Ottomans more OP then ever then?
They should be, they are the boogeyman of europe in this era.
More narrative focus. Kinda like Vic2. Interesting, very interesting.
I rather thought it reminded me more of HoI4 and it's focus tree, I hope that in EU5 something like that will replace national ideas, idea groups and this system.
I was kind of hoping this was going to replace national ideas when I first saw it.
They won't be able to get that objective in that age.
[Placeholder]
D - Disappointment.
Looks like "micro-achievements" with even more "magical" and deliberate mechanics. Some people hoped "mana" concept would be overhauled, some hoped for naval or land combat improvements...
I would much rather have seen a system where a specific achievement led to a specific bonus. Though that would mean that they basically were missions.
Okay...next problem. Ottomans will snowball even more. Unless you will add counterweight they will NEVER decline, they will IMPROVE even more.
Well technically they didn't in this era, they we're simply eclipsed.
Again, static bonuses are bad and lame. If Russia (or Iberians) will colonize whole Siberia before Age of Absolutism and will get bonus to colonization this will be...bad for balance.
Well the bonus ends after the age ends.
Also, is having unique abilities for certain countries really such a great idea when those countries may very well be eradicated at that point, or exist in completely different circumstances that make no sense for the bonus?
Yeah I thought about that too, much good Sweden being a lucky nation in the second to last period considering they're going to be annexed long before that by Denmark.
Will it be possible to make Ages start by events, rather than at a fixed date?
This is not a bad idea.
The Ottomans didn't decline, that theory has been rejected by academics for some time. They stopped expanding militarily but that hardly equals a decline.
But they were eclipsed. No they did not decline but they stagnated.
Those mini-objectives are an awesome idea for new players ! Should help them a lot to answer the "what to do now ?" question
I would say rather the opposite, yet another mechanic for new players to get confused by.
They had internal problems anyway. Maybe there is another name to this atm, sorry.
Ottomans are too OP anyway. During timeline of EU4 from 8 wars between Ottomans and Russia only 1 was won by turks and two was draws. Ottomans relied on quantity and huge armies with good supply trains, but in the game they are top quality army. Russia didn't have huge population during timeline and couldn't rely on zerg-rush.
well Russia didn't exist for like 1/3rd of the period so they're not really the best way to judge how good the ottomans were a full century before they even existed.
Actually, only the PU one is really limited to christians, succesful ROTW countries can still accomplish the others:
Discovering new world: mostly doable by east asian/west african countries, but many europeans won't get it either.
5 COT: large empire anywhere
Large city: pretty sure Ming starts with it.
Embrace Renaissance: easier for europeans, but a truly succesful ROTW country will have developed to get it.
2 continents: same as discovering new world, as well as some countries on borders between continents.
humiliate rival: Universal
True but they might well have given the people who can't achieve a certain one some other one. In fact as someone suggested in one of the posts below every continent could have it's own goals.
It's not THAT euro centric
ROTW countries can get all the objectives except the PU one (and there are maybe 2 or 3 countries even in Europe which are able to do that)
But some unique bonuses are quite unlogical (Denmark SHOULD lose its PUs, Ottomans dont need another bonus, their blobbing is quite historically relevant)
They are however tailored towards the european powers, it will be much harder for non europeans to achieve them. Like I said giving every continent their own ones might make sense.
Six out of seven objectives being possible for ROTW isn't enough for you?
Rest of the old world, the americans can't achieve any of these except the humiliate one.
also expecting pops mechanism was a bit over-optimistic IMO. I don't think it's possible at this point.
Yes I think we can forget about those, maybee in eu5. I sure hope so, these abstractions for development are kind of meh.
Those era's sound really eurocentric.
And did the Ottomans really need another buff?
Well the names don't matter that much, if the eras meant something different for different parts of the world it wouldn't bother me. Much more problematic is that the rest of the world is again stuck sharing mechanics with Europe.
Only one question, just how moddable are the ages and the abilities?
Good question, could we mod in a unique ability for everyone on every age for an example?
