|
Your posting is easily the worst thing about EU4 but corruption isn't too far behind. It would be one thing if it existed solely to slow expansion but it also punishes you for a bunch of unrelated things. It just feels like an arbitrary mechanic to gently caress the player over instead of actually adding a meaningful interaction.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
I disagree with the first but agree with the second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Taken singly there's nothing outstandingly bad that they've added. Its just sort of discouraging that the development path is to address a small contingent of veterans asking for more things to click on per year by tacking on somewhat gutsless and easily maximized management systems. Its like I personally don't need these extra brakes on the time flow, I already play at way too slow of a speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Yeah I agree with that. Personally I like the new mechanics just fine but that's probably just because I happen to be a certain kind of player, and one of these days they're gonna add stuff that I hate too. It's not the mechanics themselves so much as the trajectory the development is taking that's the worrying part. Hopefully if nothing else they'll add the customization menu like they're adding to CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
My biggest beef is that none of the features are tied together in any meaningful way, but that's really just a victim of the a la carte DLC system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
I haven't played for a while, and now I'm kind of intimidated because so many new mechanics have piled up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Yeah some of you guys are definitely exaggerating the badness of Corruption, like it's not a good addition by any means but most of the time it makes no difference whatsoever. It's not like you don't know how to prevent yourself from gaining it at this point, so really it's just forcing you to keep your Admin and Diplo tech a little closer to your Military tech and to not take territory before you can core it (which, be honest, you were doing this one anyway)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah some of you guys are definitely exaggerating the badness of Corruption, like it's not a good addition by any means but most of the time it makes no difference whatsoever. It's not like you don't know how to prevent yourself from gaining it at this point, so really it's just forcing you to keep your Admin and Diplo tech a little closer to your Military tech and to not take territory before you can core it (which, be honest, you were doing this one anyway) Do you play non european countries?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Eu is kind of built around loving over non Europeans arbitrarily so that isn't new.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
I mean, the whole game is kind of engineered to drive the world towards what happened in real life - Europe basically dominating the planet. This isn't a 4x game and different starts are not equivalent or fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
How is corruption skewed against non-Western countries? I'm playing an Aragon game and an Ethiopia game after finishing Orissa and corruption in all three cases is only a problem if I expand too fast. It's a bit duplicative of stability but otherwise inoffensive. (I got this game after corruption was introduced, so I'm ignorant)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Elman posted:Do you play non european countries? Yes, more often than European countries in fact. I recently completed a Japan game, I'm in the middle of an Oman game, and I'm still repeatedly trying for an Aztec world conquest. Corruption has not been a serious concern in these games; in every case it just means that my income is slightly lower while provinces are being cored or after certain events Elotana posted:How is corruption skewed against non-Western countries? I'm playing an Aragon game and an Ethiopia game after finishing Orissa and corruption in all three cases is only a problem if I expand too fast. It's a bit duplicative of stability but otherwise inoffensive. There are a few reasons If you plan to Westernize, then you need your Western neighbor to have a much higher tech level, and technologies are much cheaper after westernization, so a common strategy is to keep pumping Military tech (because of its supreme importance) but to allow Admin and Diplo techs to lag behind. This strategy causes Corruption to rise, so it's basically a punishment for a common non-Western tactic. There are also a lot of non-Western starts with poor religious unity, or that lead into poor religious unity, which also raises corruption. Take basically any country that starts as Ibadi; nearly every province that you take will decrease religious unity unless you take some serious steps to improve tolerance of heathens/heretics. Europeans don't have this problem as much, starting off as mostly Catholic surrounded by other Catholics until the reformation begins to happen Being ahead-of-time in either Admin or Diplo tech also gives a slight reduction/year in Corruption, and it's a lot easier to stay ahead-of-time as a European nation. But if you're effectively managing your income then Corruption isn't such a big deal. It can be a game-killer in some circumstances to be sure and hopefully the proposed changes to tech groups will alleviate some of these issues, but the religious unity thing is still going to make some countries simply lovely to play as while Corruption is still a mechanic QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Elotana posted:How is corruption skewed against non-Western countries? I'm playing an Aragon game and an Ethiopia game after finishing Orissa and corruption in all three cases is only a problem if I expand too fast. It's a bit duplicative