|
On August 15 2014 21:14 Bojas wrote:
Most features serve a practical purpose. They don't add any gameplay. It's like Blizzard releasing LotV with main feature ''probes are now automatically made''. I don't mind them removing tedious tasks from the game, but they're advertising them as main features of their ''expansion''.
The gameplay changes that they do add, aren't very big. Making clientcountries seems like fun, but it seems not very different than colonial nations and vassals. Adding provinces to Africa and Asia is cool I guess, but not very exciting.
Maybe I'm judging this too soon, they are going to implement a lot of small gameplay changes apparently. We'll see. I think I would much prefer if they skipped the 4 ''expansions'' they made and put that time into making an ''old school'' expansion that increases the gameplay value by 30% or more instead of the small margins these dlcs do.
They are also more like DLCs than expansions. Maybe they shouldn't market it like that, but compare the price of LotV and a "expansion" from EU4
|
On August 15 2014 21:14 Bojas wrote:
Most features serve a practical purpose. They don't add any gameplay. It's like Blizzard releasing LotV with main feature ''probes are now automatically made''. I don't mind them removing tedious tasks from the game, but they're advertising them as main features of their ''expansion''.
The gameplay changes that they do add, aren't very big. Making clientcountries seems like fun, but it seems not very different than colonial nations and vassals. Adding provinces to Africa and Asia is cool I guess, but not very exciting.
Maybe I'm judging this too soon, they are going to implement a lot of small gameplay changes apparently. We'll see. I think I would much prefer if they skipped the 4 ''expansions'' they made and put that time into making an ''old school'' expansion that increases the gameplay value by 30% or more instead of the small margins these dlcs do.
I think your judgment is quite fair, but it's also what PDS intends. DLCs are how they get the player base to pay for continued patch support. If you don't want to pay, you still get most of the patch.
Bigger xpacs mean longer patch cycles with more features, which means more outstanding bugs to play with while waiting for fixes. Perhaps in Shangri-La new features ship without bugs, but not where I buy games.
And complicated, elaborate new mechanics mean the AI script wasn't designed to understand the new stuff and probably never will. I'm assuming Civ5 xpac added a bunch of stuff the AI can't use at all; Civ3 and Civ4 certainly did (corporations spring to mind). For a game with a very devoted single-player community, this is the most important thing that PDS doesn't do to its games. Trading companies and colonial nations act like vassals specifically so that AI Portugal will understand how they work (or at least can understand; cf. patch cycle).
The EU4 forum says this is not a popular system, but the EU4 sales say otherwise. I do not dispute your conclusion: it is exactly what it looks like, and if that doesn't look pleasing to you then it probably won't please you.
|
I think the whole point of EU4 DLC is that it doesnt change the core game. Even if you bundled the content of all released DLCs that wouldnt be diferent. Expansions ussually create a new game, be it SC2, Civ or other games. It would be unreasonable work to create a xpac that significantly changes the game and keep updating the core game as well, noone does that. You may hold the view that this makes them too expensive for what they are, but at the same time this means that you are by no means obligated to buy them. The core game gets some of the most important changes and is still updated frequently.
I honestly can't have an issue with it. It's like cosmetic DLCs, if its not worth your money, just dont buy it. The game wont be significantly worse without it. A lot of people seem to be offended "on principle", but if other people think it's worth it, it's their money. It's not like being stuck with Wings of Liberty or even worse, lacking an expansion for a MMO.
|
Yeah I'll probably still buy the expansion as the core game is freaking awesome and the developers deserve the support.
I have quite a lot of hours in this game. I think my disappointment boils down to having pretty much explored and completed the core game. I'm hoping to add more to that core of awesomeness, then they announce an expansion and it doesn't really add much replayability.
If it comes down to lack of funding: I would definitely pay €60 for an expansion, maybe more, if it would contain something of more substance. I don't see how they can't do bugfixes in regular patches, perhaps while also writing code to removing tedious unnecessary tasks and release a major expansion (like the expansions we had before the invention of downloadable content) every 9-12 months.
|
http://www.eu4wiki.com/Art_of_War
i think it looks really good actually seems more impact full then earlier dlc's, especially the free features:S, i wonder how the new rebel system looks like, to bad the CK2 rebel system is not suitable for EU4 because rebels felt way more real, instead of sort of random boom doomstack, i hope they make rebels have less troups, but drain in your own army/manpower as one would expect in non-peasant uprisings(these soldiers have to come from somewhere).