If they cant even have boats, you cannot expect them to be successful in this age
Well they could in reality, it's so odd that the Andeans can't have ships in the game for some reason. They weren't great seafarers but still.
Why? Norway was solid as a rock and due to the Norwegian nobility pretty much going extinct from the black death and being replaced by Danish nobility I have a hard time seeing it break away from Denmark unless something really extraordinary happens.
And Sweden didn't break until 1523; and it's arguable whether that one should be railroaded to break, since there were specific circumstances which led to it breaking and without those circumstances happening then it needn't break.
Yes norway might stay on (though it would be nice with source for the claim about the black death, i was rather under the impression that the union with denmark started after the plague had struck) but the union with Sweden was pretty much doomed with the death of the Wittelsbach dyasty. Sweden agreed to being ruled by that dynasty, when they died out we elected Karl Knutsson Bonde to be king of sweden, hoping that denmark and norway in an interest of maintaining the union would also do the same, instead they elected the Oldenburgs and forced sweden to accept their King. After that Sweden had no intrest in the union any more, the union had been formed to contain the hansa and the hansa was now less of a problem thus they saw nothing to gain from maintaining the union. The last part would have been true even without the end of the Wittelsbach dynasty.
Shouldn't Spain get this bonus? The only country that in this era could be said to have engaged in serious settlement of colonies was Spain, Portugal was busy bombing Muslim ships in the Indian Ocean and deploying armies to conquer choke points in Asian trade routes, not "colonising" in the EU4 sense. In fact, organised colonisation of Brazil only began immediately after the end date of this Age, in 1534 with the creation of the Captaincies of Brazil.
Yeah it feels a bit off, perhaps Portugal could get a buff to colonizing outside of colonial regions? These days they always go directly for the carribean and then spend the entire rest of the game colonizing in the americas while spain heads down the African coast towards india.
Would you consider reducing the amount of monarch point we receive in the game? As a safe player, i always end up with too many monarch points espacially in the mid game.
I know there is a lot of conquererant players, i don't want to start a war here. It's just a question.
Yeah I agree here, with all these new mechanics adding monarch point to the game (or saving them) there's rather been an inflation in them and they should be decreased as a result.
How about changing Portugal's bonus to 100% growth, but only in Africa (where there are a lot of penalties) and maybe with a reduction in this bonus for every colony built in the region.
Not just africa but all non colonial regions. Portugal were basically island hopping.
Portugal didn´t really take much in terms of land, a massive colonial range bonus would male more sense.
They already have one of those and it only resulted in them grabbing the Caribbean before Spain. Perhaps they could have twice the colonial range when colonizing outside of colonial regions? Or twice the colonial growth when grabbing important centers of trade.
Thank you!
If you have Common Sense DLC, invest every not needed monarch point into development. As I like blobbing myself, I can tell that, unless I have only Mehmet II-tier rulers I have NEVER enough admin points.
That's the point you very quickly end up with 3-4 provinces that are more populous than Constantinople and Nanjing. Heck your capital often ends up bigger than these combined.
Yep - agree with that. A better idea so they can start making their way towards India earlier on
Except they won't, they will make their way to the Caribbean even earlier.
Sweden had several attempts to break free until they finally did. As early as 1448 Sweden elected a king.
In 1470 Sten Sture the old tried to break from Denmark and there was a actual battle which denmark lost.
And some say that from that on it was more a matter of when and not if Sweden would break free.
So basically Denmark lowered local unrest by increasing LA until sweden finally broke free.
Also the reasons the union was formed had been lost, the only reason Sweden didn't leave earlier was that they didn't want to lose the union over norway that they perceived to be theirs, but when norway took the danish side in the succession crisis Sweden basically said F this and decided that they were done with the union.
Or some trade post demand mechanic, but that would be need to be shared with later eras I think.
Or something like the trading cities of the merchant republics. It made quite a fun game as a colonizing Hansa, setting up trade cities on centre of trade provinces I colonized.
Dear Johan, I think it's time to take another look at Lucky status. I think it's becoming obsolete with all this new stuff that you are adding to the game. We don't need luck to simulate historically succesful countries any longer. This DLC offers the necessary tools for that.
