|
Ming can have a bit of difficulty projecting force into India even if they have numerical advantage (almost always) and tech parity (most of the time). I have to say I'm not entirely sure why. Like if you declare on some minor tributary there you'll soon get beaten up. For all that, they don't always succeed fighting Indian AI nations the way they invariably do against AI Manchus/Indochinese/central Asian nomads. The simplest explanation is just that any Indian nation fighting Ming will probably be bigger than any other nation Ming is likely to fight except Russia. Also, Ming don't get especially great military bonuses over the major Indian states, they're not super likely to pick strong military idea groups in my experience, and the straight routes from China to India go through low dev mountain and jungle provinces many of which can be easily choked off with forts. So my supposition is, especially if they have to divide their forces, they get really bogged down trying to break into India with the attrition and constantly getting sieges relieved with a terrain penalty, and have to waste a bunch of money on mercs to reinforce.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
I dub the last two pages "ideas to make the game less fun because we're history nerds who don't realize this is a game and not a sim". Also gently caress Ming, an other 30ish hour save lost to that lovely mechanic, for some reason they hate me enough that I can't even cheese this bullshit by becoming a tributary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Jabor posted:just have a "split army by origin" button similar to how you have a button that splits mercs vs. regular troops that helps sorting out which armies belong to their respective regions but this still sounds like an enormous pain in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I dub the last two pages "ideas to make the game less fun because we're history nerds who don't realize this is a game and not a sim". It might be a shocking realisation but being able to project force to any part of the globe after like 1500 makes the game a lot easier because the AI sure as gently caress doesn't do it. The same with being able to just conquer your way to world domination as long as you're faster than the AI. The poo poo game mechanics exist because Johan likes his office MP games and that's the only context where these are actually acceptable from a game design perspective. It's not quite so bad since the AI aggression got increased a few patches ago, before then you could be the number 1 GP as virtually any start by about 1500 because no AIs would actually take any territory. skasion posted:Ming can have a bit of difficulty projecting force into India even if they have numerical advantage (almost always) and tech parity (most of the time). I have to say I'm not entirely sure why. Like if you declare on some minor tributary there you'll soon get beaten up. For all that, they don't always succeed fighting Indian AI nations the way they invariably do against AI Manchus/Indochinese/central Asian nomads. The simplest explanation is just that any Indian nation fighting Ming will probably be bigger than any other nation Ming is likely to fight except Russia. Also, Ming don't get especially great military bonuses over the major Indian states, they're not super likely to pick strong military idea groups in my experience, and the straight routes from China to India go through low dev mountain and jungle provinces many of which can be easily choked off with forts. So my supposition is, especially if they have to divide their forces, they get really bogged down trying to break into India with the attrition and constantly getting sieges relieved with a terrain penalty, and have to waste a bunch of money on mercs to reinforce. India is loving rich, the combined development of the entire India region is a bit higher than Ming's starting development IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
While I'm down with the colonial troop idea I wonder how you could make it work in practice. If you do it by continent then if you're an Iberian you can't send your troops across Gibraltar and if you're in the Middle East you straddle three continents. At the same time, if you have a contiguous empire from the Balkans to India how do you determine Sepoy status? If you're Manchu and you invaded Europe the long way around do you get white colonials?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
In a hypothetical EU5, I'd like to see a refinement of Stellaris' sector mechanic and HOI4's battle plan and production mechanics, where the farther away things get from your core land (as in your most important/fundamental provinces, not land that has cores), the less direct control you have over everything. To the point where with colonial or distant overseas territories you're more giving vague war goals and handling logistics and trusting the AI to handle the war for you. This means that as a player the game doesn't completely devolve into a micromanagey stomp and means that as your empire gets bigger you switch to a more macro game where you're building up your infrastructure to actually get troops and supplies to where you want to conquer. It also makes wars more asymmetric mechanically, where as a colonial power you're more trying to just grab land while focusing on important political and military matters at home whereas as a native fighting the indirectly controlled troops Portugal is shuffling around IS your micromanagement heavy war at home. The throughput and logistics issues also mean natives get more of a fighting chance in the beginning that becomes more insurmountable as technology improves and the colonial powers get more established. It also provides some incentives to be friendly with at least SOME of the natives because they could provide significant local infrastructure bonuses before the colonial powers are fully established due to knowing the land/how to farm local crops/etc. Makes you extend the political game to colonial areas where regional powers were very much played against each other historically, whereas now it's mostly just sweeping them up with tiny stacks