|
TITY BOI posted:New dev dairy: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-february-2016.910409/ Ugh, so I am still getting a handle on Estates and by the time I am really comfortable with them (and I actually like them, but they do add complexity to the game, but also add tough decisions that affect your country) the game will be adding Naval Manpower, Corruption, and a new state/territory system to manage. Yay!
I obviously need to learn more about it to make a better decision/have a more founded opinion but eehhh.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Eh, not really worth worrying too much about corruption until we actually see the numbers. Everyone already talks about how they have more money than god by the midgame and my infantry are all mercenaries and wouldn't it be nice for there to be something to spend it on, so I don't see it being too problematic to just whack the slider up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Czechs are just Poles who prefer beer. You don't, actually, because the impassable borders in V2 are nearly-invisible blue lines that you'll never notice unless you know what you're looking for, whereas the hacky mod solution of wasteland provinces is obvious, easy to understand and comes with friendly tooltips built in. Dibujante posted:This probably isn't exhaustive, but: These are all features (income, trade, agents, AE, tech) that were reworked, rather than dropped. I legitimately managed to forget that policy sliders were ever a thing, though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:The only mechanics change that seems remotely appealing to me is the espionage revamp, that looked alright. The map changes especially in Africa will be great. Naval manpower, corruption, and territories/states all seem mostly like feature bloat honestly. They're not really adding anything new to the gameplay, just more micro busy-work and numbers to stare at/manage. Agreed except for naval manpower. Something needs to be done about it, since (in single player, at least) all the navy is is More Ships = Better Than. I wonder if there will be an anti-corruption adviser added.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Czechs are just Poles who prefer beer. I'm from Chicago so I didn't know there were Poles that didn't love beer as much as their moonshine-vodka.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:[*]I'm watching a seagull completely fail at life while another seagull laughs at it and thought you should know Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:These are all features (income, trade, agents, AE, tech) that were reworked, rather than dropped. You could argue that idea groups are just a reworking of policy sliders. (Along with eu3's lonely ideas, of course.) There's considerable overlap. Everyone forgot the most important thing that EU4 removed, though: Divine Wind's horde mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:You don't, actually, because the impassable borders in V2 are nearly-invisible blue lines that you'll never notice unless you know what you're looking for, whereas the hacky mod solution of wasteland provinces is obvious, easy to understand and comes with friendly tooltips built in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
States seem alright, but I'm curious to see how it works ingame. Right now the way i'm understanding it is that any nation that's near the triple-point of any region is at a disadvantage. Maybe you could get more state slots and it should be limited to the lower duchy level "regions" under the "France/Spain/Great Britain" levels?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
I think if the regions turn out to be a problem then they should just do it by areas, and let you define like 4 separate contiguous areas per state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:There was an AMA the Paradox devs did a few days ago and they touched on this a little actually- as their games mature more, they design them more and more for the already established playerbase rather than new blood. So yeah, they're not even trying to make it accessible anymore. To me this DLC seems like one to just tell newbies to not buy until they've played a bunch already, but I know a lot of people are resistant to that attitude. That's interesting. Makes me wonder what the sales of DLC vs 'New Copies of the base game' are like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:States seem alright, but I'm curious to see how it works ingame. Right now the way i'm understanding it is that any nation that's near the triple-point of any region is at a disadvantage. Maybe you could get more state slots and it should be limited to the lower duchy level "regions" under the "France/Spain/Great Britain" levels?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:States seem alright, but I'm curious to see how it works ingame. Right now the way i'm understanding it is that any nation that's near the triple-point of any region is at a disadvantage. Maybe you could get more state slots and it should be limited to the lower duchy level "regions" under the "France/Spain/Great Britain" levels? You could get around this by tiling states such that there's overlap between them and then picking the optimal state based on your configuration. This would probably be incredibly opaque to the player though. And how do you transition between optimal layouts? You have to pay every time you shuffle your states around. Maybe states should be smaller but the cap should be larger. I think part of the issue here is the poor granularity, e.g. France is a whole state, instead of it being broken out into, i dunno, brittany, normandy, burgundy, aquitaine, languedoc, toulouse, each composed of 3-6 provinces. What I'm saying is bring back duchies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Maybe non-state territories should get minimum autonomy as your size increases, so if you only have five provinces your minimum autonomy is still 0 even in territory provinces, but then as you grow it starts going up till it hits 75.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Maybe non-state territories should get minimum autonomy as your size increases, so if you only have five provinces your minimum autonomy is still 0 even in territory provinces, but then as you grow it starts going up till it hits 75. Yeah, some kind of scaling could help. Alternatively, it could scale on distance - if you hold Britain, France and Spain, then if Spain is a territory its autonomy floor should be a lot lower than if, say, you controlled Egypt in lieu of Spain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
quote:Our second large feature from today is Metzen. Metzen is a state in your country, easily seen in the topbar. The higher metzen you have the worse off your country becomes. Metzen affects all power costs in a country by up to 100%, and it also increases minimum autonomy by up to 50%. Metzen also affects your defence against hostile spies and your capacity to build up spynetworks in another nations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I hate to be that guy but I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where I stop buying EU expansions and just wait for HOI4 and Stellaris. I've never put more hours into a game than eu4 and I think my general eu fatigue combined with an expansion that doesn't interest me in the slightest means this is the point at which I hang the game up. May Stellaris be just as deep and occupy me until Victoria 3 arrives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Wiz already said he takes a lot of inspiration from MMO's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
popewiles posted:I hate to be that guy but I'm pretty sure I've reached the point where I stop buying EU expansions and just wait for HOI4 and Stellaris. I've never put more hours into a game than eu4 and I think my general eu fatigue combined with an expansion that doesn't interest me in the slightest means this is the point at which I hang the game up. May Stellaris be just as deep and occupy me until Victoria 3 arrives. Is this based on the optimistic assumption that those games without announced release dates will come out sometime in the near future?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Unless they add something incredibly interesting to offset the tons of extra micromanagement bullshit this might be the first expansion I actually skip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
