|
On June 19 2015 17:28 Silvanel wrote:
I think the gain from developments should scale up with level just as the cost is. Right now there is no incentive to develop rich provinces over the poor.
Buildings give % increases, so you have an incentive to develop your high development provinces with buildings further. Not that it matters if you're expanding, because you won't have points to spend on development anyway.
Also game is currently 80% off on steam. Most old DLC -75%.
|
So i have been waiting for a good steamsale for this game since its so expensive.
So today steam has the base game for 8 and the europe universalis 4 collection for 23 euros.
In the collection there are 20 items many of them cosmetics. I don't really care about comsetics but i want to have all the gameplay changing addons.
Buying the common sense addon alone is 15 euros atm and then i see there are also content packs for common sense?
Damn this is the most expensive game on steam.....
So is this pack worth it or am i still lacking like 80 euros of relevant addons?
edit: so reading the reviews on steam i am not even sure i want common sense. But then again i kind of want it since the eu4 players i am watching arumba & northernlion are using it (can i turn the addon on and off like in crusaderkings?)
|
Conquest of Paradise
Res Republica
Wealth of Nations
Art of War
El Dorado
Common Sense
These are the expansions, the DLC that actually matters. From those, some are really good, like Art of War, some are really not needed, like Conquest of Paradise. The game is completelly playable without any addons, since at every expansion they also add a lot of features the the basic game.
In the end, its all about how much you feel like spending, I think Art of War is the only one I would really need to play the game, but after some time its hard to remember what was a free feature and what was a paid one.
|
On June 20 2015 03:30 RandyPinkwood wrote:
So i have been waiting for a good steamsale for this game since its so expensive.
So today steam has the base game for 8 and the europe universalis 4 collection for 23 euros.
In the collection there are 20 items many of them cosmetics. I don't really care about comsetics but i want to have all the gameplay changing addons.
Buying the common sense addon alone is 15 euros atm and then i see there are also content packs for common sense?
Damn this is the most expensive game on steam.....
So is this pack worth it or am i still lacking like 80 euros of relevant addons?
edit: so reading the reviews on steam i am not even sure i want common sense. But then again i kind of want it since the eu4 players i am watching arumba & northernlion are using it (can i turn the addon on and off like in crusaderkings?)
I used to recommend people start with the vanilla game till they log 100 hours or so, but Common Sense is really good. Subject interaction, gov't ranks, and province developments are the big features. The new mechanics for Lutherans makes it no longer feel terrible compared to Catholics and Calvinists. National Focus button is also included, which means you can skip Res Publica.
Art of War is the Thirty Years' War and a bunch of polish on war mechanics. I would probably freak out if I tried to play without it but I can't explain why it's important.
El Dorado is mostly custom nations, which you either love or don't care about. It unlocks Support Independence though, which is annoyingly important but lets you skip Conquest of Paradise.
Wealth of Nations makes Calvinism awesome but you could skip it. I think.
Conquest of Paradise is not worth it until you (1) already have El Dorado and (2) actually want to play as Native Americans.
Res Publica has a few cute features, but the National Focus was rolled into the newest DLC so it can be skipped. Dutch Republic is a very strong government, but nothing you can't do with a Merchant Republic.
|
thank you for the fast responses.
The bundle has : the base game,conquest of paradise, wealth of nations,res publica, allot of cosmetics and some mini dlcs that add events for america and the byzantine empire which is cool i guess.
I think i might buy it and purchase art of war in addition, i will hold of on common sense for now until there is a sale for it, and also because many people complain about bugged ai and increased coring/anexing cost.(even though the fort system looks really nice carp sieges feel kind of stupid and tedious, did that enough in ck2 allready).
I did play eu4 allready for some time on an old unofficial version to try it out since i didn't want to spend that much money without testing it first no idea which addons i had on it though
Guess i'll try to rebuild the byzantine empire in my first game. Taking over the byzantine empire from the inside as a small vassal and than rebuilding the holy roman empire was one of the most epic campaigns in ck2
|
|
|
Dammit! I planned not to play EUIV again but I couldn't resist finally getting Art of War and El Dorado when I just saw them on sale. Gotta resist reinstalling for now and go win the lottery so it doesn't matter if I keep getting surprised by "unexpected sunrise" cause I lost track of time playing EUIV.
|
On June 20 2015 05:39 RvB wrote:
Fort system and increased coring cost are in the free patch.
oh wow didn't notice that thank you.