Yeah I haven't played with that for ages.
I feel like its a vicious cycle. Because as i said, i end up having too much monach points, so i have high developped province, too much money/man power/ trade power and so the game become too easy, i personnally like when the game is harder, not punitive but harder
De facto mid and late game are less interesting for me and so it's always about snowballing faster
The game does not need to be harder but more monarch points don't make it easier it just makes it more snowbally.
It would be quite 'easy' (for someone who knows what they're doing!) to mod a 1400 start, which could also push back the spread of feudalism in a few regions - which as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a 'staring province'.. Paris would be a good one for it (maybe giving a production bonus)
Not Paris, Aachen. Charlamagne is the father of feudalism and that was his capital.
I'm kind of disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I do not think these are bad mechanics. They probably will allow for new strategic decisions: Min-maxing splendor, choosing the right abilities, etc.
But I like the simulation aspect of the game. Leading a country in a world that makes sense. Example Manpower: If a country looses a lot of troops in fights they can't create new ones because they lack men to become soldiers. It's an abstraction but it makes sense. Even the (sometimes hated) monarch points make sense. They might be too abstract but they makes sense: A good administration allows to core more land. If your monarch is a great strategist you probably develop new unit types and tactics faster.
But splendor makes no sense: What does it represent? It represents the ability to create more claims by settling America. Or to humiliate your rival to make your troops fight better in your capital's terrain. There's no causality here.
As I said: That doesn't make this mechanic bad (chess doesn't make sense either). It's just a direction that's not to my tast.
Yeah the achievements should be linked to the rewards. But there's already a system like that; missions.
And quite frankly the game is a bit to chessy for me already. I prefer my games to be more like poker, where you have to adapt not just plan ahead.
After 1530, the goals will change. And i wonder where the age of reformation will be centered. Age of Absolutism? Hmmmm... I wonder if that isn't another eurocentric age. Age of revolutions is the only dark horse. But given that it starts in 1710, having to wait 266 years it's not my idea of fun. It's just a complex, heavy railroading mechanic, that compensates the fact that this game has so few of it.
Well you could start in a later date.
The new mechanic seems awesome.
The one problem I have though, is the ottomans. I have been complaining that they are way too overpowered in the last patches, especially when they got the harem. They already blob like hell and now they will even more... You really should adress that at some point, because like I said: It may be historical, but a super blob that unless you play Austria/France or something you have 0 chance against is not fun.
fun+game balance > historical accuracy
PS: there's people here who don't seem to like the new mechanic. If it doesn't mess too much with everything else on the game, you could maybe add an option to turn it off and on without losing IM. I have no idea how doable that is, just a suggestion.
The ottomans are supposed to be big and dangerous, especially early on. In the game I hardly ever see them take Hungary much less threaten Austria.
The bonuses to Ottoman siege ability in this age feels so misplaced and odd. Interesting stuff overall, though.
They blasted European fortresses to splinters with their bombards for years before europeans had cannons, It feels perfectly well placed.
I'd personally like if there were a few variations, maybe tied to culture or location. Four ages for the Africans, four different ones for the Americans, four for the Middle East, and four for everything east of Persia. That should cover most of the world and round out to a solid 16, but that's probably asking for too much.
I can get behind this, well they could still use the same names and the same dates but the goals and the bonuses would be different for each of them. I mean basically it's just one century per age and seeing how 16th century, 17th century, and so on is also a european way to chop time up I think the ages themselves are fine. The content of them is what needs tweaking for different places.
Oh and you system has one flaw, colonial nations, they'd use the american ages but they should probably use the same as europe.
Considering they never reach their historical size I don't see the problem.
Finally someone point this out.
The names are taken from European history. GET OVER IT. Ffs guys, it's just the name. I have no doubt that if X country in the rest of the world did something amazing during a certain age that country will get a special bonus. I have no doubt that timmy or mughal will get a bonus on the date they conquered India or manchu having a bonus during the age they formed Qing and ate China.
I would worry a lot more about things that are currently in the game that need fixing as to them adding having 2 PU's as a Splendour creater.
