|
Fister Roboto posted:I really wish that wasn't the default CB against rivals. I've made that same mistake too many times. DDRJake mentioned on his stream that they're going to move it to the bottom of the list in the next patch for that very reason.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:Were they your rival? If so then you probably accidently used the Humiliate Rival CB. Yeah, that's exactly what it was. Now I'm learning the weirdness that is being an HRE nation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Is there any way to remove Ironman from a save? Getting super frustrated with my current game and I'd like to enable console cheats
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Wait, the Humiliate Rival CB prevents you from doing any annexation actions at all? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Wait, the Humiliate Rival CB prevents you from doing any annexation actions at all? Why? because Paradox has been more focused on Stellaris and everything EU4-related in the past few months has been extremely shoddy half-assed feature bloat (see: Mare Nostrum). that's my hot take
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Wait, the Humiliate Rival CB prevents you from doing any annexation actions at all? Why? It's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:It's perfect. It makes no sense. Taking land from a rival is humiliating them. It's not even internally consistent, since the Humiliate item in a peace deal and taking land from a rival both provide Power Projection, which is the mechanic that deals with how effectively you're dealing with rivals. It's like whoever came up with the Humiliate CB isn't that familiar with how the game works
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
I guess you could say that it would make taking land too easy, but you can just spend a few months fabricating a claim and then take all the land you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
It would definitely cause the North American natives to be a single nation by the time anyone European showed up. They can't fabricate claims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I guess you could say that it would make taking land too easy, but you can just spend a few months fabricating a claim and then take all the land you want. Only if they've got a neighbouring province. I suspect the rival cb could lead to some exploitish war declarations if you could take land with it. Especially in the new world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
I guess not, huh? All the methods I found through Google seem to have been patched out 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
For that matter, is there any historical example of a war fought ONLY to humiliate another country and solidify the ruler's control over his own country? When I think "dumb pointless grudge war" I think of stuff like Denmark vs. Sweden, but at the end of the day even those wars were waged hoping to gain territory or markets or something. I know gameplay comes before realism, but it's not an absolute rule (else we'd not be using Earth as our game map). I think Victoria does the same concept much better with the "Cut down to size" CB which is explicitly about stopping your rival from becoming too strong, as opposed to just burning their capital for shits and giggles. NihilCredo fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Jul 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I guess not, huh? All the methods I found through Google seem to have been patched out
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Just go into the files and edit the name of the savegame, that will keep it as a save but remove ironman because it was edited. Didn't work, unfortunately. Thanks anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:For that matter, is there any historical example of a war fought ONLY to humiliate another country and solidify the ruler's control over his own country? Austro-Prussian War, 1866. Some territorial changes, but none at the expense of Austria itself, and fought almost entirely for the purposes of excluding Austria from German affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Didn't work, unfortunately. Thanks anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Chickpea Roar posted:Only if they've got a neighbouring province. I suspect the rival cb could lead to some exploitish war declarations if you could take land with it. Especially in the new world. If you can't core it then you can't demand it anyway. So it's not like Austria is going to be able to take a bunch of Russian land through a Humiliate Rival CB unless they happen to share a border.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
so if your stability is at -3 and you reject a peace offer you're forced to take it?? that's some nice bullshit right there
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Yeah, they do something similar in Stellaris but it's especially bad in EU4 since there's literally a "war exhaustion" mechanic they could be using instead. Like +5 war exhaustion or something how about for each unreasonable peace offer rejection. I don't have a problem with the major mechanics they're adding in EU4 these days but the game is really starting to feel bandaided together with all these little changes to fix exploits that really weren't that major anyway. And how it still literally relaunches the entire loving game without so much as an "are you sure" prompt. After playing HOI4 these things in EU4 have started to really bother me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Isn't it the case that if the peace offer is one that you would take a stab hit for rejecting, and since you can't take any further stability hits, it auto-accepts? I encountered that for the first time in my recent Serbia game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, they do something similar in Stellaris but it's especially bad in EU4 since there's literally a "war exhaustion" mechanic they could be using instead. Like +5 war exhaustion or something how about for each unreasonable peace offer rejection. Couldn't agree more. It feels like since the Hundred Years War and Byzantium vs. Ottomans scenarios became no longer relevant for testing exploits, nations with unusually high expansion potential in the hands of a skilled player were targeted for further "exploit" fixing. An awful lot of the interesting tags have been shackled one way or another. Why was Ethiopia changed to Indian tech? Orissa's potential for a fast start destroyed? Merchant republics effectively limited to a tiny size without any way to interact with the limit to make it an actual mechanic? The systems of EU4 are flat out better than ever but the scenario is slowly being flattened in the name of - what - MP balance that is relevant for a tiny percentage of the player base?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
IIRC the "mandatory peace for generous offer at -3 stability" mechanic dates back to at least EU3....