that may as well be stacks of doom. This could also provide incentives to play a small country who "builds tall" because you could focus on providing necessary infrastructure, logistics, and supply for larger nations, perhaps even being allowed to take direct control of some of their armies for them in overseas territories (sort of an abstraction of "we have a general on loan from Prussia"). Of course, I don't think you can make a world conquest interesting past a certain point without putting more effort into internal politics than I think is reasonable, but I think this way stops it from being QUITE so pause and micro heavy. It also serves as a soft-handicap to the player as an acknowledgement that the game simply can't beat a good player at the war game once they've reached a decent level of power (especially when expected to control hundreds of agents at once), and forcing the player to focus on how to tip the scales in providing support to two equally intelligent opponents (of course you can tweak how relatively smart the player and enemy AI is for difficulty balance). It may at least extend the window before that "I've won why am I even still playing this save" period hits. (To be honest, this system could work just as well for CK3 with some tweaking to give some more hand-off feudalism "why are my vassals idiots?" flavor, with character stats informing how smart or dumb the AI is. It kiiiinda already does this when you allow your vassals to declare outside wars, but not to this degree). Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Tbh I think any EU5 will happen on the day one of the devs figure out a more modular way to do trade + a way to shake up stability/coring or monarch points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
I'd love to see much more complexity and less direct involvement. Think MEIOU and Taxes with a helper and advisor AI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
The problem is entirely in the game's background as essentially a heavily iterated version of a game fairly similar to Risk, it's never had a hard break from its roots where you use your armies to conquer as much of the world as possible and that's what the game is actually about. Compare to CK or Victoria where the game's scope is obviously different - roleplaying and dynastic intrigue in CK or global domination through harnessing economics and politics in Victoria, rather than just by conquering the most poo poo. Though both games will still let you reach near-invicibility through conquest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I'd love to see much more complexity and less direct involvement. Think MEIOU and Taxes with a helper and advisor AI. RabidWeasel posted:The problem is entirely in the game's background as essentially a heavily iterated version of a game fairly similar to Risk, it's never had a hard break from its roots where you use your armies to conquer as much of the world as possible and that's what the game is actually about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The problem is entirely in the game's background as essentially a heavily iterated version of a game fairly similar to Risk, it's never had a hard break from its roots where you use your armies to conquer as much of the world as possible and that's what the game is actually about. I don't see how that's a problem at all. Yes, EU is about war; that's always been the primary focus, and that's good. That's what makes these games fun. Making the primary focus something other than war would be lame as hell. I don't want to play a renaissance politics simulator, I want to play a renaissance war game. This franchise has been about war and conquest from the start. Changing that now would be stupid as hell. A Buttery Pastry posted:Four words: First Person Grand Strategy. The game literally puts you in the shoes of a ruler, and you have to rely on your advisors, court, and family to give you the information you need to rule. Would really prevent EU5 from seeming like a stale rehash of EU4. That might make for an interesting game if executed correctly, but it would no longer be a Europa Universalis game. Perhaps they can take Crusader Kings further down that path instead. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Perhaps they can take Crusader Kings further down that path instead. that would certainly make the risk of getting your character blinded properly fearsome
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
War and conquest are fun and good but when war and conquest is actually really simple and in general, "winning" is really simple as any superpower of the time, you need more stuff to do in peacetime and that stuff needs to be more interesting. More Vicky 2, less Risk.RabidWeasel posted:The problem is entirely in the game's background as essentially a heavily iterated version of a game fairly similar to Risk, it's never had a hard break from its roots where you use your armies to conquer as much of the world as possible and that's what the game is actually about. Exactly this. EU4 is a more intelligent cookie clicker. You conquer more territory to conquer more territory to conquer more territory. It's got such a wonderful feedback loop which makes that feel so fun, but it never gets out of feeling like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I'm beginning to think that a lot of people in this thread actually want Vicky 3 and not EU5...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I'm beginning to think that a lot of people in this thread actually want Vicky 3 and not EU5...