I hope literally all the new mechanics are locked behind DLC and I can just work on my cheevos in a perfect 1.15 world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
quote:The higher metzen you have the worse off your country becomes. Yeah that formula probably holds for story too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Eej posted:I hope literally all the new mechanics are locked behind DLC and I can just work on my cheevos in a perfect 1.15 world. Can't you do that now? You just select the patch version you want on steam - does that not get you achievements anymore?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
It does but if new fun achievements come out then you have to suffer through the new mechanics to get them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Antti posted:Is this based on the optimistic assumption that those games without announced release dates will come out sometime in the near future? I assume they'll come out this year and I have other games to enjoy in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Yeah, some kind of scaling could help. Alternatively, it could scale on distance - if you hold Britain, France and Spain, then if Spain is a territory its autonomy floor should be a lot lower than if, say, you controlled Egypt in lieu of Spain. It sounds like distance increases the upkeep cost. I like that more to be honest, autonomy makes me feel like my territory isn't complete (and I'm not alone on that, judging by the reactions to estate autonomy). The implications for being able to have a super efficient overseas empire if you give up one of your valuable state slots that could be used for more continental expansion sounds good to me. It's way cleaner than granular autonomy differences too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It sounds like distance increases the upkeep cost. I like that more to be honest, autonomy makes me feel like my territory isn't complete (and I'm not alone on that, judging by the reactions to estate autonomy). The implications for being able to have a super efficient overseas empire if you give up one of your valuable state slots that could be used for more continental expansion sounds good to me. It's way cleaner than granular autonomy differences too. This system would allow Portugal to have both Portugal and Brazil as states? That might be neat. I'd like to see states be a bit more dynamic but I don't know how that would be done. It would be pretty nice if you could make states but there's no way that would not be crappy. Bring back duchies? The representation of China is getting closer to the mark but it's still an approximation function. The problem is that Ming is playing Victoria, not EU. It's not playing it particularly well, mind you, but Ming's problems and opportunities are Victoria problems and opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
You don't need duchies, there's already a smaller geographical subdivision in the game- areas. Most regions are made up of 3-4-5 of them, I think. Just let a player pick which areas go into a state, force them to be contiguous and cap it at 4 or so and it'll be basically the same thing as states being regions but not so massively restrictive to nations that live on a border. I'm surprised Paradox didn't pick up on it as an issue, to be honest. I wonder if they have something better planned already. I really like the system but I agree it sounds way too railroady as-is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
States are a system that is designed specifically for people who play as Great Powers because the devs apparently just like making GBS threads on minor powers all the time. It also makes your decision making even more gamey because you sit there thinking "hmm, I can invade this country and take these provinces but I shouldn't grab that one because it falls over an arbitrary state line and is thus ungovernable" instead of considering things that make more intuitive sense like, I dunno, shared culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Unless they add something incredibly interesting to offset the tons of extra micromanagement bullshit this might be the first expansion I actually skip. Yeah I see where they are coming from but none of this sounds fun at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Did a Pdox poster say how this is going to work with straddling states esp. Prussia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Eej posted:States are a system that is designed specifically for people who play as Great Powers because the devs apparently just like making GBS threads on minor powers all the time. It seems like it'd be exactly the opposite, really, given that a small country stands a good chance of fitting entirely within a state. It's a drag on expansion, which doesn't matter if you're Frankfurt or w/e. Very confused about the argument that "the devs apparently just like making GBS threads on minor powers all the time" - wasn't it only a patch or two ago that they massively increased minor powers' base force limits, income, etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
So I don't know if it's been linked yet but over on Paradox' Youtube channel DDRJake has started a series where teaches cKnoor how to play the game. It's pretty good for a newbie series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnJa8oOpKQg
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:This system would allow Portugal to have both Portugal and Brazil as states? That might be neat. Brazil will still form a colonial nation. I guess Goa can be a state now though
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Brazil will still form a colonial nation. I guess Goa can be a state now though What if you could remove provinces from a colonial nation by making them states? Colonial cores go to colonial nations, states remain under direct control? Britain could do that thing Benjamin Franklin wanted where New England and England were both states in the empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Brazil will still form a colonial nation. I guess Goa can be a state now though Where did you read this? I agree it's a safe assumption but the new system might throw a lot of rules out the window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I didn't read it anywhere, but I imagine they would probably mention it if they were going to cannibalize another DLC feature to create this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Colonial nations were in the free patch e: I don't see why you couldn't have both systems side by side, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:I didn't read it anywhere, but I imagine they would probably mention it if they were going to cannibalize another DLC feature to create this one. Are you sure these new mechanics are DLC features? The DD seemed to imply the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
To me, Corruption seems like a prime example of unnecessary feature bloat. If the devs want to balance the game by giving a penalty to Empires, highly Mercantile nations, those behind their neighbors in tech and so on that's fine. Why do we need an entirely new system? How is Corruption doing anything that couldn't be modeled through the existing Stability, Prestige, Legitimacy, rebellion/disaster, Inflation, and Autonomy mechanics? Of course I'm not a game developer and just talking out of my rear end, but if something is going to add more micromanagement and UI clutter it needs to 1) reward the player for the additional investment and/or 2) simplify or streamline some other mechanic to offset the increased complexity EU4 is already incredibly complex and the UI getting very packed, do we really need Corruption as a separate thing? Just balance expansion and tech progression through the existing mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:42
|
|