If it was just the names I would have no argument, after all like I said above 16 and 17th century are also European names.
Is there no ability to resist the tides of progress, like in Vicky 2? Mechanics and objectives just change all around me with the zeitgeist and I have to go along with it? It's cool but I wish there was the flexibility to be a reactionary nation in the midst of the changes like Spain. If I crush the Reformers, crush The Revolution... why should I have to have myself and the world develop in an Enlightenment direction?
But you can resist the reformation, and crush the revolution, you can just not stop the rest of the world from moving on. And remember the special nations of the revolutionary era are Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia, none of which were a revolutionary republic.
Golden age only works for once per game? What if I achieved 3 objectives in an earlier Age and managed to fulfill more in later Ages? Doesnt it count as a golden age too?
Yes I could see it having a soft cap instead. Every time you get one the requirement double or something.
It never ceases to amaze how emotional people get about the game, to the point that I've read four separate people in this thread go on a rant and a couple say they're quitting the game because of a change that nobody is forcing anyone to buy. Chill out guys, the world isn't over.
Anyway, I see the Ages system not as a new feature just for now but the introduction of a scaffolding/framework that will allow much more flavour in the future. One of the problems that always seems to come up is stuff like the Ottomans for example - how is it possible to show a rise and then relative fall organically rather than having a super event called "Fall of the Ottomans" where everything sucks?
The developers obviously want certain things to happen at certain points of the game in order to keep a fun historical feel to it. Having a way of properly dividing the game into large segments not based on technology but on timeframe is a colossal step forward in terms of how they can then start balancing and adding new content.
It also helps the playerbase significantly because it helps creates context to the arguments that you're making on balance. Instead of saying "nerf Otto pls" you can now say "the Ottomans in Age of Revolutions should have the following debuff to reflect their waning cycle as referenced in X, Y and Z historical events".
People aren't really thinking about the possibilities that such a feature is going to have on the future direction of the game and the community in general - I think Johan was correct when he referred to it as possibly the biggest feature ever added post-launch certainly in terms of how it will change the way the game is played.
We could be witnessing a far reaching replacement for things like Lucky Nations, random event chains and the rest of those things. Obviously not straight away in patch 1.20 but this change will significantly alter where the game is going to be in 1.25.
Because it shows which direction paradox is taking with their game, and it seems to be away from the Vic2 style games we want and towards more abstraction.
one of my friend guessed those countries for other ages
Reformation : Ottomans, Castile/Spain, Austria, ?
Absolutism : France, Netherlands, PLC, Sweden
Revolutions : France, England, Russia, Prussia
what do you think?
Austria should not be in the reformation era, by then the sun had already set upon Charles V's empire upon which the sun never sets (yes that was first said about his empire).
Some companies or public people fall victims of their fanbase when they start doing exactly what crowd demands. This won't be the case of PDS if they start taking into consideration advices of loyal fans that have at least 1k hours played (some have 2.5k or even 5k). Sometimes balance or setup changes are even more refreshing and viable than new features, and EU4 might be the illustrative case.
Well they have had some pretty nice disagreements recently, defensive pacts in Ck2, development in eu4 and so on. I approve of many of these. But at the same time it is ever more abstracted mechanics. I don't think that is the way they should be taking the game.
I have a hard enough time guessing the reasoning behind Denmark being one of the only four countries in the planet to get a slot in the Age of Discovery, let alone guess who will get them in the other ages
I have no idea, it should really be the Hansa, they were the superpower that the Kalmar Union formed to contain. But Paradox seems to dislike them for some reason, they keep making them less interesting (the trade league mechanic is great for when you're playing against them, it sucks for when you're playing as them, moreover i think Mecklenburg must be a member, oh and that westphallic should be low saxon).
We actually were a major power in the first half of the game; after which Sweden took our place in the Sun. Heck as late as the 1850s (in the Slesvig Wars) the Germans actually saw us as the big bad boogieman.
You can't diminish the importance of the Sound Toll. It made the king one of the richest monarchs in Europe and allowed him to build really extensively and at the same time go on military adventures abroad despite the nobility having given him shackles on at his coronation. (Until 1660 every new king had to sign an agreement with the nobility which stated what the king could and could not do without the consent of the nobility.)