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Couldn't agree more. It feels like since the Hundred Years War and Byzantium vs. Ottomans scenarios became no longer relevant for testing exploits, nations with unusually high expansion potential in the hands of a skilled player were targeted for further "exploit" fixing. An awful lot of the interesting tags have been shackled one way or another. Why was Ethiopia changed to Indian tech? Orissa's potential for a fast start destroyed? Merchant republics effectively limited to a tiny size without any way to interact with the limit to make it an actual mechanic? The systems of EU4 are flat out better than ever but the scenario is slowly being flattened in the name of - what - MP balance that is relevant for a tiny percentage of the player base? um I'm sorry this is Europa Univeralis European nations must take their rightful place, ahistorically conquering and colonizing the world centuries before they did in real life. It's only fair, sorry non-Euros.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
seriouspost the updates in the last few months have been pretty terrible, sorry Paradox I love you. Mare Nostrum and associated patches have mostly been a feature bloat poo poo-sandwich, at this point I wish they'd just release an EU4 Utlimate pack and move on to the next game in the series. The devs have been adding a lot of mechanics with zero gameplay value which only serve to bloat the UI and occupy player attention. Sailors? Completely irrelevant as a mechanic except in a few edge cases. Corruption? gently caress you. A terrible balance mechanic that occupies my UI space and attention whlle contributing nothing interesting. Why does corruption exist? No one knows. Oh wait, it's to penalize non-European nations, that justifies it. Non-European primitives deserve it. (most of the last few patches have been pointless feature bloat) It's still a very good game and I will sink tens of hours into it, but the value of EU4 expansions and patches has nosedived recently. It's a pretty well-polished game, stop fattening this cow it's not worthwhile. It's just my personal opinion but most all of the changes in the last six months have been some combination of feature bloat and super lame. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Yeah Corruption is not a well-designed mechanic. The idea of modeling corruption somehow seems reasonable to me, but as-is the mechanic just punishes non-Western nations. It's bad and also kind of racist The proposed technology changes sound like a step in the right direction, though, and could very well solve the problem
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Players want more cool scenarios and viable playthrough options, not stupid and unnecessary constraining features and UI bloat. If you really must have Corruption, there is no reason it isn't treated like inflation and relegated to the economy tab.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
The term feature bloat has lost all meaning to me from reading various paradox threads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The term feature bloat has lost all meaning to me from reading various paradox threads. stuff that adds nothing interesting to gameplay while demanding player attention (Corruption) or consuming UI real estate for no good reason (Sailors) example: why do Sailors need their own UI element? they are completely irrelevant except in a few edge cases. 99% of the time they are a total non concern so why are they occupying my already extremely busy UI? edit: like, I have no problem with the idea of naval manpower. Sailors are a really terrible abstraction for it and only relevant in a very few cases. Most naval powers can completely ignore their Sailor value, it doesn't matter, so why is it a thing? Land manpower is very important and something I pay close attention to, but sailors are irrelevant. I would define feature bloat as: 1) occupying UI space or player attention 2) while being mostly irrelevant to gameplay edit2: Ethiopia is a good example. Usually your navy is limited by forcelimits, cash, or construction time (ports building simultaneously). As Ethiopia you are in the fringe case of recently acquiring coastline, so your navy is sailor-limited instead of gold or build-time limited. That is the only case in which Sailors are relevant, so why are they hogging UI space and ideas? To summarize: it doesn't actually matter, so why am I forced to pay attention to it? It's busywork. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