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I'm beginning to think that a lot of people in this thread actually want Vicky 3 and not EU5... The closer any of these series get to Vicky the better considering that was Paradox at their best, but without the UI and general user experience benefits of the later games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I don't see how that's a problem at all. Yes, EU is about war; that's always been the primary focus, and that's good. That's what makes these games fun. Making the primary focus something other than war would be lame as hell. I don't want to play a renaissance politics simulator, I want to play a renaissance war game. This franchise has been about war and conquest from the start. Changing that now would be stupid as hell. This seems like a pretty poor line of argument unless you think that EU4 as it currently stands is in a perfect state of balance between "can war constantly for entire duration of game and never stop conquering" and having to spend decades between wars rebuilding your strength. The main distinguishing factor between EU4 and the next closest game I can think of in design (various TW games or some hypergrog games) is that it's less focused on warfare. AnoHito posted:I'm beginning to think that a lot of people in this thread actually want Vicky 3 and not EU5... EU is conceptually by far the least ambitious game that Paradox makes but it has had massively more development time over the years so it's still the most fun to play unless you're really into the RP aspect of CK2. If Wiz keeps up the good poo poo Stellaris will probably overtake it some time next year though. Unless V3 gets released before then, obviously!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I'm beginning to think that a lot of people in this thread actually want Vicky 3 and not EU5...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I don't see how that's a problem at all. Yes, EU is about war; that's always been the primary focus, and that's good. That's what makes these games fun. Making the primary focus something other than war would be lame as hell. I don't want to play a renaissance politics simulator, I want to play a renaissance war game. This franchise has been about war and conquest from the start. Changing that now would be stupid as hell. The problem is that the war aspect of it isn't actually all that much fun. Stitching an empire together and subduing your rivals over a long period feels good, but actually fighting wars remains mostly an exercise in who has more men to noria into a decisive battle, which is absolutely ridiculous. At the very least travel times should be increased and battle times decreased so that you can't have an army marching half way across Europe to fight in a months long battle. Warfare could also be made more interesting if there could be a way to break areas down into theatres with logistical concerns, and therefore you wouldn't be able to concentrate all of your guys into a few provinces for fighting one massive battle. This would go a long way to limiting a large empire's ability to project overwhelming force against their smaller neighbours as well (Ming, I'm looking in your direction). That and a better internal political system would really differentiate an EU5, but we can't have that because Johan doesn't want it, so let's at least change up the central war-fighting aspect. Furthermore, the map projection must be fixed. :cato: PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:38
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:The problem is that the war aspect of it isn't actually all that much fun. Stitching an empire together and subduing your rivals over a long period feels good, but actually fighting wars remains mostly an exercise in who has more men to noria into a decisive battle, which is absolutely ridiculous. At the very least travel times should be increased and battle times decreased so that you can't have an army marching half way across Europe to fight in a months long battle. Warfare could also be made more interesting if there could be a way to break areas down into theatres with logistical concerns, and therefore you wouldn't be able to concentrate all of your guys into a few provinces for fighting one massive battle. This would go a long way to limiting a large empire's ability to project overwhelming force against their smaller neighbours as well (Ming, I'm looking in your direction). I love EU4 and play it as often as I can with my limited playtime, but there are a few egregious aspects to it that are legacies of, essentially, EU1, that have never been modernized or fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
I still remember warfare in the early years before forts blocked movement and boy those were some dark loving times
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:I still remember warfare in the early years before forts blocked movement and boy those were some dark loving times I would declare war on this four province country with no army, but I just don't know if I want to be at war for the next decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Furthermore, the map projection must be fixed. :cato: Dynamic development growth, perhaps tied into an Institutions-like system, would be the crown jewel on that - giving the player a much greater sense of accomplishment as they see the mud and dirt of their starting provinces turned into the metropole of a mighty empire. The Institutions system is actually a really good inspiration here I feel, being pretty transparent about how it functions, somewhat guided but still malleable, influenced by player actions but not to the point where you feel you have to babysit it; aside from brute-forcing an institution you're mostly playing as you would otherwise, with a few different priorities perhaps if you want to ensure that an institution spreads to your territory. the bitcoin of weed posted:I still remember warfare in the early years before forts blocked movement and boy those were some dark loving times