Hamlet was not set in Denmark by coincidence; and neither was it set at Kronborg by coincidence.
No you were a regional power, and Sweden did not take your place in the sun, the öresund trade declined with the discovery of the new world and denmark's position declined as a result, same thing that happened to their main rival the hansa, except denmark lingered on for a while longer. Sweden built it's own fortunes on a very different basis, that of military might.
That said in the early game I agree the sound toll should be a far more important mechanic.
None of them is rotw, so it's highly plausible.
Funny.
Certainly, Denmark was the major regional power up to this period, but wasn't France a major power then too? And Spain? What about Muscovy? Poland? And the Papacy? The accomplishments of any of which in this Age could be argued to have been as impactful if not more than those of Denmark.
And more importantly, what about the RotW? What about Vijayanagar? Ming? Malacca? Kilwa? Aztec? There are plenty of countries that achieved their zenith during this time period in a way that influenced more people than Denmark.
I am not against Denmark and the Kalmar Union getting more flavour, I just find the choice of putting it in this particular mechanic puzzling.
Ultimately it is sort of a timed National Idea that is available for a tiny subset of countries to the detriment of all others, so it is always going to be hard to justify I guess...
Actually the regional power was the Hansa, sure they were declining in this era but they were still Denmark's main rival and they could have used a boost that will disappear in 1530 much more than Denmark who very recently were given a massive buff.
I hope that over time most countries will get one of these in one of the ages. Inf act I hope something like the HoI4 focus system (which this remind me of) will replace national ideas in eu5.
It would be cool if, instead of having 4 countries per age, each country got one unique buff activate at one ages. It would be like a unique thing, like national ideas. Not everyone would have one but the final goal would be to give one to everyone one.
That way e.g. Ming/Aztecs and Inca could get some unique in the first age. Most Colonial formables would have their in the last and so on.
I think that's a good point. Everyone had one of these ages when they did better than they did in the others.
I was expecting a huge trade overhaul with trade routes changing through influence and over time. Combined with a better way to raise production, I don't know what other big overhaul this game would need. But I guess I was expecting too much. It must be a big amount of work into it, but for me it doesn't feel like it.
Sounds awesome but I think at this point we can be glad if Vic3 does not have mana.
And the bonuses are arbitrary at best. Extra colonial growth for Portugal? On what grounds? Portugal wasn't making much settling in the XV and XVI centuries. It makes no sense.
Because they need help to colonize all of the Caribbean before Spain get's their first colony up.
Thanks for the reply, but who're you?
He's a paradox poster, and considering the content of his reply My guess would be the guy who made the things you commented on.
Exactly. And these triggers are already in the game.
Age of Reformation: two centers of reformation exist.
Age of Absolutism: a country changes government to Absolute Monarchy
Age of Revolutions: revolutionary rebels appear
Instead the system seems backward -- the age decides when certain actions can take place (such a revolutionary rebels spawning) rather than having those random events decide the ages.
Should be an easy fix and IMO would make the whole thing much more palatable.
It's a nice idea but perhaps a little bit harder for someone to force the end of the age that benefits one of their rivals, I'm especially thinking of the reformation-absolutism change.
Also the age of reformation one would be better if centres of reformation could not spawn in the same area as a previous one.
A few things that I was wondering:
How moddable will this system be?
Can we mod in new goals and bonuses for this system?
Can the window be extended or include a scroll bar to easily have more goals and bonuses than in the window they showed?
Also, it would be really cool if countries got different sets of free ideas for each age, or at least new ones unlockable for some of the ages (i.e. Spain in the age of Discovery, France in the Age of Revolutions, etc. to match the changes in their society)
And if not new national ideas, maybe add new idea groups that can only be obtained in certain ages. I don't mean restrict existing ones, just add new ones and split up some existing ones, such as splitting humanism between the Renaissance-era humanist ideas and those of the enlightenment.
