|
I have a feeling EU4 is in good hands with DDRjake and I'm looking forward to the upcoming expansions.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:It's almost as if EU4 combat is an incredibly obtuse and incomprehensible mess and needs revamped. quote:It's absolutely a good game but many of us who have been playing since launch are getting tired of the DLC model. quote:The combat system is a good example-- it's very complex, needlessly so, and based on rolling actual physical dice because EU started as an adaptation of a board game. Maybe you're just really pissed off at the way Paradox does DLC or something, I think we get it!! I'm still enjoying the combat and for me EU4 is more fun the past 3-6 months than it has been in quite a while, pretty happy with the latest changes. I still would like to see a way to automate armies for huge empires / lategame. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I get the idea of offering feedback on the game or mechanics There are so many people involved in Paradox business model and they are a public company that I don't quite understand the constant repetition of "CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL" maybe they will and maybe they won't, I'm not sure 100 posts on the topic will change things apparently I'm in the minority and it's very important to let Paradox know that forum posters know how they should run their business, if they'd only listen
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
really queer Christmas posted:I think consumers should tell businesses that they don’t like how they may do some parts of it, even if they enjoy the overall products. Of all the companies in games, I feel like paradox is one of most likely to hear and listen to criticism and try to make their customers happier. That's understandable, maybe Paradox business discussions would be well suited for the general Paradox thread which seems like the right place for talking about that rather general topic which affects multiple games, and the game specific threads could be used for discussing the various games themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
disjoe posted:The expensive and numerous DLC issue is most acute in EU4 though, for a variety of reasons I guess nothing can be done, please enjoy the same posts every DLC drop
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:I think this was intentional. If you add new systems in DLC then you’re bloating the game for sales, but if you add them on release and make them good in DLC then you’re improving the game and delivering what its fans want. Paradox is so in control of their game design that it was not a mess that made it to release, it was a careful master plan thought through decades in advance. [or] They gave the CK2 dev who doesn't know 4x games lead on the title and he threw in a grab bag of features from 4x games and they didn't quite gel and someone who does know 4x games has spent 2 years unfucking the design. I don't think scenario 1 is more plausible, to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Hmmm good points except I think scenario 1 came mostly from your head. Get back at me once you’ve learned to discuss things like someone who has friends IRL. It came from this statement: quote:I think this was intentional. If you add new systems in DLC then you’re bloating the game for sales, but if you add them on release and make them good in DLC then you’re improving the game and delivering what its fans want. You're claiming that Paradox sat down and thought about how to release content in a way that people wouldn't complain about their DLC practices as a main priority. I'm telling you that sounds super contrived, and that a more likely scenario is they tried to make a good game and had some difficulties. It's very odd that when someone disagreed with your premise you started to insult them about having friends IRL, you seem to have some kind of issues around people having a difference of opinion with your theories and resort to weird personal attacks 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
I think the new government system looks boss and just like the age related bonuses I like the idea of making small choices through the campaign that add up to differences in how the country plays. Kinda impressed the EU4 team is willing to revamp stuff like this as well as the mission system in the last patch or w/eva.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
I felt that Reman did a pretty good job of covering the pros and cons of quantity and defensive, including the suggestion to generally pick one and not the other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OrR2TAXk6s Handy reference for players wanting to get more familiar with the mechanics
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Can you please give it a bit of time before you start with the TC stuff, we're well past "lol references to past posts" and into "please, please, loving give it a rest" territory I'm quite excited about Dharma and glad the dev patches are back up, hopefully they have it out September timeframe or something because I'd like to play 1.26
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:1200 ducats in loans for an early game war is rather extreme and seems very avoidable. Sweden has major manpower issues and needs to rely heavily on mercs in the early game where there's no real distinction between ground forces, techs rarely factor into things, and you don't usually have very solid generals due to lack of AT. So given that there's clearly circumstances where early game wars may be expensive, now that we've resolved that complaint, presumably that guy's main point about the total gold amount that you can take in a war can be discussed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
The first few years before you have gotten any techs or where you're all on tech parity because nobody has pulled ahead
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Scenarios where you are at military tech parity: You both fight at military tech 3 you both fight at military tech 4 you both fight at military tech 5 and yeah some starts depending on your starting economy and your ruler stats and the other country's ruler stats, there's no way to pull ahead in the very first few techs, because the point difference is very minor Once you've gone 50-100 years, the cumulative difference from the stat differences (including changing your focus) really add up. In the early game / first few mil techs, you'll often find that many neighbors have kept up on tech and you can't just *decide* that you'll have a tech advantage when there's no particular way to get one. Sometimes you can time a war for a tech advantage, and sometimes you can't, and the entire post was about a scenario where the player didn't have a huge tech advantage and thus spent a ton of cash on mercs. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Considering the number of times that a key strategy I've used is rushing to tech 4 for a big early game advantage, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. If you can't understand that there are playthroughs and starts where you absolutely can get to mil tech 4 before you neighbor and use that to your advantage, and others where you can't, but you only recognize one of those, then yeah - let's disagree
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
It's this https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-24th-of-july-2018.1111835/ quote:Expansion:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
When I started playing EU4 a few years back I did a few non ironman runs, now I pretty much run Ironman in every Paradox game. It just makes everything more interesting to me. I get that some people prefer non ironman, but yeah probably worth checking out once or twice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
