Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

PleasingFungus posted:

apparently, eu2: for the glory just made armies never reinforce. raised regiments would attrit down to nothing eventually; you wouldn't really have 'standing armies' for most of the period. it's a cute idea.

Isn't that how base EU2 worked too?

# ¿ Jul 2, 2016 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 09:37

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Jabor posted:

So what's up with the Rights of Man pricing on the paradox store? It says 44% off on the store page, but when I try to actually buy it it comes up as full price. (Other DLCs are discounted as expected.)

Has anyone actually bought it at the discounted price?

e: Looks like the store page is showing the regular price now.

I did. Maybe you put it in your cart just as the sale ended?

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 14:01

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Koramei posted:

three mountains

# ¿ Dec 29, 2016 03:16

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Prop Wash posted:

The CB can be pretty great for AE reduction - you're taking some very high-value provinces from some very angry people, and even as the Ottomans, a coalition war can be bad news. It doesn't make any sense that Europe is less angry with you because it's a holy war, but EUIV

Ideally a CB would have different AE effects depending on whether the nation in question would also be subject to the CB. So a holy war would freak out other heathen nations but massively reduce AE for your co-religionists

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 20:36

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

QuarkJets posted:

For AE effects, this is already built in; you get more AE with countries of the same religion as whoever you are conquering

I'm saying that using the holy war CB (instead of no-CB or a different CB) shouldn't reduce the AE you get with co-religionists of the target. Or are you saying this is the case already?

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 22:17

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

QuarkJets posted:

I'm saying that it sort of balances out since the same-religion AE penalty is 50 percent (25 for a similar, heathen religion) and is additive. I understand that what you are saying is that the Deus Vult CB probably shouldn't decrease the AE among same religion nations, for thematic reasons, which I guess is valid but I don't know if I would want Paradox actually spending time on it (it doesn't seem like there's a system for nullifying the AE bonus of a CB with specific countries, just additive and multiplicative AE effects)

Right, well, that doesn't really solve the problem, because eg. taking your cores back from a Christian neighbour should be way less threatening than declaring a jihad against all Christians. And, it's not just holy way - reconquest should scare other people you have cores on, for instance. And you could have a middle ground for countries who you have a different CB on (at least if that CB allows conquest), perhaps.

But sure, I'm not saying it's necessarily something that's particularly important, just that it's the fix for "holy war makes heathens less scared" that makes sense given the rationale for CBs reducing AE in the first place. People are less scared of gains you take in a CB war because you're not just attacking whoever, you're attacking people with reason. But that should be more worrying for people who you also have a good reason to attack!

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 23:26

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I think all of those countries are on too small a scale to matter in EU4. None of them ever projected power anywhere else, built armies on the scale of even the smallest powers on the continents and never had ships bigger than catamarans.

there was an entire mini-DLC dedicated to reviving a state that was doomed from the very start of EU4's time period

# ¿ Jun 19, 2017 15:01

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

They've made good progress on fleshing out previously sparse parts of the game, so if your problem with the game was "there's not enough content in [area]" then there's a good chance that's been fixed. But the core mechanics (especially for combat and planet development) are still bad and I don't see any signs that they're planning the from-scratch rebuild those systems need

# ¿ Jun 23, 2017 19:39

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Jay Rust posted:

"Mash two armies into each other, usually win if you have better composition" is about as much complexity I want from a strategy game

It's not really a question of "more complexity" versus "less complexity". Stellaris has a lot of complexity in its combat system, but with very little payoff in terms of strategic depth, and the player interacts with it in a way that makes it hard to get a good handle on.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2017 20:02

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

rolling some dlc into the base game after x amount of time would make people feel like real chumps for buying those dlc IMO (and yes, I know that financially this isn't much different from buying them at full price and then having them go massively on sale a year later or whatever, but psychologically "you bought this thing, it's now worthless" is a very bad feeling)

e: that said I do think there is a problem with the current system where some of the stuff in DLC feels like fixes to problems in the base game as opposed to "additional content", and it's pretty reasonable that people get annoyed about that. you can say the game doesn't "need" those fixes, but people tolerate a lot of flaws in the release versions of these games on the assumption they'll get fixed later

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 15, 2017

# ¿ Jul 15, 2017 22:02

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Grinning Goblin posted:

The biggest thing that bugs me with EU4 right now is that there isn't a giant options menu about what you want to include or sorta half include in your game when you want to start up like there is with CK2. So if you want ages but not the Mandate of Heaven, you would be able to do that. Also for DLC, I would love it if they also decided to do some "what if" situations and then went into depth with them. Like what if Christianity never took hold so now you have Europe that has a dozen or so religions just sorta floating around and then rework the existing pagan religions to make them more theme appropriate and reformed/modernized.