of stability but otherwise inoffensive. It used to be a common strategy for non-western countries to skimp on diplo and admin tech (esp. diplo) in favor of expanding, while keeping military tech up to date as possible. Corruption makes this much harder (if not completely impractical), which makes non-western countries weaker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:I mean, the whole game is kind of engineered to drive the world towards what happened in real life - Europe basically dominating the planet. This isn't a 4x game and different starts are not equivalent or fair. Sure, but it used to be truly absurd in EU3 - Europe dominating in the 1600s in a way that was only achieved in the 1800s in real life. EU4 has consistently moved further and further away from that by empowering the rest of the world in comparison to Europe, representing the historical truth that Europe didn't really pull ahead enough to fully control places like India and China, well, ever, other than on paper, and that while technology was an advantage it was rarely as overwhelming as the average person believes. Moving back the other way was a troubling trend in recent patches, but the upcoming tech overhaul might make all of that make sense. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
For a time it was steppe hordes that you could totally dominate with but Paradox didn't like that so they nerfed them, can't let any non-European powers have a perceived advantage
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:For a time it was steppe hordes that you could totally dominate with but Paradox didn't like that so they nerfed them, can't let any non-European powers have a perceived advantage this sort of passive-aggressive whining is not a good look. eu4's period was one in which the steppe hordes went from being major powers (conquering the ming!) to being essentially irrelevant. hordes are good right now, but it's no longer trivial to reverse the tides of history and bring about the reign of Neo-Genghis Khan. you still can, it's just not as easy. which seems fine to me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:I mean, the whole game is kind of engineered to drive the world towards what happened in real life - Europe basically dominating the planet. This isn't a 4x game and different starts are not equivalent or fair. Yeah that is the problem, it pushes a narrative which isn't historical nor fun to play. They do seem to be trying to fix it but it could end up like divine wind and no one wants that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Divine Wind, the expansion that produced the most ridiculously powerful non-western nations in the series?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Are there any recommended lets play type play throughs for newbies to read? There's ones in the OP of the CK2 thread and the LP archive but I couldnt see anything listed for EU4. Ive done all the tutorials the game offers and tried to play a recommended beginner start but want to see how some people who know what they are doing play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Lethemonster posted:Are there any recommended lets play type play throughs for newbies to read? There's ones in the OP of the CK2 thread and the LP archive but I couldnt see anything listed for EU4. Quill18 made a short tutorial LP with Castile a couple of months back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I'm trying to track down a mod that completely overhauls the development in the game, making Europe more destitute and Eurasia richer, and makes increasing development reliant on good policy instead of using monarch points. Can't remember the name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Drakhoran posted:Quill18 made a short tutorial LP with Castile a couple of months back. I think the keyword was read. There are lots of YouTube LPs but reading is so much more preferable (and amenable to doing while on public transport).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:this sort of passive-aggressive whining is not a good look. But it's not like Paradox is just making a pure History Simulator or something, letting players do imbalanced things with the game mechanics is the whole point of playing these games instead of just reading a whole bunch of history books. If Paradox wasn't interested in allowing ahistorical outcomes then there wouldn't be achievements for doing things like invading GB as India
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I think the keyword was read. There are lots of YouTube LPs but reading is so much more preferable (and amenable to doing while on public transport). Nobody's going to take the time and effort to write a quality tutorial when they could just ramble over some gameplay footage for a few hours. Like and subscribe!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Divine Wind, the expansion that produced the most ridiculously powerful non-western nations in the series? All I remembering is it made Hordes a chore to actually play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Nobody's going to take the time and effort to write a quality tutorial when they could just ramble over some gameplay footage for a few hours. Like and subscribe! Mostly true and I do, but the CK2 LP thread stands as a beacon of light against this. It's a shame there isn't a similar EU4 one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Mostly true and I do, but the CK2 LP thread stands as a beacon of light against this. It's a shame there isn't a similar EU4 one. It sounds like you already know what you have to do
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
It's all Kersch's fault for being lazy