Always looking for answers on modding, and I would love to see a system more like this replace the outdated national ideas and ideagroups. Though long term I would prefer to see a national focus tree the way HoI4 has them (or rather similar, the exact same implementation wouldn't be a good thing)
ROTW has always been hard mode. American nations were always super hard mode. Have you even played EU3? Back then, we (and the Ming) had to westernise FIVE times over. Oh, and after that, we had to modernise - which was another huge stab hit. And our units outright sucked in comparison to Europeans. Now THAT was a hardcore challenge. And now you're asking for ROTW to be as easy as Europe in this time scale? Look, there are these countries out there to be a challenge. I want them to be challenging. They SHOULD be challenging. That's where the true hard mode lies. It would be an offense to every competent gamer if they'd completely equalise all countries. And it just so happens that during this time period, Europeans come to dominate. (Well, they actually do so super heavily in Vicky 2 era, but I've heard tumbl crybabies complain about the european domination there as well.) Sure, it's not fair. Yes, it is Eurocentric. Why? Because history happened to be Eurocentric in this time period.
Even though, China deserves a mention - they only got screwed by never drinking much wine, thus not using glass, thus not coming up with glasses, which lead to an increase of productive life span for learned men in Europe - you could work for 10 - 15 years longer than previously, which in turn, lead to faster scientific advancement, which lead to China falling behind, really.
So, you know, Americans should get mechanics that make them interesting to play - of which they have plenty - but shouldn't get mechanics that make them easy. They've gotten INSANE buffs, when compared to EU3 already. And I played them quite a lot back then. And succeeded.
I disagree in many ways ROTW feels a lot more chill than Europe where you always have to worry about everyone going on a conquest spree. Sure a WC as them may be harder but I never go for that stuff anyway.
I think you mean Britain not England in the last one.
Guess who? Turks. lol.
That's what I call Eurocentrism (sarcasm.)
Because Turkey is so far away from Europe and European history. Totally isolated from it.
Practically no one reaches their historical size. That's really not a good metric to describe things.
... I would say plenty of countries blobb well beyond their historical size. The problem is that since no one ever declines in this game those who would have eventually upstaged them never do so.
Portugal should get colonization distance instead of colonization growth. It had mostly outposts along the African coast and the coastline of Brazil (which didn't boom in population until the slave trade). This along with missions about making colonies in Africa may encourage Portugal to historically focus on Brazil and Africa instead of the Caribbean.
They already have colonial range that's why they focus on the carribean because they are the first Europeans who can reach those incredibly valuable provinces. Solving the portugal issue either require railroading (I don't mind) or some serious out of the box thinking.
Wait, so did the timeline go back to 1400 or not?
No it does not.
While this mechanic looks interesting, I find this goal here is a major turnoff. It might seem like nitpicking but this is a very historically implausible goal for a nation to complete before 1530. To me this indicates that the new expansion will continue to focus around arcadey map painting rather then anything grounded in history
So yeah, a lot of potential but not interested in arcade mode so I will continue to not buy DLC.
Some people come preapproved for it. Ming for an example.
Honestly, Ming not being there in #1 is semi-suprising to me. They were so powerful in causing the age of discovery in the first place. I mean, wasn't it searching for a way to make trade with India/China easier that caused pressure to search for trade routes via sailing west in the first place?
Yeah I can agree with you there. Ming was incredibly wealthy in this period, but then again, Manchu is in the second so there's that.
I feel like ages should be tied to institutions. As of now, institutions give you NI-level bonuses, when adopting something like the renaissance or colonialism should really change the way a nation operates. What if rather than a global flag, ages would apply only to nations with certain institutions?
Sounds nice but won happen, they usually don't link DLC content from different DLCs to each other, because it makes a mess of modularity.
So actually we get a "mission" tab, in addition to the mission tab, and with achieving this set of missions or some of them in a specific period we can get some nice bonuses.
Nothing new here.
Except missions give you appropriate rewards these give you a reward of your choice regardless of what you did.
Yes, so much this. Will the ottomans finally be nerfed to reasonable levels and their power represented within this new system or will they just become something I instantly break up (by console) every single game.
The Ottomans still blob less than they did historically.
