Europa Universalis IV - Page 198

Sermokala

United States14104 Posts

November 09 2017 19:48 GMT

#3941

what parts about the hoi 4 DD's that you like so much? I can see how they're going to make mods more fun but I don't see how they fix some of the larger issues about the battle plan builder and super simplified core mechanics.

WindWolf

Sweden11767 Posts

November 09 2017 20:24 GMT

#3942

On November 10 2017 04:48 Sermokala wrote:
what parts about the hoi 4 DD's that you like so much? I can see how they're going to make mods more fun but I don't see how they fix some of the larger issues about the battle plan builder and super simplified core mechanics.

I believe that what was mentioned in the most recent dev diary will allow for much more depth both for PDS and moders alike.

As for the bolded part, I strongly believe that complexity for complexity's sake is not good game design. If you are making a game more complex just because you can, you add zero meaningful depth to it. HoI4 is far from perfect, but at least they don't go down the complexity for complexity's sake route (I don't understand why everyone thinks that OOB is what makes HoI3 HoI3.) And neither is implementing something in order to tick of a checkbox (World Congress in Civ5 is a prime example of this if you ask me)

Sermokala

United States14104 Posts

November 09 2017 20:44 GMT

#3943

On November 10 2017 05:24 WindWolf wrote:

Show nested quote +

The OOB makes hoi3 hoi3 beacuse its an artistic expression of scale in WW2. Having input on what divisions go into what army which goes into what army group which goes into what corps which goes into what theater is an exhausting but deeply rewarding experience when you're building Germany from a couple dozen infantry divisions and a few calvary divisions into a fully mechanized war machine complete with panzergrenederien that you hand built from the regiment to the name of the division and the individual general per divsion per army per army group. Its the essence of meaningful depth to a point of clear excess in an obsene overbearing exercise in management over the boring shit in war. .

But going in the complete opposite direction to where you put every single division into a single tab with one general and have to make broad unfun "take over everything" orders where you just click once and watch as your army just marches to moscow in 15 minutes is fucking shit man.

PoulsenB

Poland7734 Posts

November 16 2017 12:13 GMT

#3944

I wonder if the new patch for EU4 will fix the AI not occupying their war goal, in my current TO -> Prussia -> Germany campaign I've seen it several times, for example Sweden called me to war with Russia over some garbage province in the northern Finland area (not a fort, not even near a fort at that) and then never even bothered to occupy said province, I eventually had to do it for them even though they captured like 10 other provinces in the meantime. Same with Poland attacking me for Kulm and never even trying to occupy it despite having twice the units than me. AI just lets the warscore tick down because the wargoal is not achieved, which makes them lose the war or just makes the conflict drag for several years more than it should. I'm aware the AI can be really derpy, but come on -_-'

Drake

Germany6146 Posts

November 16 2017 13:58 GMT

#3945

the new dlc overnerfs the ottomans ...

Scip

Czech Republic11293 Posts

November 16 2017 19:46 GMT

#3946

That's what I was a bit worried about. Who's going to be my endgame boss now?

TMG26

Portugal2017 Posts

November 16 2017 22:49 GMT

#3947

Every hardcore fan is loosing faith in nu-paradox

PoulsenB

Poland7734 Posts

November 17 2017 11:28 GMT

#3948

While I haven't played CoC yet (hoping to start a Persia run on Sunday), I've seen mixed reports about Otto nerfs. There are many reports that they lose badly to Balkans early on, but there are also reports that they still beat up everyone around (and those are probably underrepresented on forums and reddit since people are more likely to publicly whine about nerfs than say Otto is still pretty stronk). I think the Otto nerf was necessary for a middle-east oriented expansion, as lots of people are going to play nations in that region, and without the nerf all games there would basically be "how much time do I have before Ottomans come knocking on my borders with >60k troops?". Also devs claim that in the off-hands test games Otto still hold their own. I guess time will tell if the nerfs were too much.

Scip

Czech Republic11293 Posts

November 17 2017 15:14 GMT

#3949

it's true Ottomans were pretty restrictive, I kept playing my trebizond campaign and although I have about 700 development at 1550, the Ottomans have like 1200, they field double the size of my army and have quadruple the manpower. Even with my tactical superiority I can't actually fight them. I have to farm small nations for like 50 more years and take almost pure military ideas (something like offensive, quality and economic or some other OP combo) to even have a chance against them.

