|
Average Bear posted:you could make them run like not poo poo!! Doubt
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
ilitarist posted:And if someone actually finds a way to not engage in any risky activity, stay small and still be competitive then I hope it's patched out ASAP. No this should be allowed, but only in the HRE. If you get annexed, it kicks out out to a minigame where you endlessly petition the Emperor to go restore your holdings. skasion posted:Doubt Honestly I would love to see Paradox take a crack at this, the mod method of having to do it through a sea of provincial modifiers has to be the worst possible way it could be done. I'm no expert on optimization problems, but running A* back to capital provinces once every year or so doesn't seem like a massive drag compared to everything else that's already going on. e: actually I guess since you want to assign a path distance to each province in your empire A* probably isn't what you want, you could just propagate it out from the capital, but still. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:13
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Beamed posted:The good news is EU4, unlike professional chess, is explicitly not designed to be competitive (or indeed, even balanced, with respect to multiple players). I think countries playing extremely differently is very good and fun! Countries playing extremely differently and making risk-free play as rewarding as risky play are very different things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Countries playing extremely differently and making risk-free play as rewarding as risky play are very different things. Playing tall is a challenge in this game, not a strategy. It can be interesting to try to stay competitive, in a game where if you're playing wide, you usually end up as the #1 world great power by 1650 at the latest. Especially after playing hundreds of hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Indeed, and it should be that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Sounds like, since playing tall is risky, we’re in accord paradox should keep making efforts to keep it viable. Had to take the long way there I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Yeah, the system just works fantastically with the existing mechanics. In vanilla, corruption and autonomy are basically bandaid fixes to expanding too fast. In MEIOU, they actually serve a purpose as a limit to how much actual control over the state you have as a ruler. The game let's you centralize just like states did historically. The line of "ecumenical changes" at the end makes me wonder if they're gonna steal minority religion presences too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I think it's just the Pope stuff they've been working on, unless they showed that already and I forgot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
the only risk in playing tall is falling asleep
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Playing tall does not provide happy signals to the part of my brain that wants to see my country's name get bigger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Sounds like, since playing tall is risky, we’re in accord paradox should keep making efforts to keep it viable. Had to take the long way there I guess. Playing tall is a self-imposed challenge and the whole point of it is its unviability. It's only risky when you set some specific goals and limitations. Talking about it being viable is like talking about making a challenge of playing without generals more viable, or without mercenaries, or without advisors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
I play without mercs and it's 1000% more viable than playing tall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Enough is enough. When is Magna Mundi being released as a standalone game??
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Some guy sperging out over playing tall as a change of pace is the most Games poo poo I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
People defining "I don't want to expand" as a playstyle rather than, yaknow, not doing well enough in the game to expand is also hilarious. Cool new playstyle: build a mediocre army and get wrecked by the AI's larger force. It's called going Custer, and it should be a valid playstyle. What if I want to roleplay as a country with a garbage military command?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:What if I want to roleplay as a country with a garbage military command? Isn't England already the most played country?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:People defining "I don't want to expand" as a playstyle rather than, yaknow, not doing well enough in the game to expand is also hilarious. Nah this isn't fair at all. There are plenty of times I settle on a border because I like the look of it / for roleplay / because I can't be assed even when it would be a fairly trivial war. Expanding manically at every possible opportunity lost its charm for me well before I hit 1000 hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah I guess it comes as a surprise to some
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah I guess it comes as a surprise to some This is it really. If EU4 were at all a challenging game itself, maybe we'd be having another discussion. But optimal play means the game is just boring by 1500, especially if you play as a major, where Paradox (rightly) focuses the effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
I have close to 1200 hours played and have finished a game maybe once ever. Still much rather play EU4 than any of their other games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:People defining "I don't want to expand" as a playstyle rather than, yaknow, not doing well enough in the game to expand is also hilarious. I take it back, this is more Games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Honestly the biggest barrier to me blobbing all over the map is usually that I hold a grudge against another country that tried to dick me over in the early game so I'll spend 1650-1750 grinding them into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
gently caress the ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:gently caress the ottomans. I call them something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
it's totally unsurprising that eu4 under ddrjake would remove the current estate system and replace it with something less tied into the rest of the mechanics of the game. if you watch him play it's obviously the part of the game that he is least interested in, something that he just can't bother to do correctly even though it's easy and adds layers of decision-making to province development and events