some goon did a bunch of fun scenarios along those lines for EU3, idk if they ever updated them for 4 though

# ¿ Jul 16, 2017 05:49

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

DeeEmTee posted:

Ming is such absolute bullshit right now. I fought them with a 20% discipline advantage, .3 tactics advantage, and 1.1 morale advantage in mountain/forest forts and my best fight was . They started the war with 0 manpower because the garbage ai literally loving sat its entire army in Beijing and magicked up over 80k over the course of the war from tributaries. I plundered half of northern China and have 200 less dev than them and they still have positive mandate. MoH is honestly the worst dlc paradox has released this generation.

dang you edited before I could make an extremely clever "TAke a look, y'all" joke

# ¿ Jul 22, 2017 07:15

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Fintilgin posted:

The only 'advantage' of being a Ming tributary should be that Ming doesn't kick the poo poo out of you and force you to be one.

There shouldn't be a defensive call to arms, Ming shouldn't give a poo poo. They should just sit back and collect their tribute and try to make any non-tributary neighbors pay up

iirc historically a "tributary" relationship with china was more about getting access to chinese markets than any real fear of china beating you up. for some neighbours china was actually sending a lot more "gifts" than it received in "tribute"

# ¿ Aug 20, 2017 02:19

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

for eu V I hope they introduce a conquest mechanic more organic than warscore+a ton of hacks for cases where warscore looks nothing like what happened historically

# ¿ Sep 19, 2017 18:40

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:

I've been asking for a new peace system for the last ten years, lol. I think Johan has said that he isn't really happy with how it's still basically the EU2 system with extra bloat, and that it's one of the things he would want to do differently in an EU5. At least I'm pretty sure I remember him, or someone else at paradox saying that on a stream.

I once made an elaborate peace negotiation system suggestion that the HoI4 system ended up vaguely resembling, except the losing side could still make proposals and influence the deal somewhat (depending on how much they're losing by). Not sure that's the best approach anymore, but I would like something more vaguely resembling peace negotiations instead of the two sides randomly sending offers until someone accepts. Or maybe that's more of a V3 feature?

I think everyone ITT has played enough paradox games that we're used to it but talking to someone who started out with stellaris really brings home how weird "I control this land, but I can't keep it without the previous owner's permission" is

# ¿ Sep 19, 2017 19:11

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

did you set the Hwan Empire (History of Korean) flag by accident when you started that game

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 07:35

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

This is 100% untrue.

In the United States of America, officers of the company have a fiduciary duty to maximize the profits of shareholders, and can be sued if they are doing anything else.

This was established in 1916.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/...areholders.html

the claim was that they were required to maximise short-term profits, which they definitely are not

# ¿ Oct 11, 2017 18:43

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them.

If having microtransactions would increase revenue and you can't directly articulate how it will be a problem long term (nothing to point to, no studies, just "people might not like it) then guess what, the game will have microtransactions.

It's not like any one group of officers came to this conclusion, Microsoft did, Take 2 did, Warner Brothers did, Ubisoft did, Blizzard did, welcome to the new - and it's because they are required to maximize shareholder revenue, and that's what microtransactions do.

It's never directly short term profit, but what it means is that you can not prioritize some vague abstract long term profit over profits that are tangible and on the table. And so what that means is that short term, demonstrable revenues don't get you sued and stuff you say might happen but doesn't will. Why get sued? Just go the safe route and make the easy choice.

this is wrong and the post you linked explicitly contradicts you on this

quote:

As the law evolved, corporate altruism began to be seen as proper so long as it was likely to provide direct benefits to the corporation and its shareholders. Applying the business judgment rule, moreover, many courts essentially presumed that an altruistic decision was in the corporation�s best interests. Shlensky v. Wrigley[5] exemplifies this approach. Shlensky, a minority shareholder in the Chicago Cubs, challenged the decision by Wrigley, the majority shareholder, not to install lights at Wrigley Field. Shlensky claimed the Cubs were persistent money losers, which he attributed to poor home attendance, which in turn he attributed to the board�s refusal to install lights and play night baseball. According to Shlensky, Wrigley was indifferent to the effect of his continued intransigence on the team�s finances. Instead, Shlensky argued, Wrigley was motivated by his beliefs that baseball was a day-time sport and that night baseball might have a deteriorating effect on the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field.

