|
Well, I would assume that military technology is most imporant if you want to be a successful imperialist. The Inca took over a huge swathe of land within ~50years and they had ironworking (which is such a vague word, there are brittle iron weapons and there are massive iron structures like a cannon), but they fell so fast to Europeans it's just sad.
In the end I think it's pointless to argue about how inaccurate this or that aspect is historically. Just look at the province map of Europe (which has gotten more and more detailed) and then compare that to an actual map. Did Florence, Ferara etc really control that land there or were there lots of tiny duchies/independent cities all over Italy? Countless other ahistorical representations all over the map.
It's a game and they need to simplify a lot of super complex processes that took place in that time in a way that it can be understood by the non-spreadsheet player. Besides, how do you realistically add a billion different factors to technology and test all that to reliably produce a satisfying game experience every time? Simplification is the only way to do this and technology groups have their flaws, but so far they've worked and (more or less) accurately represented the success of Europe.
|
Finally some of the inherent racism and Eurocentrist, white supremacist tendencies of this game is weeded out. I hope they abolish the different unit types aswell.
|
On May 30 2016 04:59 Bleak wrote:
Finally some of the inherent racism and Eurocentrist, white supremacist tendencies of this game is weeded out. I hope they abolish the different unit types aswell.
They could probably make them equal in stats (but not identical) without any problems. I do like that there are different units though. Each region had their time period with unique units that were famous. It adds a lot of flavour to the game having those units instead of China recruiting units that were made famous during Gustavus II Adolphus reign.
|
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue.
|
On May 30 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue.
what is "that time"? europes dominance only became a thing from the late 18th century onwards. before that it was meddling a bit in trade to get good deals with a bit of extortion to spice things up.
|
game start in 1444 tho. i dont understand ppl who dont like alternate history and play a game where u can do world conquest with ryukyu. who's to say muslims couldnt take a better route in history for example? china could open its borders? etc...
this change is HUGE. it will be a completely new game. eu4 2.0
i love it
|
On May 29 2016 21:00 jtype wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fk83tbv.jpg) Finally got Mare Nostrum after almost having it ruined by a 4th full-length regency council. Sadly Basileus didn't trigger, so I guess you have to start as Byzantium and not form them to make that work.
Says in the achievement for Basileus must start as Byzantium
|
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work.
|
On May 30 2016 05:58 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue. what is "that time"? europes dominance only became a thing from the late 18th century onwards. before that it was meddling a bit in trade to get good deals with a bit of extortion to spice things up.
"meddling a bit in trade" means buying all the cheap raw resources in the new world to bring back to the homelands to manufacture into things they can sell back to the new world for great profit. Spain conquered the Aztecs and Inca's in the 1500's and slowly started to sprawl over the entire "new world" while Portugal did the same for the Asian world. Granted Portugal didn't literally take over entire empires but they used and abused everyone in the area with their cannon laden ships.
|
On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work.
I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever.
|
On May 30 2016 07:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 05:58 hfglgg wrote:On May 30 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue. what is "that time"? europes dominance only became a thing from the late 18th century onwards. before that it was meddling a bit in trade to get good deals with a bit of extortion to spice things up. "meddling a bit in trade" means buying all the cheap raw resources in the new world to bring back to the homelands to manufacture into things they can sell back to the new world for great profit. Spain conquered the Aztecs and Inca's in the 1500's and slowly started to sprawl over the entire "new world" while Portugal did the same for the Asian world. Granted Portugal didn't literally take over entire empires but they used and abused everyone in the area with their cannon laden ships.
Spain didn't just show up with a bunch of armies in America and blast their way through Aztecs and Incans, however inferior their weapons might be. It was internal conflict in the Native American empires that allowed them to find some initial successes and support. They were smart and cunning no doubt, and they were great opportunists, but majority of battles were fought between locals, and diseases then cleaned up the survivors making it easy for the Spaniards to claim what was left for themselves.
The Portuguese did not do anything close to 'the same' in the Asian world. They had trading posts and they used bribes more than guns to get what they wanted. Major territorial conquests didn't happen in Asia until much, much later.