I've almost always played in europe or middle east, so I could always block the Ottoman expansion from one side, but I imagine they are even more ridiculous when you play in something like India where they can expand in all directions unopposed.

Silvanel

Poland4747 Posts

November 17 2017 15:54 GMT

#3950

I also treated Otto as a final boss so i dont like them nerfed. I am not sure if balancing the game towards more casual players and at the same time spamming DLCs that only more dedicated players buy is wise. I dont want my game easy. I want my game FAIR.

Zaros

United Kingdom3692 Posts

November 17 2017 15:57 GMT

#3951

Ottos destroyed any regional diversity they needed the nerf, but I think people are just overreacting still seen plenty of games where ottos still wins out and blobs just now its not 100% and sometimes you will have a big mamluks sometimes a divided middle east or other power.

PoulsenB

Poland7734 Posts

November 17 2017 16:11 GMT

#3952

The info we're getting is distorted by all the people posting screens of Otto's being torn apart by their neighbours. But many people are also reporting that Otto can still blob just fine, only a bit slower and with a non-zero chance of failure this time. I for one welcome the increased diversity.

Scip

Czech Republic11293 Posts

November 17 2017 19:47 GMT

#3953

Well, I guess you can technically 1v1 VH Ottomans at 1550, but I definitely wouldn't call it a worthwhile war:
+ Show Spoiler +

If I continued playing the campaign I think I should be able to snag mil tech 15 for 900+ mil points, have it like 6 years ahead of Ottomans and use the +0.25 tactics and +1.0 morale to crush them. Probably. I had to debase 4 times, didn't take loans though.

zulu_nation8

China26351 Posts

November 18 2017 02:47 GMT

#3954

I did a fast revoke with Kazan on 1.22, but apparently demanding unlawful territory is bugged on the new patch. Tried AQ and their government is terrible, war score reduction is useless without razing or extra CCR. Forming Timurids does give a lot of claims so it's possible to go Rum -> Timurids -> Mughals for perm claims on all of Persia/India. Permanent claims become normal claims after tag switching.

[image loading]

Scip

Czech Republic11293 Posts

November 19 2017 05:59 GMT

#3955

Damn, that's some nice conquering. What difficulty was this?
I finished my Trebizond campaign (it was actually 1.21), killed Ottos about 50 years later than I wanted to, but I think this is still respectable
+ Show Spoiler +

PoulsenB

Poland7734 Posts

November 19 2017 14:52 GMT

#3956

I must be playing this game wrong because I never manage to conquer as much land as fast as you guys. Then again, I'm a rather catious player.

Scip

Czech Republic11293 Posts

November 19 2017 14:58 GMT

#3957

I'd consider myself extremely cautious as well, but it's a question of patience and attention to detail. My speed of conquest comes primarily from playing at speed1 and making sure I'm aware of all the possible opportunities for expansion that could arise. It's not even really a question of skill, but whether you enjoy playing the game that way.

Sermokala

United States14104 Posts

November 19 2017 15:32 GMT

#3958

I don't think I ever lower the time slider under 3x other then pausing now and then.

Conquering that much is making experienced reads of what you can and can't do and keeping a tempo on the things that limit you like ae truces and manpower.

PoulsenB

Poland7734 Posts

November 19 2017 16:03 GMT

#3959

I just need to play the game more, I only have 271 hours so far. I hope they release the hotfix for current bugs soon, I wan't to start playing already.

This is what I managed to get in my last campaign before Cradle, overall I'm pretty satisfied with it. Bohemia is my vassal and Sweden and France are my allies.

[image loading]

zulu_nation8

China26351 Posts

November 19 2017 21:13 GMT

#3960

On November 19 2017 14:59 Scip wrote:
Damn, that's some nice conquering. What difficulty was this?
I finished my Trebizond campaign (it was actually 1.21), killed Ottos about 50 years later than I wanted to, but I think this is still respectable
+ Show Spoiler +

Normal. It's not actually that much blobbing cuz I gave up about 1-2k more development from playing the HRE game. Would've expanded to India and Africa sooner. EU4 is really just an RTS once you know all the mechanics required for optimal blobbing, ex. coalition management, economy, trade, etc. Have to hotkey armies and check if they're getting attacked but it takes like 50 apm.

Prev 1 196 197 198 199 200 209 Next

Please or register to reply.

Europa Universalis IV - Page 198

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming