Europa Universalis IV - Page 2

On August 13 2012 18:27 beef42 wrote:
God damn it, here I was hoping Project Truman was a new game set during the cold war.

On August 13 2012 11:31 Candadar wrote:


They axed Magna Mundi because it was making no significant progress and wasn't passing any of their testing phases at all.

Hopefully this new leader system will stop me from winning the game by 1450 though

I'm super pumped about the new trade system too.

On August 11 2012 00:51 Ramong wrote:
Just hope there will be a little more micromanagement of your empire this time.

On August 13 2012 23:51 Yurie wrote:


I am of the opposite opinion. Rebels/pirates (got better with expansions, still not fully there though), building buildings (installed mod for this), moving armies across water. All three required too much micro management.

I want a mode where all I do is what I want to do. Where I just check what I want the AI to do. If I enabled everything I would just be a spectator of the game. Then I could turn it all off and have to micromanage everything (default somewhere in middle), which would make us both happy?

On August 14 2012 00:03 beef42 wrote:


This is really the only solution the old dilemma of getting a complex game without bogging down the player with endless trivialities. The space 4X game, Distant Worlds, does a great job of this.

On August 14 2012 00:16 Yurie wrote:


Is there a bundle edition of distant worlds or is it only the pirates that get the one download edition? Anyhow it seems interesting, if there isn't a demo/bundle I guess I'll pirate it to check it out. Feels pointless getting the basic game considering the difference expansions does. Just look at EU3. (DW with 2 addons is around 100 USD here.)

Anyhow back on topic. I think the game sounds worse than EU3 in what they choose to hype, greater depth, not more fun. While in practice it will be better since they learnt a lot since then. The only thing in the OP that I think I want to try out is the multiple people controlling one country, that way I could ramp up the speed a lot if they don't provide automation. ^^ I guess I'll see how it turns out.

On August 14 2012 01:37 Candadar wrote:


Except greater depth IS more fun for these types of games.

If you want mindless country management with lots of 'fun', Civilization is right up your alley. Not to say I don't like Civilization, it's one of my favorite series of all time and one of the first I ever played. However, the glory of Grand Strategy Games like EU, HoI, and Vicky is that they have this kind of depth that no other game or genre even scratches the surface of. So for that reason, I'm fucking pumped for this improved trade and monarch system.

On August 14 2012 04:46 Yurie wrote:


I found civilization to have much more micro than EU3. EU3 only large micro sinks was creating army when you wanted to do it in many areas at the same time, occasionally adjusting government, some diplomacy if I cared for it, rebels/pirates, naval transport and building buildings.

You could go at full speed for several minutes with nothing happening in EU3, most turns you have something to do in civilisation (though I havn't played any since 3).

On August 13 2012 23:15 Perscienter wrote:
Don't be too optimistic. Hearts of Iron never reached its former glory after they split the community several times with too many add-ons and then introduced the the buggy, overloaded successor.

Multiplayer in Doomsday also never fully worked. Paradox is quite a sloppy developer, actually.

On August 14 2012 06:02 undyinglight wrote:
Is this game in the 4x genre?

On August 14 2012 04:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


Maybe 1300's/1400's EU3 has less micro than Civ just because how small the armies are and how easy attrition/manpower is managed, but mid-late game the depth increases exponentially and EU3 definitely makes Civ micro look like a joke.
linear growth of complexity into the mid-late game.

Civ's growth of complexity into mid-late game is closer to a linear one.