1.35 Retrospective & Summer Break

[ArtFart]

Well actually the game is easier than ever so I don't know where you see challenge. I can break free as Sweden very easily and quickly with mission trees. Same as Norway. In the past, to be free as Norway was not so straightforward. And it is the same for many other things. Powercreep is everywhere.
The only new challenge is that now we have 10 super blobs to fight by 1650 but it is super repetitive with almost the same pattern over and over.

Cool. That's your opinion.

If the game gave you all the information from pressing start it would be a whole lot easier than that even, which is my point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Good? Shouldn't curveballs and uniqueness be good? Otherwise it just becomes min maxing and mindlessly waiting timers.
You could just disable DLC and play an older version of the game, or cheat whenever there is any sort of puzzle to be solved when it comes to running the nation.

Requesting the developers limit trial and error aspects of MT (aka "spoiler" gameplay) getting such a response is bizarre.

Another example of it is HOI 4 focuses where the outcome is "event happens". Sometimes, that event isn't even RNG, you just pick one of a few options. The same thing happens in every game where you complete that focus. However, until you do, the UI hides the outcome for no reason. That isn't a "curveball". It's bad UI with no merits.

I don't know what would be best practice for previewing MT in EU 4.

 

[honkajoki]

Just play the game and spend 3 expensive wars and 100 AE conquering Castille as Portugal only to get a event that gives you a PU CB on them.

What event gives Portugal a PU CB on Castile? Can't find any such event or mission in the wiki. I know that Castile has both a mission and an event that give PU CB on Portugal, but would like to know about the opposite direction.

 

[Hermerico]

What event gives Portugal a PU CB on Castile? Can't find any such event or mission in the wiki. I know that Castile has both a mission and an event that give PU CB on Portugal, but would like to know about the opposite direction.

Portugal doesn't get any P.U claims on anyone.
I believe he was just trying to give an abstract rhetorical example.

 

[Rebox-O-Lots]

Do the developers have any plans to address the growing "homework" problem?

It used to be that you could simply pick any nation on the map and play it, knowing in advance what things are possible in the game, and that you would play it as well as you know EU4 mechanics.

Now, its less and less possible to know what exactly you're in for if you pick "Portugal" or "Norway".

Will I get an early mission to easily break free of my overlord, or will I have a brutal bloody fight for independence? Will I get a permanent colonist from missions, or will I need to take a whole idea set just to unlock the colonization game? Will I get an effective few hundred points of aggressive expansion less from claims and special subjugation mechanics, or no? Will I get 6-7 personal unions from missions, or zero?

With revamped nations, the only way to know what you're getting into is by doing "homework"; reading the wiki and developer diary for every nation before you play.

Huge, game changing buffs and mechanics are very much hidden in a tree of missions, events and reforms that players have no real way of knowing until they just hit them mid game.

I wonder if this could be addressed if Paradox released on Youtube a number of EUIV nation guides since that's usually where people go first. To learn how to do something by watching someone else do it.

 

[Destaloss]

People who defend the mission tree system and say without it, the game would be more repetetive...

What if I told you, you could design a nation with the help of decisions in the following way:

Let's say you are Milan. Now, you get a decision right from the start that says - "Into the mountains"
- because you have a border with Switzerland and don't own a mountain province yourself
and you can only click the decision if you have full forcelimit i.e. and the decision gives you a VERY small bonus to your military or income for a short time.

Then, let's say you have conquered the whole Alps and you now have more mountains and hills than other terrain.
Now, you get a new decision - "Mountain people" - and that does gives a permanent -5% to -10% dev cost reduction to only those bad mountains and hills.

And so on and so on, building your OWN mission tree essentially.
Now, that would be a system I would like to engage with, rather than being trictly told how to play a certain nation, because the reward modifiers are just bonkers.

 

[brifbates]

I wonder if this could be addressed if Paradox released on Youtube a number of EUIV nation guides since that's usually where people go first. To learn how to do something by watching someone else do it.

Not really sustainable for the long term as things keep changing every patch so they'd just have to re-do them. Not to mention the multiple versions required for certain nations depending on which DLC you are playing with (England, Moscovy, and Ming have 3 different mission trees for example)...

 

[BrotherJonathan]

People who defend the mission tree system and say without it, the game would be more repetetive...

What if I told you, you could design a nation with the help of decisions in the following way:

Let's say you are Milan. Now, you get a decision right from the start that says - "Into the mountains"
- because you have a border with Switzerland and don't own a mountain province yourself
and you can only click the decision if you have full forcelimit i.e. and the decision gives you a VERY small bonus to your military or income for a short time.

Then, let's say you have conquered the whole Alps and you now have more mountains and hills than other terrain.
Now, you get a new decision - "Mountain people" - and that does gives a permanent -5% to -10% dev cost reduction to only those bad mountains and hills.

And so on and so on, building your OWN mission tree essentially.
Now, that would be a system I would like to engage with, rather than being trictly told how to play a certain nation, because the reward modifiers are just bonkers.

Interesting concept; it kind of sounds a little bit like the way you can modify cultures/religions in CK III.
Although I can almost guarantee you if the devs tried to implement something like that a bunch of people would pop up immediately and complain about how it would be "bland" and "generic", since theoretically anyone who controlled a certain amount of mountain terrain could take "Mountain People", etc.

 

[ifffrt]

Are the devs totally against the idea of adding the new EOC mission tree for Dai Viet? I'm still totally going to mod that in myself anyway. I just want to know for sure.

 

[trajianus]

EU IV is a masterpiece, i only hope that you will not water down the game with EU V as what happened with the other titles, if you literally dont change anything about the design of the game but only improve the graphics and deepen the gameplay systems it will be a huge success. you already have a huge fanbase no need to dumb it down for new players.

 

[WeissRaben]

Interesting concept; it kind of sounds a little bit like the way you can modify cultures/religions in CK III.
Although I can almost guarantee you if the devs tried to implement something like that a bunch of people would pop up immediately and complain about how it would be "bland" and "generic", since theoretically anyone who controlled a certain amount of mountain terrain could take "Mountain People", etc.

Good? Nations shouldn't have superpowers Just Because - things should happen and be available because of the nation's conditions and environment, and anyone able to replicate those conditions and environment should, by logic, obtain the same results. Which isn't to say that replicating said conditions should be banal for everyone - starting position and conditions should influence that a great deal - but to the same process should follow the same result.

More importantly, to different processes should not follow the same result. A North German country looking to dominate respectively North Germany, Eastern Europe, or the North Sea - and looking to do so via diplomacy, or trading, or warfare - should absolutely not play the same at all, not develop in the same way at all. Even if you played the same tag - maybe Brandenburg - three times in a row, but doing different stuff every time.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

Good? Nations shouldn't have superpowers Just Because - things should happen and be available because of the nation's conditions and environment, and anyone able to replicate those conditions and environment should, by logic, obtain the same results. Which isn't to say that replicating said conditions should be banal for everyone - starting position and conditions should influence that a great deal - but to the same process should follow the same result.

More importantly, to different processes should not follow the same result. A North German country looking to dominate respectively North Germany, Eastern Europe, or the North Sea - and looking to do so via diplomacy, or trading, or warfare - should absolutely not play the same at all, not develop in the same way at all. Even if you played the same tag - maybe Brandenburg - three times in a row, but doing different stuff every time.

I probably should have clarified that I'm not necessarily agreeing with the sentiment, just saying how I feel some people would react to the original suggestion.

 

[Romanix90]

Johan has confirmed that there will be Middle East and South America DLCs in the future. I really hope that they can do ''Minor Powers'', too.

I also hope that "Minor Powers", like Austria, Bavaria or Milano and Netherlands, would get more atention.

On a personal note i would much love Middle East DLC update so i can play some Zoroastrian Persia.

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

I also hope that "Minor Powers", like Austria, Bavaria or Milano and Netherlands, would get more atention.

On a personal note i would much love Middle East DLC update so i can play some Zoroastrian Persia.

I would like to see more monuments added in Germany, too. It's kind of barebones compared to Italy. It's unbelievable that there's no monument in Vienna and Northern Germany.

As for the ME DLC, I'm looking the most forward to trying out Ardabil-> Persia, Aq Qoyunlu, Oman and Qarabakh-> Armenia. I'll save Zoroastrian faith for a Mazanderan run.

 

[TtheHF]

I want to play a country which gets a free switch to Shia, a country that can develop tall in mountain provinces and a country that gets + diplomatic relations so I can have lots of allies.

Could you recommend me the 3 countries that have that?

Oh, and I'm also bored of always being either protestant or catholic as the HRE emperor. Could you recommend me 2-3 countries off the top of you head who can exclusively (for some reason) easily get the title while being other christian denominations?

I think this is a really good point. Moving the nation splash screen we see when selecting a nation (which most of us have turned off and which I only see thanks to reinstalling Windows) to the select nation window, and adding broadly descriptive explanations of unique disasters, important decisions and events, and what the nation's MT does would massively increase user friendliness.

Nested disasters and events add novelty but can be annoying if you aren't given any warning about them beforehand. But studying up to learn about them reduces the fun of exploring a nation without spoilers. A broad description at the onset would be really handy, and having the nation outline and core information in the same place is important given the big old load time between the two screens.

cbf turning off mods and updating - this is a mock up using old version and Anbennar mod >>

 

[BrotherJonathan]

I think this is a really good point. Moving the nation splash screen we see when selecting a nation (which most of us have turned off and which I only see thanks to reinstalling Windows) to the select nation window, and adding broadly descriptive explanations of unique disasters, important decisions and events, and what the nation's MT does would massively increase user friendliness.

Nested disasters and events add novelty but can be annoying if you aren't given any warning about them beforehand. But studying up to learn about them reduces the fun of exploring a nation without spoilers. A broad description at the onset would be really handy, and having the nation outline and core information in the same place is important given the big old load time between the two screens.

cbf turning off mods and updating - this is a mock up using old version and Anbennar mod >>

View attachment 1007410

Maybe there could be a quick summary that pops up? Strengths, weaknesses, main friends and opponents, things like that. That could give people a sense of what they're in for without giving too much away.

 

[TtheHF]

Maybe there could be a quick summary that pops up? Strengths, weaknesses, main friends and opponents, things like that. That could give people a sense of what they're in for without giving too much away.

Yeah, for sure. The splash seems a good place to do that but yeah, it may be easier to have a new screen than moving the existing one. Regardless I think a brief is a great idea after having recently played two Anbennar campaigns which were stacked with trashy surprise nested events which I would have read up on beforehand to save myself aggravation had I been forewarned heheh

ps. Also having information on whether the nation has a non-default MT would be handy to have too

 

[BrotherJonathan]

Yeah, for sure. The splash seems a good place to do that but yeah, it may be easier to have a new screen than moving the existing one. Regardless I think a brief is a great idea after having recently played two Anbennar campaigns which were stacked with trashy surprise nested events which I would have read up on beforehand to save myself aggravation had I been forewarned heheh

ps. Also having information on whether the nation has a non-default MT would be handy to have too

That almost sounds like playing EU II where you need to read the wiki page for a country before playing as it to avoid getting surprised by nasty event chains.

 

[overthetop_G]

So what you are trying to say is that Domination was quite the profitable DLC, despite it being just a DLC to 4 other DLCs and this is the path you are now willing to take, even tho there are so many untouched areas and outdated maps (it's a shame you no longer are willing to update the maps) that you are so eager to ignore (Aztec, Inca, Jaunpur with no missions whatsoever, many African and European nations with no mission trees despite dedicated DLC's, Indian/Persian mission trees that are rather small and don't offer much in terms of gameplay. Animist absolutely no content). And you are even advertising Domination as a 'truly must-have DLC', even tho in order to get the full potential you still have to buy all the other DLCs

agreed. heck, some natives even use the generic idea group.

 

[overthetop_G]

People who defend the mission tree system and say without it, the game would be more repetetive...

What if I told you, you could design a nation with the help of decisions in the following way:

Let's say you are Milan. Now, you get a decision right from the start that says - "Into the mountains"
- because you have a border with Switzerland and don't own a mountain province yourself
and you can only click the decision if you have full forcelimit i.e. and the decision gives you a VERY small bonus to your military or income for a short time.

Then, let's say you have conquered the whole Alps and you now have more mountains and hills than other terrain.
Now, you get a new decision - "Mountain people" - and that does gives a permanent -5% to -10% dev cost reduction to only those bad mountains and hills.

And so on and so on, building your OWN mission tree essentially.
Now, that would be a system I would like to engage with, rather than being strictly told how to play a certain nation, because the reward modifiers are just bonkers.

That does seem interesting. A lot of mission trees are just re-enacting history or following stale what-if scenarios. EU4 has a problem with assuming that history always follows the same common trajectory. Example? Events that give you advisors. You can get events in, say, the 1600's that give advisors who lived in the 1600's- seems accurate, except that the smallest change in the world could have changed the results(butterfly effect). Country Y is involved in so many wars that it goes in debt, leading to fewer high-society parties, so the parents of famous person X never meet up. Even crazier, a slight change in what happens in 1444 could determine if famous person X's parents even live in the same country. Events and missions that are rigidly based off of history have the major flaw of believing that players will always act the way their country did historically.