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it's totally unsurprising that eu4 under ddrjake would remove the current estate system and replace it with something less tied into the rest of the mechanics of the game. if you watch him play it's obviously the part of the game that he is least interested in, something that he just can't bother to do correctly even though it's easy and adds layers of decision-making to province development and events Estates are tied to poo poo-all in the actual current game mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
At the moment Estates are integrated into the rest of the game more than any other feature added in DLC. It wasn't for a while but now it's one of the most involving tools in optimizing your empire. You use them to mitigate autonomy and unrest, or to help with religious conversion. You use them to get specific bonuses on provinces, so you really care about what province interacts with the estate (important fort/high manpower goes to Nobles, border Steppes go to Cossacks, trade stuff goes to Burgers). You play with risk/reward by empowering estates for bonuses and later get their provinces back once the autonomy is low and you can afford to have an angry estate and additional unrest. And yes, most of the usefulness comes from getting a good advisor or colonization bonus every once and again, and it's annoying that you have to remember to do it. But cutting off their connection to the land is throwing out the baby with water, and I don't even think they get rid of the water cause there's another set of buttons giving some modifiers and not taking in account anything else in the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:At the moment Estates are integrated into the rest of the game more than any other feature added in DLC. It wasn't for a while but now it's one of the most involving tools in optimizing your empire. I haven't bothered to add or delete estates from provinces since they stopped caring about having whatever % of my state development. I don't think I would gain that much from doing it since all my states are low-autonomy and I went over my state limit long ago. Right now I'm trying to just conquer a lot of poo poo as Ottomans but this pretty much describes all my games. I will still push the buttons once in a while and try to keep loyalty high so I get the bonuses, but that's as much as I want to interact with estates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:But cutting off their connection to the land is throwing out the baby with water, and I don't even think they get rid of the water cause there's another set of buttons giving some modifiers and not taking in account anything else in the game. I think the latter part of this will ultimately depend on exactly how the system works but I have to take exception to the first part. The existing "connection to the land" borders on the nonsensical - estates being granted entire provinces at a time, in a way that encourages spending Monarch Power to turn a given region into the Soldier Generation Zone (rather than the estate itself affecting how its territory is governed), with little meaningful pressure preventing you from giving out and taking away territory as you see fit, was never really a system that made a lot of sense or encouraged much thought beyond "well grain is a lovely trade good so this province won't go to the burghers." Also making it so estate provinces couldn't be Seats of Parliament was both dumb and largely unavoidable given how both systems currently work. I'm cautiously optimistic that the new system will require a bit more decision-making and do a better job of modeling the forces acting on states in the process of centralizing power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
It is nonsensical, sure, but so is almost every other mechanic. The point was there was some nuance there, interesting interactions. Give new lands to the Estate, this fort is gonna be sieged so dear nobles please govern in for a short-time gain etc. Interesting interactions and choices. Now it's all going into a separate dimension where you can see government interactions and other mechanics that don't care about anything happening in the world, just dispensing bonuses and penalties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I haven't bothered to add or delete estates from provinces since they stopped caring about having whatever % of my state development. I don't think I would gain that much from doing it since all my states are low-autonomy and I went over my state limit long ago. Right now I'm trying to just conquer a lot of poo poo as Ottomans but this pretty much describes all my games.  Is a very unfun mechanic
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:The point was there was some nuance there, interesting interactions. Give new lands to the Estate, this fort is gonna be sieged so dear nobles please govern in for a short-time gain etc. Interesting interactions and choices. I recognize that this is entirely subjective but I don't think I could disagree with you more on this front 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Estates reward those who are really into their min-max optimisations but don’t really add any enjoyment or engagement to the game for me, I’d rather there was an advisor you could hire that would interact or automatically control them, as would be more typical for the time period, with a gradual change in the countries modifiers as time when on if you were obviously gunning for war/ trade/ colonisation etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
That is valid criticism - they're there for minmaxing but the attention they require is disproportionate to the effect. Still I'd wish that end representation would still affect provinces giving them more character. Even more I'd wish for them to get rid of various other mechanics that are basically estates with another name. Like Revolutionary/Republican/Chinese/Whatever Else Factions. It'd be great if those work as additional unique Estates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:At the moment Estates are integrated into the rest of the game more than any other feature added in DLC. It wasn't for a while but now it's one of the most involving tools in optimizing your empire. Estates are stupid crap tacked onto an incredibly bloated game and your wasting your time evaluating provinces for estate interactions. IMo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
 First of all: what Second of all, I can't find American Dream anywhere to disable it
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
Senior Dog posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Senior Dog posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Extremely helpful Reddit post on combat width: https://reddit.app.link/r2AGME77dZ Sharing because even after a couple hundred hours in this game I never truly understood how it worked. Thankfully more numbers works most every time if you’re clueless (like I was), but this looks truly advantageous to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
MaxieSatan posted:I recognize that this is entirely subjective but I don't think I could disagree with you more on this front
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2019 10:58
|
|