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Eej posted:While I'm down with the colonial troop idea I wonder how you could make it work in practice. If you do it by continent then if you're an Iberian you can't send your troops across Gibraltar and if you're in the Middle East you straddle three continents. At the same time, if you have a contiguous empire from the Balkans to India how do you determine Sepoy status? If you're Manchu and you invaded Europe the long way around do you get white colonials? You can limit force projection with two easy rules: 1. Armies have a scaling maintenance cost multiplier based on distance from your capital, which is reduced by the amount of trade power you have in the trade zone they are located. (Raw trade power, not percentage. Two highly developed nations splitting a trade node shouldn't have 50% increased costs) This represents the costs of supplying troops far away from your base of operations, as well as giving developed colonial regions a way to reduce that cost. You could also allow you to count trade power from countries that give you fleet basing rights to represent logistical support from your allies. 2. Development and technology gives you a secondary force limit which is exempt from these extra maintenance costs, starting with your most expensive troops and working down. This gives the player some leeway when it comes to that initial colonization period, allowing small garrisons to be maintained indefinitely, and makes large invasions expensive until you've established a cored foothold. In addition, this provides a hard number for the AI logic to base decisions on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I would declare war on this four province country with no army, but I just don't know if I want to be at war for the next decade or so. It's a loving 80% chance, it has to proc at some point, but nope three years later and my good old boys are still trying to siege down the Faroe Islands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:It's a loving 80% chance, it has to proc at some point, but nope three years later and my good old boys are still trying to siege down the Faroe Islands. This is still in the game, the AI loves to build high level forts on Fiji and Christmas Island
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:This is still in the game, the AI loves to build high level forts Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
 Burgundy's really fun, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Eej posted:While I'm down with the colonial troop idea I wonder how you could make it work in practice. If you do it by continent then if you're an Iberian you can't send your troops across Gibraltar and if you're in the Middle East you straddle three continents. At the same time, if you have a contiguous empire from the Balkans to India how do you determine Sepoy status? If you're Manchu and you invaded Europe the long way around do you get white colonials? It suddenly occurs to me that we've just re-invented overseas coring. Anyway, something happened in my game that struck me as unusual--I'd never seen an AI behave that way before in that game. Tabarestan won a war with Persia and instead of taking a bunch of territory...They divided Persia's territory into four or so pieces, like a player might. Made a big, neat x by returning a mix of Timurid and Khorasan cores. Just the strangest thing I'd ever seen an AI do--act smart by accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
A common complaint seems to be that battles last too long. The days per phase (default 3) is in defines, so would anything break if you were to mod the days per phase to be 2 or even 1? That would drastically cut down on battle length while leaving all other numbers intact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Looks like my evangelical unit pack isn't working, any idea how to fix it? DLC is downloaded and enabled but France, England, Spain, ect are all using the same tier 2 infantry/cannon model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:A common complaint seems to be that battles last too long. The days per phase (default 3) is in defines, so would anything break if you were to mod the days per phase to be 2 or even 1? That would drastically cut down on battle length while leaving all other numbers intact. You should consider that battles that take 1/3rd of the normal time will also be much harder to send reinforcements into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:You should consider that battles that take 1/3rd of the normal time will also be much harder to send reinforcements into. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Thats the point. Name any battle in History: No, reinforcements did not march from anywhere but a maybe a few miles away to join the battle. More generally, what about armies delaying joining battle and avoiding the enemy because reinforcements are on the way? Without of course running so far that they'd count as being in another province entirely. I think that could fall under what a battle is in EU4, though it seems doubtful that it'd change the conclusion. Like, maybe battles taking a few days could be justified by that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
The main issue with EU4 battles is that the scale is not conducive to the scale of the battles fought in the timeperiod. Having strict "provinces" really limits the game and I hope they use a Stellaris style system for EU5 whereby you can move around within provinces and positioning mattered a lot more and combat width wasn't just some stat, it was a visible thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
I too want a realtime map of literally the entire loving world
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I like the battles and combat system in this game a lot. Not saying there aren't improvements to be made, and maybe a slight quickening of battles would be among them, but I think completely removing the ability to reinforce in the name of "realism" would be a really bad thing. My #1 wish for combat is to get the AI to understand attrition properly, so we can have it be a real thing again rather than being capped at 5% as the maximum. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I too want a realtime map of literally the entire loving world Yeah that's not gonna happen for a long while yet. Probably be almost as much of a nightmare to run as it would be to program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Anyone know what the capstone abilities of Religious and Nobility idea groups actually means (the +10% to estate happiness)? Because I finished out Nobility and my Noble Estate is still regressing to 50, not 60.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
it's 10% faster recovery per month
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:40
|
|