skasion posted:Too bad Ironman doesn’t do that. It just makes it slightly more effort intensive to do so. It pushes the threshold from "I'll recover from this by quickloading" to "Why not just go with it" for me. I guess you can savescum with ironman for the cheevos but it's the more intense gameplay that I'm after, not the cheevos. Savescumming does ruin the tension because there is none. And it's cool to compare my results to other Ironman people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
In 1.26 colonists can improve existing provinces.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Sage Grimm posted:Counter-point: You just suck at accounting and/or refuse to have that little menu to the side track your estate numbers for when events pop up. This two sentence dismissal is pretty weaksauce for how thoroughly that dude described the issue. I happen to agree with what he described as the annoyance of estates. It's just tons and tons of fiddle and seems to have originally been explicitly created for peacetime micro.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Sage Grimm posted:What fiddling are you doing that requires a ton of it? The biggest fiddle I found is getting Burghers up to enough influence so I can use their powers and that's like a once every 100 years sort of thing, depending on big your country has grown. And many of your decisions from estate events boil down to 'is it going to decrease loyalty below a certain number or increase influence above a certain number?' The fiddling that he described in the pretty lengthy block of text that you replied to with "git gud" Here's a good part quote:As a base you get three different estates, each one having three values (Land, Loyalty, Influence) that can all be relevant and at least two of these will change fairly often, either through player interaction or events. Now we can disregard Controlled Land, but this still leaves 6 different values to track. These are not just values where Higher = Better either. Loyalty has cutoff points, so 40.0 is fine, while 39.9 is bad. Influence also has cutoffs where 39.9 means you don't get to use most interactions. But also there are several tiers to Influence, where 75 makes interactions significantly stronger than at 74.9. And of course Loyalty and Influence are not independent. Higher Influence yields stronger effect from Loyalty bonus/malus. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Deus Vult is better, however more situational. It's amazing for some starts / countries, and pointless for others. It also made the CB suck poo poo during the period when you couldn't convert newly conquered non stated stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Army automation is coming to Imperator Rome, so you'll probably get your wish come EU5. It works absolutely great when you have a really strong vassal or HRE swarm in EU4 currently It's really strange that "let the AI do the same dumb crap it does for non player tags" is some super advanced thing to be heavily considered. You can, of course, not use it if you don't want it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Came back to EU4 and I'm having a blast doing a playthrough. I really like the new mechanics a ton from all the new DLC. Innovativeness is great and gives you some choices to make in terms of keeping up with tech. Absolutism is tons of fun. The way the various age mechanics all play into it is really cool. Finally feels like it's enjoyable to play all the way through, I like all the dumps for monarch points, really like that you can promote advisors to level 5 now, I enjoy shipping undesirables to the colonies, the whole thing is really feeling badass. Really like drilling and army professionalism too, was able to get to the point where I'm sitting at 90 army tradition all the time and rolling 5 amazing generals. Estates are SO much less annoying now that you don't have to give them territory all the time, just when you want to. I know the expansions got some pretty mixed reactions as they were dropping, this EU4 feels like the best version I've played so far. And the AI seems way, way more competent than before. Glad to see the way it's come together, go DDRJake 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The stab cost reduction has actually come back to bite me a few times, because it stops me from easily tanking my stability for the absolutism cheese strat. You mean using rebel suppression to farm absolutism or something else? Is it to do with the court and country disaster? If you really need national unrest, I have had luck grabbing a crapload of provinces and pushing over 100% overextension if you wrap up two wars simultaneously in different areas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Raise your unrest until you get particularist, noble, and peasant rebels appearing. Accept each of their demands - this will raise autonomy in all of their provinces. Then you can lower autonomy in all of those provinces, which gives you a ton of absolutism (1 for every 20 development). That seems like an interesting way to raise absolutism and not use mil points, I just mentioned the overextension thing for other people reading that might not be familiar. I get that cancelling royal marriages is a slick way to do it - it does require a specific idea group, the thing I mentioned is another way to do it for people that haven't gone diplo ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:So I know the early cannons you get arent very good outside of sieges but when do you get actual good cannons and what ratio of cannons to non-cannons do you typically want in your armies? The first cannons before 13 are pretty dire, they don't have a lot of pips, the fire modifiers are still low, and they are very expensive relative to your economy. Somewhere around 16 that starts to change, depending on your country and economic situation. What's 'ideal' is the combat width worth of cannon in the back since they're the only unit that can hurt things from the back row. That does typically add a lot of attrition. So a 30 stack of inf is usually within the limits of many provinces, a 60 stack (30 inf and 30 cav) usually causes attrition even lategame. Basically around midgame fire starts to outpace shock and artillery starts improving and you can get ideas that stack with all that so I'd say 13-16 is usually a good point to start fielding decent amounts of cannon. Usually you can get away with a single stack that has a full backline if you can make sure they're involved in the big fights and the more spread out your country and armies are there more you want to make sure they all have some cannon. By tech 18-20 every army should have at least 10 units of cannon if not more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Mercs are completely busted and trivialize so many mechanics in EU4 it's absurd. Manpower? Attrition? Psssh, just spend some gold. Running out of gold? Take some loans. Running out of loans? Use your gigantic pile of mercs to steal some gold. Rinse and repeat. Using primarily merc infantry for the majority of the game should not be a thing. They're capped to how many you can use and also tank army professionalism, which has some pretty awesome bonuses if you run it up. The ability to disband regiments to get the manpower back and half priced generals are really solid additions. For any situations where you have zero manpower sure mercs are great, I don't see this summary being accurate as a general rule anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Really complex unit designer in eu5 where I can select the pommel style of my soldiers; nato counters I would like it if they found some way to make combat ever so slightly more complex / interesting though. Yes, you can play hoi4 for that. It would be fun with knights and artillery too though 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 22:32
|
|