Makes me even more unwilling to pay 15 euros for it though
|
You can always play on an earlier patch without those changes. They are all there in the "betas" tab in steam.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
I think the coring costs in 1.12 are pretty reasonable. If you want to blob a lot, you have to take the blobbing ideas now, though.
It's not like administrative has ever been a subpar pick though.
|
Any suggestions for a cool country to play in CS?
In a surge of patriotism, I tried to play my home province of Gelre, blobbed a bit and then got bored.
|
The game is fun but it is too Eurocentric. The Western vs other types of tech difference is huge, you are being punished for not playing a Western country, and to overcome these penalties you need to "Westernize". Other than that, most of the eastern nations are bad, while most European ones are OP.
|
Well, the game is called Europa Universalis.
And historically, even if it hurts your feelings, Europe was OP during the latter half of the timeframe depicted in the game, which is when the effects of the tech difference mostly show. There was the whole colonisation and imperialism stuff going on, with western european nations grabbing large parts of the world for themselves, mostly on the back of technological superiority. Even if you dislike that history, it is still something that happened, and an alternative history game should try to emulate the dynamics.
In the beginning years of the game period, muslims are actually stronger in game, due to having better units.
Also note that even between european nations, there are stark differences in power levels. England or France are vastly superior to someone like Navarra or Cologne. This game is not designed to have all nations be equal. Which is good, because it allows for a lot of different game experiences.
|
On June 20 2015 18:51 Simberto wrote:
Well, the game is called Europa Universalis.
And historically, even if it hurts your feelings, Europe was OP during the latter half of the timeframe depicted in the game, which is when the effects of the tech difference mostly show. There was the whole colonisation and imperialism stuff going on, with western european nations grabbing large parts of the world for themselves, mostly on the back of technological superiority. Even if you dislike that history, it is still something that happened, and an alternative history game should try to emulate the dynamics.
In the beginning years of the game period, muslims are actually stronger in game, due to having better units.
Also note that even between european nations, there are stark differences in power levels. England or France are vastly superior to someone like Navarra or Cologne. This game is not designed to have all nations be equal. Which is good, because it allows for a lot of different game experiences.
It isn't about disliking history. Europe could have been strong in the game's time period, however we're talking about a video game and if you pre-determine the strength of the nations by looking at the historical time frame, then there's no point of picking anything but the strong nations to play, because you won't be able to change history anyway.
And if we're talking about being realistic in terms of history, why would it take you much harder to adopt a weapon or tactic used by a country? Get your hands on the weapon and reverse engineer it. Analyze and study their battle movements. Look at their governments and copy them. The game assumes anyone outside West is stupid and do not have any idea about how to adopt the stuff the Western nations have, so it takes them longer to do it.
|
On June 20 2015 18:57 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 18:51 Simberto wrote:
Well, the game is called Europa Universalis.
And historically, even if it hurts your feelings, Europe was OP during the latter half of the timeframe depicted in the game, which is when the effects of the tech difference mostly show. There was the whole colonisation and imperialism stuff going on, with western european nations grabbing large parts of the world for themselves, mostly on the back of technological superiority. Even if you dislike that history, it is still something that happened, and an alternative history game should try to emulate the dynamics.
In the beginning years of the game period, muslims are actually stronger in game, due to having better units.
Also note that even between european nations, there are stark differences in power levels. England or France are vastly superior to someone like Navarra or Cologne. This game is not designed to have all nations be equal. Which is good, because it allows for a lot of different game experiences. It isn't about disliking history. Europe could have been strong in the game's time period, however we're talking about a video game and if you pre-determine the strength of the nations by looking at the historical time frame, then there's no point of picking anything but the strong nations to play, because you won't be able to change history anyway. And if we're talking about being realistic in terms of history, why would it take you much harder to adopt a weapon or tactic used by a country? Get your hands on the weapon and reverse engineer it. Analyze and study their battle movements. Look at their governments and copy them. The game assumes anyone outside West is stupid and do not have any idea about how to adopt the stuff the Western nations have, so it takes them longer to do it.
Your complaints make no sense. Have you even played the game?
It is possible to build massive continent-spanning empires out of very weak nations. It is completely possible to storm across Asia and be a major threat to Europe as something as 'underpowered' as Korea or Khmer. There is an achievement in the game to conquer European nations as a Native American -- so yeah, you can definitely 'change history' by something other than a major historical power. It's a question of difficulty of course, but that's the beauty of having vastly different nations and regions. You can set and achieve all kinds of goals based on what nation and what part of the world you start in.
And yes, it is hard to adopt a weapon or a tactic used by a country. It's not like you can just pick up a dozen muskets and have an army armed with them in a year; heck, it isn't even possible to reverse engineer and mass produce modern weapons to a sufficient quality standard in the modern world with all the technologies we have at hand - what makes you think it would be possible for a nation that hasn't even heard of gunpowder before to field a firearms equipped army on a timeframe shorter than a generation? There are cultural factors to consider as well. You're talking about copying governments as a 'realistic' thing historically -- think about it, do you really figure that ever happened so quickly and smoothly? The process is represented by Westernization mechanic in game and if anything, it is much more simple and quick than it was in reality.
|
Well, firstly, you are incorrect here. A lot of people like the challenge of doing something hard with one of the weaker nations. For example, i really enjoyed invading europe as a great cherokee nation in EU3. Or our TL EU3 Alsace succession game There are people who conquer the world as Ryukyu (arguably the worst starting nation). Most people don't really enjoy playing the stronger nations (except in multiplayer) after one or two games, because it is simply to easy to dominate from such a good starting position.
In EU4, if you know what you are doing, you can shape the history no matter who you are playing, and it is greatly rewarding to do this from a weaker starting position.
And since you are from Turkey, i am just going to assume that you included the ottomans in your complaint? Because they are one of the strongest starting nations in EU4. One could even go so far and say that "westernisation" is basically what Attaturk did when changing the ottoman empire to turkey.
And regarding the realism: Apparently that was a big problem. Or how do you explain that the Europeans rolled over most of the world in the colonial age? If it were so easy to reverse engineer weaponry and tactics, how come no one ever did that?
There is a reason. There is a whole society behind a military. You need to have the modern industry setup to manufacture the parts. You need an effective agriculture to even allow a lot of people to spend time not making food. You need to have a lot of knowledge about the inner workings to actually understand how to produce a rifle even if you see it. You need to have the societal frame to even consider the pursuit of that knowledge and afford enough people the leisure time to do so instead of doing thinks that feed them.
And you need to be in contact with the people using those guns for long enough to understand how they work, what maintenance they require, which tactics make them effective, how to actually make people perform those tactics etc.... Knowledge doesn't travel as fast in the 1600s as it does today. You can't just hand a bunch of tribal people rifles and expect them to be as effective as a regiment of drilled french Line Infantry. And you can even less just give them one rifle and expect them to be able to build and use them effectively in a couple of years.
This has nothing to do with the innate intelligence of the people, it has something to do with the social framework in place. And changing that social framework is possible in game. It is called "westernisation". Maybe you dislike the term, in which case just call it "modernisation" in your head and be happy.
|
The game You are looking for is Civilization V, in this game everyone is pretty much equal at the start. In EU IV not so much and thats the beauty of it.
|
i'm ignorant to the later time frame of EU4, can you play as russia and decide the labor question in a way differently than the revolution? or does the game not reach into the early 20th century?
|
EU4 ends in 1821, so long before communism is a thing.
However, there is Victoria (II), which plays out in the time period between 1836 and 1936. And as far as i know that game is highly centered on industrialisation (I never played a lot of it), so i would be highly surprised if you couldn't decide to become communist, or not become communist.
There are also the HoI games, but those play after the revolution and focus very much on only the second world war.
|
On June 20 2015 20:43 Simberto wrote:
EU4 ends in 1821, so long before communism is a thing.
However, there is Victoria (II), which plays out in the time period between 1836 and 1936. And as far as i know that game is highly centered on industrialisation (I never played a lot of it), so i would be highly surprised if you couldn't decide to become communist, or not become communist.
There are also the HoI games, but those play after the revolution and focus very much on only the second world war.
ahhh, okay, thank you for the information, i never knew what the temporal differences between victoria and EU were, i assumed they were just focused on different aspects of empire management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
