EPTSo many small annoyances are fixed
Europa Universalis IV - Page 47
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
So many small annoyances are fixed | ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:30 Monsen wrote: I don't get it either. If you want to watch the original history happen- go watch a documentary ? You guys are complaining about how other people (can) play their single player game. "But, but, but HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO PLAY THAT WAY". Really? Not to mention that all this (im-) probability talk ignores how random even real history has been from time to time. And there have been leaders making (military) decisions that were just as retarded as the EU4 AI. You clearly don't get what the complaints are about. First of all, this is not only about preventing players from abusing bad AI. I mainly reacted on that because some guy said that he wanted to keep the stupid AI, simply because your hands would be too tied if the AI was smarter. I think this is pretty silly, and that kind of attitude goes against what paradox games stands for. My main concern though is about making the game more accurate than it already is. Like I pointed out earlier, the Hundred year war is a great example of this. England is a lot more better off at the start of this game than they really should be, and this is a historical inaccuracy. But you don't care about accuracy, right? Why anyone who plays a Paradox game wouldn't want the game to be as accurate as possible, and the AI as realistic as possible is beyond my understanding. These games aims to be historical simulations, this is no secret, and what that means is that they aim to give the player the opportunity to put themselves in the shoes of a historical ruler, and let the player influence history. These games are less about the challenge, and more about individual choices, and how it changes the future. It's not about history going down exactly as it did in real life, it's about realism. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4746 Posts
Not everyone care about that. In fact a lot of people dont. I for example dont care about historical accuracy. I do want however stronger/smarter AI. The thing i would lvoe the most would be oportunity to create whole new random world. Also some pre-generated ones, from fantasy books and so on. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11791 Posts
The main problem with the whole realism debate is that not everyone talks about the same thing. One major question is how much history could have been influenced by the ruler of one country. Some argue that reducing the things you can do increases realism, but that can easily lead down to a completely railroaded game that you more or less just watch passing by. Not fun. And then you have the starting conditions debate, which is utterly different. I honestly do not know enough about history to decide whether x country should be in a worse spot in one start or another. I guess i would agree that here, more accuracy is better, but it is not especially crucial either in my opinion. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?760947-Glory-for-Ulm-A-Flagland-AAR | ||
|
Yurie
12078 Posts
On March 10 2014 12:27 419 wrote: the great flagland "Glory for Ulm" AAR is back for EU4: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?760947-Glory-for-Ulm-A-Flagland-AAR They are funny.  Recommended reading. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
if you don't watch the whole thing, at least stick around for the opening strategy, it's amazing. there's all sorts of random tricks in here too. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11791 Posts
Even under ideal circumstances you just lose every fight with that kind of difference in generals, and there is nothing you can do about it, at all. Defend in mountains with 2:1 odds? Still lose 2 times as many men as the french. At least my general is really good at running away with his 4 maneuver. I guess i'll just have to hope that france never looks west, and maybe at some point in the future Austria and England will awaken from their slumber. Or i actually get a king and/or general that is not an utter retard. I honestly just hate the whole Monarch point system, tech was so much better in EU3, where it actually mattered what you did and not only how lucky you got on your king roll. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
this is pty hilarious - "no manpower, France is allied with Austria, Super-Serbia and Spain, sure I'll claim their throne" Shia Defender of the Faith Republican Dictatorship Prussia with all 6 military idea groups, seems like it could be good | ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
Several complaints I had about EU3 that I thought/fucking expected would be fixed for EU4 Why does the timeline extend past the French revolution if the game doesn't have any mechanics that could let a nation accomplish what Napoleon did Incentives need to exist for nations to not colonize EVERYWHERE, I hate the New world looking like a fucking patchwork WHY CAN YOU COLONIZE AFRICA. THEY EVEN ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE IN VICTORIA 2. A few smaller things, in my opinion buildings shouldn't cost points/magistrates for example but that's debateable Should have a great war-esque system for the thirty year's war. The protestant reformation never comes to a boiling point. ever Ontop of that the game introduced a simply massive amount of new problems The piss easy nature of fabricating claims makes the HRE into a blobfest which doesn't make any sense. It's really hard to simulate the HRE because CKII would be a perfect simulation of the HRE until it's dissolution but you can't put a game inside a game Hordes are puny. Really puny Culture conversion is a joke. Idk what Paradox was thinking they released this game. I guess they were scared to veer away from the EU3 formula because it was their big money maker, but EU3 and EU4 just do a downright terrible job simulating their time period. In fact, I would say it's impossible to simulating the entirety of EU4's time period. It should broken into 2 seperate games. | ||
|
myzael
Poland605 Posts
On March 18 2014 16:00 MattBarry wrote: I've been playing since EU3 vanilla 7 years ago and I'm disappointed to say I won't be purchasing EU4 expansions. At least it's the only Paradox title I regret buying Several complaints I had about EU3 that I thought/fucking expected would be fixed for EU4 Why does the timeline extend past the French revolution if the game doesn't have any mechanics that could let a nation accomplish what Napoleon did Incentives need to exist for nations to not colonize EVERYWHERE, I hate the New world looking like a fucking patchwork WHY CAN YOU COLONIZE AFRICA. THEY EVEN ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE IN VICTORIA 2. A few smaller things, in my opinion buildings shouldn't cost points/magistrates for example but that's debateable Should have a great war-esque system for the thirty year's war. The protestant reformation never comes to a boiling point. ever Ontop of that the game introduced a simply massive amount of new problems The piss easy nature of fabricating claims makes the HRE into a blobfest which doesn't make any sense. It's really hard to simulate the HRE because CKII would be a perfect simulation of the HRE until it's dissolution but you can't put a game inside a game Hordes are puny. Really puny Culture conversion is a joke. Idk what Paradox was thinking they released this game. I guess they were scared to veer away from the EU3 formula because it was their big money maker, but EU3 and EU4 just do a downright terrible job simulating their time period. In fact, I would say it's impossible to simulating the entirety of EU4's time period. It should broken into 2 seperate games. This is why there are mods... | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1961 Posts
| ||
|
iaretehnoob
Sweden741 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On April 01 2014 22:19 Broetchenholer wrote: Can someone explain to me, why vassalizing an enemy gives me more aggressive expansion penalty then conquering the enemy? Why would i ever use the vassalize-option in that case? Just so that i don't get any overextension? Is there another point i don't see? iaretehnoob touched on pretty much everything, but you even said it in your post. Not having to pay buckets of admin points to core everything is a pretty huge reason to diplo-annex over straight up taking provinces in war. It also helps to keep revolt risk down. | ||
| ||
