Europa Universalis IV - Page 136

On June 20 2015 19:35 Simberto wrote:
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.

On June 20 2015 18:57 Bleak wrote:


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 25 2015 23:34 JazVM wrote:
Does anyone know the exact provinces that you need for the Master of India achievement? I googled around and checked the wiki but nothings mentions which provinces you need exactly.

On June 26 2015 00:20 Simberto wrote:
One of the Map modes in game shows you which regions a province belongs to, if i recall correctly it was even possible to make all of india look green that way, but worst case you need to just mouseover a few regions and see if they are part of india.

On June 20 2015 02:38 iaretehnoob wrote:

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%.

On June 28 2015 15:52 Salazarz wrote:
Blackfeather you're kind of contradicting yourself. Either you're 'swimming in money', or 'forts are too expensive', how can both be true at the same time? At the moment, building a fort is a decision; you're not supposed to spam them everywhere unless you are in fact 'swimming in money'. And with the army tradition bonus they're going to give in the next patch, they're getting an extra buff also. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way forts work right now really.

On June 28 2015 22:06 nimbim wrote:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/beta-patch-1-13-full-patchnotes.866143/

I just formed Tibet as Guge, had 100pp and then for some reason decided to attack a clearly superior enemy. Goodbye Tibet :'(