Like I wrote above, you could make a point for Europe having an army / naval advantage from certain dates on, but then IF we're going for historical accuracy, shouldn't Middle Eastern / Oriental states at least be on par (or really, have an advantage of their own) in administrative tech? And if the goal is to promote diverse, interesting gameplay with semi-plausible alt. history scenarios, who is to say that, say, Koreans couldn't have designed a mass-produced rifle to rebuild and expand Goguryeo or something?
|
On May 30 2016 07:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 05:58 hfglgg wrote:On May 30 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue. what is "that time"? europes dominance only became a thing from the late 18th century onwards. before that it was meddling a bit in trade to get good deals with a bit of extortion to spice things up. "meddling a bit in trade" means buying all the cheap raw resources in the new world to bring back to the homelands to manufacture into things they can sell back to the new world for great profit. Spain conquered the Aztecs and Inca's in the 1500's and slowly started to sprawl over the entire "new world" while Portugal did the same for the Asian world. Granted Portugal didn't literally take over entire empires but they used and abused everyone in the area with their cannon laden ships.
as salazarz has written, you are mixing up time periods. what portugal could do is get favourable trade deals and create monopolies, but they never had the power to dominate anyone there for a longer period of time, they were way to small for that and asia was a long way from home. the expedition forces often had less than 2000 soldiers, you cant do much with those except burning down a few cities here and there.
portugal and later the netherlands focused on trade in that region. first they broke the arabian monopoly on silk and spices with their brand new see route to india and later organized the see trade in south east asia and between china and japan. but this was done as merchant with guns, not as conquerors. when a new chinese emperor wasnt all that fond of the portuguese he slaughtered everyone in reach and stopped the trade with them for the next 30 years. nothing portugal could do about that. they couldnt even missionize anyone there.
the time when european powers dominated everyone in asia and carried loads of raw materials back home was much, much later after the industrialisation gave the british an edge and a need for tons of ressources.
|
On May 30 2016 12:18 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work. I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever.
The wording is a bit confusing but most achievements are like that I think, Luck of the Irish too, says "as an Irish nation etc." but you actually have to start as an irish nation, you can't start as England, culture switch and form Ireland to get it.
|
Double post please delate.
|
On May 30 2016 14:53 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 07:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 30 2016 05:58 hfglgg wrote:On May 30 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Its practically racist to say that europe didn't' dominate during the time period. India didn't just fall over to great britian and china didn't just shit the bed during the opium wars.
europe did better then the rest of the world during that time. Its not a controversial subject or one you can argue. what is "that time"? europes dominance only became a thing from the late 18th century onwards. before that it was meddling a bit in trade to get good deals with a bit of extortion to spice things up. "meddling a bit in trade" means buying all the cheap raw resources in the new world to bring back to the homelands to manufacture into things they can sell back to the new world for great profit. Spain conquered the Aztecs and Inca's in the 1500's and slowly started to sprawl over the entire "new world" while Portugal did the same for the Asian world. Granted Portugal didn't literally take over entire empires but they used and abused everyone in the area with their cannon laden ships. Spain didn't just show up with a bunch of armies in America and blast their way through Aztecs and Incans, however inferior their weapons might be. It was internal conflict in the Native American empires that allowed them to find some initial successes and support. They were smart and cunning no doubt, and they were great opportunists, but majority of battles were fought between locals, and diseases then cleaned up the survivors making it easy for the Spaniards to claim what was left for themselves. The Portuguese did not do anything close to 'the same' in the Asian world. They had trading posts and they used bribes more than guns to get what they wanted. Major territorial conquests didn't happen in Asia until much, much later. Like I wrote above, you could make a point for Europe having an army / naval advantage from certain dates on, but then IF we're going for historical accuracy, shouldn't Middle Eastern / Oriental states at least be on par (or really, have an advantage of their own) in administrative tech? And if the goal is to promote diverse, interesting gameplay with semi-plausible alt. history scenarios, who is to say that, say, Koreans couldn't have designed a mass-produced rifle to rebuild and expand Goguryeo or something?
While this is all true, it is worth noting that trading posts in Asia (be it Portugses, Dutch, Spanish or British) were often fortified and garnizoned. And while major wars were rare there were planty of skirmishes in which Europeans showed their proficiency. While most of "conquest" were trugh diplomacy,cunning and bribery (according to well practiced "divide et impera" routine) strong military was basis for all of this. The best diplomcy rises from barrel of gun.
|
On May 30 2016 12:18 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work. I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever.
Yea I'll definitely start doing that from now on. Not that it really matters, but it's nice to know it's not bugged. I've only started paying attention to achievements recently and I'm not too fussed about whether I have them or not. It's just good to have a challenge to aim for.
