

	connection_cost_factor = {
		france_region = 2
 	}
 }
Which would translate to the maintenance on Iberian provinces being 2x2 = 4 times higher for a country with its capital in France. And the opposite direction, 1.5x2 = 3 times higher cost for French provinces for an Iberian country. This would encourage both the player and the AI to pursue a more sensible approach to their expansion, the latter especially if it weighs it alongside the value of the provinces in question, so it'll be more willing to cross the Alps because Italy is so drat rich. This might also make it possible to do away with the poison cores concept entirely.

I like this idea, geography needs to play a bigger role and big mountain ranges especially.

Speaking of that, for the map I'm making should I make parts of the big mountain ranges inaccessible wasteland? At least I think that's possible in EUIV (CK2 got a different inpassibility mechanic?).

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:36

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

Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

It looks like Bohemia is part of the Polish cultural group, but the North German territory.

As usual the Czech can't catch a break

Czechs are just Poles who prefer beer.

Pimpmust posted:

Speaking of that, for the map I'm making should I make parts of the big mountain ranges inaccessible wasteland? At least I think that's possible in EUIV (CK2 got a different inpassibility mechanic?).

That's what I did for mine, though I wish the game had the Vicky 2 style impassable borders instead.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 15:11

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Autonomous Monster posted:

How many features of EU3 did IV actually drop? Not refactor or streamline or rework the interface for, actually drop? I can think of province decisions and cultural tradition/advisor purchases, but both of those were extremely peripheral mechanics that didn't interact much with the rest of the game. Meanwhile, they made the idea system more complicated, implemented the new trade system (much more complicated) and added the monarch point system.

It seems to me that IV was actually a lot more complex and feature rich at launch than 3 was at the end of its lifecycle. I wouldn't put money on V dropping a lot of the stuff people in here are moaning about.

This probably isn't exhaustive, but:

Policy sliders
Inflation caused by pocketing monthly income.
Lump sum end of year tax payments
Centers of Trade
I'm watching a seagull completely fail at life while another seagull laughs at it and thought you should know
Cultural tradition
Magistrates
Fire-and-forget agents in general
Infamy
Tech progress through expenditure
Hordes perpetually at war / ability to colonize horde territory

e: I miss none of these. Paradox is good at figuring out what to cut and what to keep.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 18:49

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

«‹›751 »