Despite Shlensky�s apparently uncontested evidence that Wrigley was more concerned with interests other than those of the shareholders, the court did not even allow him to get up to bat. Instead, the court presumed that Wrigley�s decision was in the firm�s best interests. Indeed, the court basically invented reasons why a director might have made an honest decision against night baseball. The court opined, for example, �the effect on the surrounding neighborhood might well be considered by a director.�[6] Again, the court said: �the long run interest� of the firm �might demand� protection of the neighborhood. Accordingly, Shlensky�s case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2017 18:55

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Because it's offering a nuanced take that you are reducing to one sentence to call me wrong, if you just google "shareholder lawsuit" you can find examples of where the shareholders feel the management is not acting in the best interest of the shareholders, it's a constant thing.

Let's put it another way:

If you decide to include microtransactions or loot crates and generate an extra billion dollars in revenue, you won't be sued.

If you don't, you take a risk.

It's just that simple and why the option of least resistance becomes to include the potentially shady thing and maximize revenue, saving yourself any potential problems.

this is the rare use of "nuanced" to mean "my source says the exact opposite of what I claimed it says, oops"

# ¿ Oct 11, 2017 19:06

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

It is possible to go to court and argue in front of a judge decide whether in that specific instance your actions were ok on the axis of "shareholder profit vs corporate growth" then sure, go ahead. Yeah it's not hard and fast and you can find like 5-10 examples of people doing it and succeeding. The vast majority do not and will err on the side of staying employed and not getting sued, which they can guarantee by going the path of least resistance.

Officers have personal liability in any case where shareholders feel their profits were not maximized. Those situations are generally not mysterious, as the shareholders can communicate their requests and requirements to management, which they do, at shareholder meetings. Please don't fixate on something that you seem to not really be able to parse properly and try to look at the overall picture. Or let's find some way that I can educate you on the issue since the link I provided seems to be really, really messing up your ability to understand what's going on.

your original, false, claim was "No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them." (actually, your original, even falser claim was that it was "100% wrong" to say that US law doesn't require maximising short-term profits)

I don't really care about the new claim you're trying to retreat to, since you've stated it vaguely enough to make it impossible to falsify

e:

Ham Sandwiches posted:

If B corps and SPCs are the only structures that legally allow management to consider other things than shareholder profit, making the bold claim that for INCs "management's job is to maximize shareholder profit" is in fact simply true dude.

okay cool now you've retreated to something that literally no-one disagreed with at all, gj dude

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 11, 2017

# ¿ Oct 11, 2017 19:16

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Let's try to put this on a constructive note if possible:

Is management required to maximize short term profit, like profit this quarter at all costs? No. Like, there's no requirement that THIS quarter be the best quarter ever, and that's not the issue that leads to DLC or microtransactions or loot crates. Sorry that wasn't clear at the start.

It wasn't clear at the start because someone said "no, US law does not require management to maximise short term profit" and you said that was "100% false". It's strange how when you say things that aren't true, and then condescend to people who disagree you about them, people will assume you believe things that aren't true!

Ham Sandwiches posted:

In the united states, Management has to consider shareholder revenue as their sole concern when running the company. Microtransactions, loot crates, all of them will enter games over time for US publicly traded corporations because they maximize shareholder revenue, despite people not liking them.

This is still incorrect. Management has immense latitude when it comes to deciding what maximises long-term shareholder wealth, and deciding not to do microtransactions because you think they will piss players off or whatever is well within those bounds. Publicly traded companies make much more questionable decisions about what is best for profits all the time. The reason you see lots of companies doing microtransactions is because corporate officers have much stronger incentives to pursue profits than "a shareholder will sue us if we don't".

# ¿ Oct 11, 2017 19:54

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

make Steppe Wolf II an official paradox game please

# ¿ Oct 12, 2017 14:59

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

skasion posted:

Unfortunately if they let the emperor do this in EU4 it would probably always be the best move to do it day 1 as Austria and just go apeshit on the German minors.

well you'd presumably keep in the no-independent-electors requirement

# ¿ Nov 7, 2017 15:42

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

skasion posted:

I feel like my memory is playing tricks on me because I don't remember EU3 looking that ugly

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 16:13

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

tombom posted:

They improved it significantly with expansions but on release it was definitely this hideous. The gameplay was pretty awful too, there was a reason Magna Mundi became so big

ah yeah, that makes sense, I didn't play EU3 until after IN was released

I feel that EU2's graphics hold up a lot better, which I guess is pretty typical of the transition from good 2d graphics to bad 3d graphics in games

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 16:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 09:37

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Allyn posted:

I only played DW, what was the setup for Greece/Anatolia before that?

prior to IN the earliest start date was 1453 IIRC

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 18:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Europa Universalis IV: Buying all the DLC is just Common Sense