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It sounds like you already know what you have to do If only mate. I own all the headline paradox games (CK2, EU4, HOI4, Stellaris) as a monument to my lack of commitment to computer gaming. The only games I actually play are DCSS and, recently, Brogue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But it's not like Paradox is just making a pure History Simulator or something, letting players do imbalanced things with the game mechanics is the whole point of playing these games instead of just reading a whole bunch of history books. If Paradox wasn't interested in allowing ahistorical outcomes then there wouldn't be achievements for doing things like invading GB as India The whole point of playing these games is taking a situation that's set up to produce a very vaguely historical outcome and twisting it to your own desires. To take a nation and say, "how can I do better than these people did historically?" I agree with you completely that one of the great thrills of EU4 is in taking one of the nations that didn't do well historically and to reverse that - to conquer GB as india or whatever. But there's nothing to that if those nations aren't disadvantaged. Then it's just choosing your color on the map! The fun comes in the challenge that comes from starting with a handicap, and overcoming it. Compare playing the Aztec in Civilization, versus in EU4. In Civ, the Aztecs are, very roughly, balanced. There's nothing special about winning with them. But if you can conquer your way into Europe as the Aztecs in EU4 - hell, if you can survive to the end of the game! - that's a real achievement in its own right. Jazerus notes, correctly, that it's possible to go overboard with handicapping non-Europeans, but the fact that there is a handicap at all - that's a strength of the game, not a weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Non-Europeans were already heavily handicapped though. Corruption wasn't a necessary system Or if you're talking about hordes, I was being facetious; hordes were kind of ridiculous during at Cossacks launch. The real problem that I had with the nerfs was the way in which they changed the Horde shock bonus; the home territory bonus was really cool, but instead they replaced it with a bonus that just generically makes your units better on flat terrain and worse on non-flat terrain. This didn't really change the balance at all, it just made horde wars (and especially horde vs horde wars) less interesting. The nerf to razing was needed, but I think that the measures were too drastic
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Any idea why my annexation is making no progress here? It just stopped working halfway thru the league war, after I dropped to like -400 diplo points annexing.  My diplo points are going up and my dip rep is over +3, so I'm not sure what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Fun thing happened in my Castille game just now. I went to colonise the Caribbean only to find Portugal had beaten me to it by grabbing St. Martin. They were then stupid enough to get involved in a war between my ally, France, and England. Can you say "yoink"? Edit: They didn't even seem to care about it after the war because they immediately re-allied with me paint dry fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Pretty sure your diplo point balance has to be positive for annexation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Elman posted:Any idea why my annexation is making no progress here? It just stopped working halfway thru the league war, after I dropped to like -400 diplo points annexing. "Needs at least 1 {diplo point} to progress" means just that. You won't get annexation progress until you get back into positives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Whoops, I thought that meant you needed at least 1 diplo rep to make progress, for some reason. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
So after over a century of diplomatic efforts, I finally managed to bring England into our Infidels Coalition (Scandinavia - Bohemia - Netherlands - Ottomans) against the Holy Alliance (France - Spain - Russia - Poland). Less than ten years later, they suddenly decide it would be a fantastic idea to: 1) declare an aggressive war on France 2) while France and all its allies are at zero war exhaustion 3) while having no allies to call except myself and a couple of OPMs 4) while being in the middle of the freakin' Civil War and at -1 stab with high WE themselves gently caress you, England. I've never taken a -25 prestige hit with such pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Quick question: I've just conquered Brunei and Makassar because I got a mission and hey why not. What's the best way to manage your East Indies possessions as a Western power - just keep it all myself (I can afford the ADM to core it all if necessary), which is what the other colonial powers seem to be doing, or release as protectorate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Quick question: I've just conquered Brunei and Makassar because I got a mission and hey why not. What's the best way to manage your East Indies possessions as a Western power - just keep it all myself (I can afford the ADM to core it all if necessary), which is what the other colonial powers seem to be doing, or release as protectorate? Core it and set up a Trade Company
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
I am playing as Portugal and took a huge part of the Caribbean, but my Cuban and Dominican possessions became a colonial nation and now they are agitating to leave completely with taxes at 20%. Is there a way to prevent colonial nations from happening? Edit: or is colonial nations are good, could someone explain the trade nodes. So if I have a merchant in the Ivory Coast, I should move that trade to the Caribbean and have the Caribbean trade moving to my merchant in Seville? And then as I move east, do I have a merchant in say Goa, move trade to Indus, then down and around the tip of Africa? I am a bit confused on how to move and collect trade. Dirk Pitt fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 06:11
|
|
