EPTEuropa Universalis IV - Page 171
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Kronen
United States732 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On April 06 2016 09:34 Kronen wrote: Common Sense is on a good sale... that worth picking up at 5 bucks? Art of War/Common sense are worth imo | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
| ||
|
disformation
Germany8352 Posts
On April 06 2016 14:35 Silvanel wrote: How does it work? If you have overextension (any) you gain corruption. More overextension == more corruption. If you have low religious unity you gain corruption. Less unity == more corruption. If one of your technologies is way ahead (3 or more) you gain corruption. E.g. if you Mil. Tech is at 7 and your Diplo. Tech at 4 you gain corruption. The bigger the gap the more corruption. Despite some tooltips saying so goverment rank and mercantilism does not affect corruption. You lose corruption for being ahead of time in Tech (though I am not sure this is true for Mil. Tech) and by spending money. Reducing corruption via money is expensive as hell and based on your income. Every 0.1 of corruption increases the minimum local authority of your provinces by 0.05 and increases ALL your monarch power costs by 0.1%. Spy network construction and spy defense are also affected at a slower rate. I also generally feel that unrest and autonomy from provinces is way higher than before, together with corruption forcing you to expand way slower. So in short: If you are not a western nation, that has to take over loads of land that does not have your state religion you have to move waaaaay slower than before 1.16. Also get Religious (or Humanist) ideas asap. I feel like playing stuff like Ethiopia or Bengal is kinda painful now. Ethiopia also now has a worse Tech Group. So if you want to do the Prestor John achievement switching to 1.15.1 is probably a good idea. xD edit: ah positive stab also reduces corruption. | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11841 Posts
On April 07 2016 00:13 Laserist wrote: It is very interesting to see many people playing and actively posting about EU4 and there is no active post for CK2. CK2 is a much older game. It is also a family tree simulator with some combat thrown in for when you think your family has too few pieces of land to rule. So it suits different people (I never liked it). | ||
|
WindWolf
Sweden11767 Posts
On April 07 2016 00:17 Yurie wrote: CK2 is a much older game. It is also a family tree simulator with some combat thrown in for when you think your family has too few pieces of land to rule. So it suits different people (I never liked it). Yeah I have tried CK2 but I did not quite like it. And Stellaris seems to be closer to EU4 gameplay-wise than CK2 so that makes me excited for Stellaris. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13933 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
go from 6-7 gold as the kebabs at the start to -1 okie. | ||
|
dilleo182
United States9 Posts
I don't really mind the corruption system though I'd like it to be focused on number of provinces instead of income. I haven't had any real issues with it so far. The state system so badly cuts into your income. You have to pay for state upkeep while territories give less income because they're capped at 75% autonomy. If you need to avoid rebels, you must sacrifice any income you're going to get from restless territories, and while that in itself isn't too bad an idea, it does hurt a lot. Overall, I would say that the changes, or at least the ideas behind them, aren't inherently bad. But as someone who always plays with a heavy focus on a strong economy/income, this patch is painful, though it's also because of being economy-focused that I imagine it'll be easier for me to overcome it than blobbers. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
i made something a territory after coring it, then had to core it again ???? | ||
|
nimbim
Germany984 Posts
Edit: You pay 50% for a territorial core and then you can add that province to a state, which requires the remaining 50%. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On April 09 2016 05:16 nimbim wrote: I haven't played enough yet, but from what I've read you only pay 50% for cores in states and when you upgrade(?) the province you need to pay the remaining 50%. Edit: You pay 50% for a territorial core and then you can add that province to a state, which requires the remaining 50%. shouldnt that make conquering faster since youre only paying half? i get the corruption feature hurts but... | ||
|
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
On April 09 2016 17:17 arb wrote: shouldnt that make conquering faster since youre only paying half? i get the corruption feature hurts but... In principle sure, but you're also eating massive penalties to income and manpower past a certain point. And aggressive expansion is probably more of a limiting factor early than admin points. Or the ability to win wars against strong opponents. I kind of feel like EUIV is starting to suffer feature bloat. Like advanced diplomacy had the potential to be awesome, but the system is pretty half assed as is because it moves so slowly and the AI's behavior is often stupid and/or suicidal erasing lots of hard work. Instead of spending time to hone that, they brainstorm a bunch of new half baked ideas like Berber raiding (not opposed to this in principle, but they made it way too hard to defend against it and the reward too high for the ease), sailors (which I've never even noticed having any affect on the game- it is also baffling how slowly they generate at the start), and a mechanic that screws over anyone that doesn't have a uniform religion and isn't western. They could just pause and ask themselves the downstream affect on x random nation in India, but they just rush to release their new ideas for the dollar bills. I suppose I felt this way about Art of War and its hundreds of regiments of rebels that could spawn 50 years into the game and they ultimately fixed it to be reasonable. Then they redid forts and those are awful too. Meh. I suppose I should probably stop buying these DLCs at launch. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
disformation
Germany8352 Posts
 | ||
|
nimbim
Germany984 Posts
On April 09 2016 20:27 419 wrote: yes, the fact that corruption was changed from based on % income to autonomy-scaled development a day after the patch is just absolutely bizarre. That's a gigantic reversal of how you think corruption should work. Its like balancing based on whim, because no way you can playtest that. I would imagine they tested both versions internally before release and chose the other one after reading complaints. I didnt notice any severe penalty yet, from OPM to Luck of the Irish, I've only had to pay a little bit for corruption. When the reformation came the religious unity was pretty painful, but still just the kind of painful I would expect from it. I agree they should test stuff more thoroughly. Naturally a QA tester will try to circumvent features or find bugs and likely not go through a couple of serious games to find a lot of balance/fun issues. If they just added a few devoted players (who would probably do it for free and still sign an NDA) that play the game, they could save themselves some trouble after release. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
I don't really get the goal of corruption, outside of mb band-aiding diplo tech and reducing income. I'm not sure how forcing people to balance tech is supposed to add anything to the game. I think I like that sailors stop nations from just building fleets in an instant based on gold alone. If you loose your fleet and you are filthy rich you can't just replace it. Mb nations should transfer ships when they stop to exist or transfer sailors with provinces though, because atm building a fleet is just too slow. I think I like the state system, another thing to pay attention to when you expand. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
| ||
| ||
