|
Pellisworth posted:how many people actually play games to a late enough year to have the revolution trigger  One of the rites of man is to mock the wrights of another man. 
Poil fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 8, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Poil posted:I can't even reach that point anymore since the game bogs down and lags my poor computer into being unplayable a hundred years before the game ends (I used to be able to with no problems, and my specs has, unfortunately, not changed). What's even the point of it anyway? 1792 start? Lol. That's barely time for more than one war with the 25 year truces. Maybe it will tie in with some special USA government too. Lord Hypnostache posted:I often play late enough for it to have a possibility of triggering, only to notice that all countries are too stable for a revolution to start. Or it starts in some tiny country that gets crushed immediately. It's not that the Revolutionary factions seem bad or anything, I just would prefer Paradox spend their time on cool new government stuff for underplayed nations or that are more likely to see a lot of gameplay. Unless I'm mistaken the factions are only going to affect one nation in the last ~70 years of the game. Edit: I would really like to see a bunch of achievements that allow or are specific to starting dates other than 1444. There isn't much incentive to start any time other than 1444, that way you have maximum player control of the nation (you'll most likely end up way stronger playing 1444-1600 than starting at 1600) and all but the USA achievement requires a 1444 start iirc. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
let's say i want to start a joke game as navarra, is it doable or am i doomed to fail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Mans posted:let's say i want to start a joke game as navarra, is it doable or am i doomed to fail? restart until France and Castile rival each other, even better if Aragon also rivals Castile ally France and Aragon, sit around until you get enough Favors to attack Castile and be opportunistic with any wars you get dragged into AI Castile is a weak start right now
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Are there any suggestions for a mod that slow colonization in terms of territorial gains, but maybe balances it out by making new colony provinces more valuable in terms of financial benefits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Mans posted:let's say i want to start a joke game as navarra, is it doable or am i doomed to fail? Try and make alliances so you don't die. Tech up until you get explorers and enough colonial range to make it to the Caribbean. Escape to there, switch your capital to Jamaica or something, sell Navarra to Castile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
I've also never actually encountered the Revolution after playing about 4 games into the 1800s. One of those was Ottomans though so maybe that one shouldn't count? I don't actually know anything about the Revolution These kinds of changes feel like they should go into a new Victoria game, preferably with a start right around 1750 or so
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Part of me thinks they should just excise the last 50 years and pour their effort into what is now early and mid game. I don't think we'd hear too many complaints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
drat, does anyone see a way out of this? I'm going for Luck of the Irish. I didn't do the full exodus and just tried to colony up which I think was a mistake. I managed to only get the Western few provinces in Ireland. I had the central one, but England declared war on me way too early and took it. Scotland got eaten by the UK (they decided to unally me because I wasn't paying attention and had too many identical vital interest provinces), and now my only ally is France. France is not doing super well this game, and nobody else in Europe will ally me either due to distance or army size. I went Exploration/Expansion/Quantity. I've had an awful, awful ruler for almost 100 years and am horribly behind on tech. Ahead on diplo, about 2 levels behind on Mil and one on Adm, the second Mil level I'm behind on is a tactics level. England's allies are Savoy, who managed to blob a bit, Austria, and Augsburg/Bavaria (who are OPMs). Savoy+Austria are both, individually, almost as strong as France. Together they've repeatedly crushed France. England only has land on Ireland, their main island, and a handful of colonies. I'm pretty much the dominant power in the new world with a colonial nation in all the major NA regions, containing all the estuaries/important centers and most of the high development provinces. Still, I have 16 force limit and am a tactics level behind. Due to the location of England's alliances, I can't do any war tricks (unless I can get someone to renege on a loan, but nobody wants one). I also just got over like 100 years of colonial development/tons of mercs in my last defensive war debt. It seems like my only hope is to try and get my tactics even, drastically overbuild my force limit, and hope France at least gives Savoy and Austria enough War exhaustion I can white peace them before they try to land troops, then just hold my claims in Ireland across the strait. I'd be able to win if I could coordinate my little colonial nation buddies, but alas, they're AI across the Atlantic and barely understand the concept of transatlantic voyages. And even if they could figure it out, they'd probably do something dumb like try to naval invade Austria. Not to mention that whole "England's navy" issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