I understood the first time you posted it. Also everything is busywork as it too is a loosely defined term. Edit: I guess if you want details sailors is fine, it does need some balancing but the fact boats were unlimited was dumb. Corruption is bad and also needs balancing but I don't think it's fixable. Neither are feature bloat. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I understood the first time you posted it. guess we hadn't play videogames ever, it's all busywork my point is that the last few patches have added UI elements and mechanical complexity with zero player "fun" or interesting historical narrative I don't really feel like arguing further since we seem to vaguely agree and videogame arguments are dumb, but my basic feeling is this: Corruption and Sailors are totally unnecessary and stupid. Ask yourself, how would the game fare without those mechanics? It would have less fiddly micromanagement, oh no. Edit: sailors is fine as an overall concept, I'm down with naval manpower. In its current implementation it absolutely does not matter and sailor bonuses are laughably bad. It needs rebalanced. Most of my bitching about Corruption will likely be overcome by the new tech and westernization system. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
I'll just be sad and somewhat miffed, if the upcoming "prolonged peace boosts prosperity" mechanic in CK2 won't be used for EU4. It sounds like a perfect fix for the blobbing issue!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:stuff that adds nothing interesting to gameplay while demanding player attention (Corruption) or consuming UI real estate for no good reason (Sailors) But like you said, 99% of the time you're not forced to pay attention to sailors because they're basically irrelevant. It's bad to add irrelevant things to the UI, that's a totally fair complaint. I don't think that it's justifiable to call sailors "busywork" Corruption is roughly as relevant and as busy-worky as Stability, or managing war exhaustion, or many of the other gameplay systems that actually do have some effect pretty frequently. Corruption doesn't have an irrelevance or busy work problem, its probablem is that it punishes games pretty asymmetrically in a weird Euro-favoritist way. Estates would feel like busywork to someone who doesn't want to spend time optimizing things in order to take advantage of the bonuses, since you have to keep giving estates territory whenever you core a bunch of land. That sucks. I don't mind them personally but I totally get why others do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
I like corruption because it gives me tons of great events for keeping it at 0. Granted, I play fairly slowly so it has never ever been a problem for me, despite playing most of the time in Africa. Only time I ever go to 1+ corruption is due to an event choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:um I'm sorry this is Europa Univeralis It's actually the exact time they conquered most of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Two things: 1) I wonder if Paradox could model the American native nations a bit better. I have been reading up on this lately and there was possibly as much as 60 million natives before the 1500s (maybe as many as 120 million?) and then there was a first plaque that eliminated 95 percent of the population. I wonder if you can create a scenario around that. 2) I have tried a few runs as Savoy and oooh boy does the AI not want you to get too much territory too quick because both times I tried being Savoy, I grabbed land from Milan (and then Burgandy) and alliances form against you real quick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Italy is a slow start because, maybe barring forming the Netherlands, you'll accrue aggressive expansion faster than anywhere else. Especially if everything is still in the HRE
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
My opinion on the feature bloat of EU4 is that I spent a year without playing and when I came back to it I found a lot of the new stuff made the experience more annoying than interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I like corruption, it adds weight to a bunch of decisions since it makes you weigh longer term consequences. I think it should be more granular though. Right now even having 2 or 3 corruption can be pretty painful, which is kinda stupid when it goes all the way up to 100. I think the first 20 or 30 levels should be relatively consequence free, so you don't always feel like you have to be paying it down or you're hosed. I do agree with some other posts about it I've seen that say corruption isn't a good name for it considering what it does though. Vibrant expansionist countries were the ones that would be the least corrupt. It's the sedentary already established ones that had that issue more. And yeah it is a bit needless for it to be in the main UI bar. Overextension has more of a case to be there. also I agree that an analogue to CK2's prosperity system in EU4 as a genuine reward for being peaceful (rather than there only being penalties to being expansionist) would be very good
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:My opinion on the feature bloat of EU4 is that I spent a year without playing and when I came back to it I found a lot of the new stuff made the experience more annoying than interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
There is only one feature I would call bad so maybe you just don't like EU itself anymore????
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:20
|
|