Also interested how they will implement a difference between client states and vassals, and i really hope they add extended time line so i can play with extended timeline(to make the napoleonic stuff actually relevant) while playing ironman
with updating the non-europe map i also hope they slightly buff base taxes outside europe
|
I think that the DLC looks really nice, but maybe im just blinded by my fanboyism of Gustav Adolf and Napoleon :D I'm really looking forward to see the 30 years war and napoleonic events finally be a thing in the game!
|
The ease of navy and army building buffs are nice. I wish they added some type of auto build as well, set threshold of monarch power to never go below, set building(s) to build, start at highest base tax. Never build a building manually again.
|
Although I'm still new, this new expansion looks pretty good.
And I'll probably buy all DLC for this game anyway, even cosmetics, because I love Paradox so much (despite getting my first comet event recently)
|
Has anyone else been experiencing AI France declaring lots of no CB wars? It has happened at least 5 times already I think in my Ottomans game and it is not even 1600 yet.
|
On August 19 2014 04:01 WindWolf wrote:
Has anyone else been experiencing AI France declaring lots of no CB wars? It has happened at least 5 times already I think in my Ottomans game and it is not even 1600 yet.
I have seen the game put a No-CB label on succession wars, the kind caused by a 3rd party's ruler dying without an heir. I think I've seen it on other wars too but since I can't name them I don't want to assert it. Are they actually destroying their stability and war exhaustion? Do you know what kind of peace treaties they're taking in these wars? If it's the succession wars I mentioned, there would be a lot of PUs near France, if not necessarily with France, since those almost always end with a PU with one side or the other.
It might even be the way the game announces that France has accepted a call to arms and has assumed leadership of the war, but I doubt it. I've tried to get the game to announce to me when my neighbors do that but I can't make it happen consistently.
|
On August 19 2014 04:58 Gladness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 04:01 WindWolf wrote:
Has anyone else been experiencing AI France declaring lots of no CB wars? It has happened at least 5 times already I think in my Ottomans game and it is not even 1600 yet. I have seen the game put a No-CB label on succession wars, the kind caused by a 3rd party's ruler dying without an heir. I think I've seen it on other wars too but since I can't name them I don't want to assert it. Are they actually destroying their stability and war exhaustion? Do you know what kind of peace treaties they're taking in these wars? If it's the succession wars I mentioned, there would be a lot of PUs near France, if not necessarily with France, since those almost always end with a PU with one side or the other. It might even be the way the game announces that France has accepted a call to arms and has assumed leadership of the war, but I doubt it. I've tried to get the game to announce to me when my neighbors do that but I can't make it happen consistently.
I don't remember exactly what the war was for, but now that you mention it PU wars sounds plausible since France is still France. Since I so far has only see France (supposedly) declaring no CB wars, I started to get suspicious.
|
|
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
|
I think I noticed what caused lots of no CB wars to show up to me; if a nation joins a war (and is not the war leader) and separate peaces out, it will show as a no-CB war. Restarted as Ottomans, Crimea joined my war against constantinopel and got a separate peace, whiched caused it to be shown as a no-CB war.
Oh, and in 1445, The Palatine leads a PU with Austria 
|
So, I haven't played since the Conquest of Paradise version, and I'm wondering if any current players could give an objective overview of what happened since then, as well as a subjective one about whether (you think) it's worth it for me to catch up in DLCs.
Thanks in advance.
|
Game got worse with pretty much every patch since then. Johan's Paradox multiplayer games just matter more than what the entire community wants. n_n
Major changes since then include fun things such as 3-4 times as much AE, personal unions that break pretty much all the time, some improvements to trade, impossible westernisation and removal of monarch point mali for lower tier tech groups.
|
On August 28 2014 23:33 beef42 wrote:
So, I haven't played since the Conquest of Paradise version, and I'm wondering if any current players could give an objective overview of what happened since then, as well as a subjective one about whether (you think) it's worth it for me to catch up in DLCs.
Thanks in advance.
Objectively: Truce timers now varies depending on Warscore; 5 Years at white peace, 15 years (yes that right) for 100%
Subjectively: If the range was instead 5-10 years i'd be happy with the change.
Really only started playing this game between the release of Res Publica and the expansion before that so I can't compare any further back than that
|
On August 28 2014 23:33 beef42 wrote:
So, I haven't played since the Conquest of Paradise version, and I'm wondering if any current players could give an objective overview of what happened since then, as well as a subjective one about whether (you think) it's worth it for me to catch up in DLCs.
Thanks in advance.
A vocal minority is bitching around cause of the truce and AE changes. Not only do I think they are a step in the right direction, they are trivially easy to mod to fit your liking.
They are gradually adding new features, RP feels light on them, but it's a mini-expansion after all.
AoW looks very promising, with the major optimisation and whatnot.
In essence: RP is not a must buy, AoW probably will.
|
AE is very good atm, you shouldnt have any problems with it at all. Truce timer should be capped at 10 years though.
|
Yeah, truce timers seem a bit Long.
AE seems ok to me... You still can grow fast, but you can't just swallow up everything whiteout pissing you rother neighbours off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