While catching up on the Politically-loaded map thread I came across this post that I felt I had to share here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3531615&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=889#post463876326 Interesting stuff about the Azores, old maps and who first set their foot there. Obviously take it with a grain of salt. Poil fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:It's not that the Revolutionary factions seem bad or anything, I just would prefer Paradox spend their time on cool new government stuff for underplayed nations or that are more likely to see a lot of gameplay. Unless I'm mistaken the factions are only going to affect one nation in the last ~70 years of the game. I do play into the late 1700s because I'm bad and it takes me that long to get rolling but my biggest problem with the revolution is that by the time it can fire, you've run your country into the ground, let the rebels take over, and then paid off your hilarious debt, it's like 1790 and there's no time to get your ridiculous military bonuses running. I'd like to see it able to trigger as early as 1700 and have less restrictive requirements, especially if player- initiated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Part of me thinks they should just excise the last 50 years and pour their effort into what is now early and mid game. I don't think we'd hear too many complaints. It'd bring about by far the biggest shitstorm in the history of Paradox games, that's definitely not the way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:It'd bring about by far the biggest shitstorm in the history of Paradox games, that's definitely not the way to go about it. Why? I think the vast majority of players are starting at 1444 and few playthroughs last beyond 1750 when the Revolution would fire If Paradox eliminated the last 50 years of gameplay no one would give a poo poo. I have hundreds of hours played and I can count on one hand the number of times I've played past 1700 because the current system encourages early/mid game. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Somebody has never read anything on the pdx forums before clearly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Somebody has never read anything on the pdx forums before clearly. Elaborate please? For those many of us who don't bother to dip into the hilarious and reprehensible crowd of nationalists and fascists who represent much of the Paradox forums posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
The majority of people who play paradox games will flip poo poo at anything and everything even when it's free content being added. If you tried to remove part of a product they already paid for they would implode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:The majority of people who play paradox games will flip poo poo at anything and everything even when it's free content being added. Huh? I'm not complaining about the game in a broad sense, I still spend a few hours a week playing despite having played EU3 and EU4 + expansions since launch. gently caress yeah I'd be justifiably mad if they removed something I paid for, but I can't think of an example of that happening, what in the world are you talking about? e: I mean if you're critiquing the pdx forums that's all good, whatever, but it doesn't really apply here? Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Huh? I'm not complaining about the game in a broad sense, I still spend a few hours a week playing despite having played EU3 and EU4 + expansions since launch. he's....the conversation is about the guy saying paradox should remove the last 50 years of the game. that's what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Why? I think the vast majority of players are starting at 1444 and few playthroughs last beyond 1750 when the Revolution would fire Aside from the fact that it'd screw over everyone who does play their games to the end, it'd happen because people really, really don't like it when content is cut from a product they've already paid for, especially such a sizeable chunk like that. Whether or not they reach it with any regularity is pretty irrelevant. I get what you're saying, but on a broader scale I feel like you almost have to be a literal space alien with no idea how humans work to legitimately think that nobody would mind a move like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting they chop off the last 50 years of gameplay, but rather that it's really unimportant to most players and why are they spending resources fleshing it out given most/all achievements require a 1444 start? I get that the upcoming DLC is Rights of Man which ties into the French Revolution but it's so late in the game and the even fires so rarely it's not significant. I'm questioning the gameplay significance of tweaking Revolution mechanics when it's such a tiny slice of the game which most players never see or bother with. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
I'd be annoyed because it's 50 years less time you have to get the tougher achievements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
The game starts in 1444 and most achievements require that. It ends in ~1820, nearly 400 years later. Why are they spending effort on mechanics that affect the last 50 years or so (1/8 of the time period)? It's thematic with Rights of Man but inconsequential to most playthroughs. That's my beef, I would rather Paradox deliver expansions which open up many hours of cool new gameplay with nations I haven't tried before rather than mechanics very specific to a narrow time period late in the game which might not even happen due to narrow requirements. e: I guess I feel like DLC/patch fatigue is setting in with long-time players and there just isn't that much more gameplay to be had. We're ready for EU5 and a huge overhaul, small DLCs which only slightly affect gameplay are kinda "meh" at this point. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
I mean, look at the paid portions of Mare Nostrum. Tell me what exactly that contributed to your gameplay experience? It's diminishing returns on DLCs and we're getting to the point where there's so much content and mechanics that the DLCs Paradox are releasing are almost irrelevant. Not to be a dick but at this point I don't care much about DLCs/expansions because they only slightly tweak the base gameplay and I'm ready for something new.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I'm not suggesting they chop off the last 50 years of gameplay, but rather that it's really unimportant to most players and why are they spending resources fleshing it out given most/all achievements require a 1444 start? Are you following some completely different discussion or something? Of course it's unimportant to most players, but my reply was solely to the claim that "If they cut the last 50 years nobody would mind" which is total nonsense and that's what you responded to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Not to be a dick but at this point I don't care much about DLCs/expansions because they only slightly tweak the base gameplay and I'm ready for something new. You know there are other games right