Even though I've played ~350 hours in EU4 so far, I'd still consider myself a noob really. I've always set my own goals in these games and always felt like I was aiming either too high or too low. So knowing that there are difficult achievements that are possible to do, helps motivate me to keep trying. It forces me to learn a lot more about the mechanics of the game than I would just by playing casually, too.
|
On May 30 2016 22:53 jtype wrote:
Even though I've played ~350 hours in EU4 so far, I'd still consider myself a noob really. I've always set my own goals in these games and always felt like I was aiming either too high or too low. So knowing that there are difficult achievements that are possible to do, helps motivate me to keep trying. It forces me to learn a lot more about the mechanics of the game than I would just by playing casually, too.
I think that achievements propose fun challenges in EUIV. When not really having an idea of what to play one can go through the achievements and stumble upon one that seems really fun. I recently did Switzerlake and it was funny gobbling up half of France then not being able to take the rest, suddenly having England share a major border. ^^
Then there are hard ones just as you say. Prompting learning mechanics and playing the diplomacy game.
I think the biggest thing the achievements give is funny titles and images that one has to get. Sailor Mon and A Fine Goosestep are two funny examples.
|
On May 30 2016 22:53 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 12:18 arb wrote:On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work. I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever. Yea I'll definitely start doing that from now on. Not that it really matters, but it's nice to know it's not bugged. I've only started paying attention to achievements recently and I'm not too fussed about whether I have them or not. It's just good to have a challenge to aim for. Even though I've played ~350 hours in EU4 so far, I'd still consider myself a noob really. I've always set my own goals in these games and always felt like I was aiming either too high or too low. So knowing that there are difficult achievements that are possible to do, helps motivate me to keep trying. It forces me to learn a lot more about the mechanics of the game than I would just by playing casually, too.
My biggest weakness id think is how to play out wars really, and how people manage to get like 5000 development in 100 years
i dont get how you dont die to coalitions when you get that aggressive
|
On May 31 2016 07:52 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 22:53 jtype wrote:On May 30 2016 12:18 arb wrote:On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work. I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever. Yea I'll definitely start doing that from now on. Not that it really matters, but it's nice to know it's not bugged. I've only started paying attention to achievements recently and I'm not too fussed about whether I have them or not. It's just good to have a challenge to aim for. Even though I've played ~350 hours in EU4 so far, I'd still consider myself a noob really. I've always set my own goals in these games and always felt like I was aiming either too high or too low. So knowing that there are difficult achievements that are possible to do, helps motivate me to keep trying. It forces me to learn a lot more about the mechanics of the game than I would just by playing casually, too. My biggest weakness id think is how to play out wars really, and how people manage to get like 5000 development in 100 years i dont get how you dont die to coalitions when you get that aggressive
You declare multiple wars at a time, and stagger the peace treaties with the countries who would be most important as part of a coalition; then you keep re-declaring war on any potential coalition member as soon as truces end, essentially keeping a bunch of truces rolling that prevent a strong coalition from forming. There are other tricks too but that's the most basic and the most important way to prevent big coalitions from forming. Gamey as fuck of course, like all of these 'impressive' world conquests etc are.
|
On May 31 2016 12:27 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:52 arb wrote:On May 30 2016 22:53 jtype wrote:On May 30 2016 12:18 arb wrote:On May 30 2016 06:40 jtype wrote:
Well, I've since looked it up and that's clearly the case, but I was going off of this description: "As Byzantium, restore the Roman Empire", so it was still a little bit surprising not to see it work. I always check before going for an achievement, as time consuming as EU can be i dont wanna mess up and fuck myself out of an achieve like, ever. Yea I'll definitely start doing that from now on. Not that it really matters, but it's nice to know it's not bugged. I've only started paying attention to achievements recently and I'm not too fussed about whether I have them or not. It's just good to have a challenge to aim for. Even though I've played ~350 hours in EU4 so far, I'd still consider myself a noob really. I've always set my own goals in these games and always felt like I was aiming either too high or too low. So knowing that there are difficult achievements that are possible to do, helps motivate me to keep trying. It forces me to learn a lot more about the mechanics of the game than I would just by playing casually, too. My biggest weakness id think is how to play out wars really, and how people manage to get like 5000 development in 100 years i dont get how you dont die to coalitions when you get that aggressive You declare multiple wars at a time, and stagger the peace treaties with the countries who would be most important as part of a coalition; then you keep re-declaring war on any potential coalition member as soon as truces end, essentially keeping a bunch of truces rolling that prevent a strong coalition from forming. There are other tricks too but that's the most basic and the most important way to prevent big coalitions from forming. Gamey as fuck of course, like all of these 'impressive' world conquests etc are.
how do you not die cause of no manpower in situations where that happens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