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:You know there are other games right ... yes? I've been spending a lot less time on EU4 recently because it's rather stagnant. Mare Nostrum is a good example of a completely inconsequential expansion, it didn't affect my gameplay at all other than expanding the map in Africa. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Wow you sure are made about this one small aspect of a paid expansion that hasn't even been released yet
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Wow you sure are made about this one small aspect of a paid expansion that hasn't even been released yet im very made, so made I've bought all the previous expansions on release e: please forgive me for not being all that enthused about paying for the ninth expansion which adds tiny gameplay changes to a game that's been out for going on four years Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
So don't buy it then Maybe use that money to buy some anti-anxiety medication instead
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
I don't think you guys are even disagreeing on anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
I play until 1820 unless the game is a complete poo poo show. I bet most players do, even if it isn't most players in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
I've been doing it more lately, now I've been trying to do achievements. I don't think they're running out of ideas at all. I'm the most hyped I've been for this expansion I've been since Art of War, it's completely game changing. Sounds like you just have to take a break for a while Pellisworth, imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
I think removing tech penalties just for having a culture with brown skin is my favourite part of the upcomming expansion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I'd gladly sacrifice the last 50 years of EU4 gameplay if they started supporting MotE again. There is much fun to be had between 1765 and 1820 , but very few good games to have that fun with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Actually, I think if they made getting revolutions to fire, or made them more common, it would add interest to the late game, and might cause people to play to the end. I tend to play to the end. I tend to never go above speed 3 either, so my games take a long, long time. It is OK though, it is how I like to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I think EU5 should end in like 1775 and they can make MotE into a bigger spanning game to bridge the gap between EU and Victoria, and let Victoria run up to the beginning of WWII. Then they can meld them all together into one gigantic game spanning 763 to 1953
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think EU5 should end in like 1775 and they can make MotE into a bigger spanning game to bridge the gap between EU and Victoria, and let Victoria run up to the beginning of WWII. Trying to cram the American war of independence and the Napoleonic Wars into EU always seemed like a bad idea to me, though I can see conceptually why a game about the rise and development of colonialism and imperialism should include those events.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I play until 1820 unless the game is a complete poo poo show. Yeah I've always found the last 50 years to kind of be the climax to a building behemoth that's been ramping up all game. Like 1444-1760 is when you prepare your empire for the imperialism wars and the gloves come off and you just conquer as much as possible right at the end. Without playing to the end it's like sex with no orgasm. Although I agree that EU5 should run to the mid 18th c and the wars of imperialism/revolution (seven years war, partition of Poland, American/French revolutions and Napoleonic wars) should be its own game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Just finished my Meissner Porcelain -> A Fine Goosestep run. Saxony start is surprisingly tricky, or maybe my first couple starts were just tough, but the HRE thunderdome is pretty unforgiving if you're weak for a second. The biggest boon you can get is marrying Burgundy and hoping for the inheritance. I would almost recommend restarting the first 50 years until you get it, just to make things easier. Then make sure to move your capital there (I'd pick somewhere in the English Channel node) and you won't have to worry about the Dutch revolts. I tried to ally Austria, but the only time they went friendly was when I was in the middle of a war, and they became indifferent when it was over, so Bohemia was my first main ally along with Poland, and when I got the inheritance I allied France and Spain. Oh, and I vassalized Hungary when they ended up as one province country and rebuilt them on the blood of Poland. One other interesting thing is that I had the Teutonic Order as a vassal for most of the game, who reformed into Prussia and became my unstoppable pitbull while I was off in Asia securing the porcelain. Ming hadn't lost the mandate of heaven when I got there, but I had a big enough tech advantage that I was able to pick them apart. Near the end of the game (before I was Prussia) I got a PU over a very strong Spain, but had to face Mega-Poland and France. Saxony has decent ideas and I had full Offensive/Defensive so I was able to win soundly.  My Wu snake(Uw?):  I also won the league war for the protestant side (required to be protestant or reformed to become Prussia as Saxony) and became emperor. I just ignored the HRE mechanics and was the only elector along with Bohemia, so secured the HRE throne forever along with the nice bonuses that provides. edit: I haven't really mentioned my giant colonial empire, but I had most of everything, other than Louisiana which Sweden of all people had the entirety of. Anything I didn't have, Spain, had, which essentially was mine. I was pulling 111 gold per month from the English Channel node. Tsyni fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Sokrateez posted:Yeah I've always found the last 50 years to kind of be the climax to a building behemoth that's been ramping up all game. Like 1444-1760 is when you prepare your empire for the imperialism wars and the gloves come off and you just conquer as much as possible right at the end. Without playing to the end it's like sex with no orgasm. Clearly Victoria 3 should just start at 1750.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:26
|
|
