The UI scaling problem could be solved with mods like Bigger UI, Bigger Production, Bigger Outliner + one font mod ( I prefer Stellaris UI Font mod ). All of them are Ironman compatible.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What sets EU4 apart from Crusader Kings and Victoria II are the flexible peace treaties. Therefore, the changes to the Independence War CB, Subjugation CB, Flower War CB and (to a lesser extent) Restoration of Union CB should be immediately reverted; as lambda put it, the taking of land is already covered by the Unjustified Demands mechanic, and requires no further complexity.
Listen to the players that will keep EU4 alive long after development has ceased.
Listen to the players that will keep EU4 alive long after development has ceased.
- 19
- 5
- 2
Have you guys considered bringing back the Yeren Federation as a formable primary nation for the Evenks? Historically it only existed for a short time before being partitioned between the Qing and Russia, but it would certainly give the Evenk tags something sort of historical to do. Maybe it shouldn’t be possible until you have a land border with a great power?
Last edited:
- 1
Question: Will changing to the beta break saves from 1.32? It is not mentioned as usual in the OP and IIRC saves are mainly broken by map changes, still with all those coding changes I would assume it would be problematic here too. Anybody knows about this / tested it?
Regarding the CB changes: I somehow get it with the PU Casus Belli and to a lesser extend with the Subjugation Casus Belli, but for Independence and Flower War it seems to totally kill certain strategies / gameplays. That seems far overboard. And issue I see with this change in general are missions: Some missions arbitrarily require you to hold land directly, while most allow non-tributary subjects holding the land for you. If you have less opportunities to take key provinces for yourself, such self-blocking of missions will happen much more often. Particularly severe for PUs, where you cannot seize land as with vassals.
An e.g. that comes to my mind is Austria taking Croatia which requires direct control and delays the follow up missions for Italy by 50+ years until HU is integrated/inherited. While it might make sense from a historical perspective, gameplay-wise with Venice being one of the first expansion paths, it does not make any sense at all.
Regarding the CB changes: I somehow get it with the PU Casus Belli and to a lesser extend with the Subjugation Casus Belli, but for Independence and Flower War it seems to totally kill certain strategies / gameplays. That seems far overboard. And issue I see with this change in general are missions: Some missions arbitrarily require you to hold land directly, while most allow non-tributary subjects holding the land for you. If you have less opportunities to take key provinces for yourself, such self-blocking of missions will happen much more often. Particularly severe for PUs, where you cannot seize land as with vassals.
An e.g. that comes to my mind is Austria taking Croatia which requires direct control and delays the follow up missions for Italy by 50+ years until HU is integrated/inherited. While it might make sense from a historical perspective, gameplay-wise with Venice being one of the first expansion paths, it does not make any sense at all.
Last edited:
Just used "observe" watch a game till 1600+.
Ticc Ottoman and Timur just constantly doom stack(100+) on T4 forts and burn their manpower from Crimea to Iraq. Usually end up just take 3~5 provinces.
Russia has a ticc 10+ T4 Maginot line base on both its' and conquered PLC forts on their border.
Spain has a pretty good mountain forts line against France who almost reach the power of Louis XIV.
Ming somehow survived and work on restore the empire... till the Rus find some far east free real estate.
AND most AI build forts like no tomorrow till only10~20% land isn't covered in ZOC.
AI have some good and much more overkill forts. It will end up with Maginot lines between great powers at some point, and they actually can maintain it.
Also they like to siege one fort after another...on the opposite side of two front war.
Ming can survive, but a weak China can be free real estate for Russia or other colonist countries. Player can have some fun with no mandate China.
Ticc Ottoman and Timur just constantly doom stack(100+) on T4 forts and burn their manpower from Crimea to Iraq. Usually end up just take 3~5 provinces.
Russia has a ticc 10+ T4 Maginot line base on both its' and conquered PLC forts on their border.
Spain has a pretty good mountain forts line against France who almost reach the power of Louis XIV.
Ming somehow survived and work on restore the empire... till the Rus find some far east free real estate.
AND most AI build forts like no tomorrow till only10~20% land isn't covered in ZOC.
AI have some good and much more overkill forts. It will end up with Maginot lines between great powers at some point, and they actually can maintain it.
Also they like to siege one fort after another...on the opposite side of two front war.
Ming can survive, but a weak China can be free real estate for Russia or other colonist countries. Player can have some fun with no mandate China.
The issue I find with these is they are really designed for 1080p. The larger/longer menus can be helpful, but the issue is I play 1440p and the font itself is small. The font change mods somewhat can help, but I find it jarring to use since not everything is converted to the new font. It would be great if they just updated the UI scaling feature they have in the menu to render the UI in your native resolution rather than blow up a 1080p image. It doesn't seem like it should be that big of an ask.
- 1
Looks great so far! Only thing irking me right now is the (continuing?) bug where a ruler or heir who is serving as a general will die as a general but not as a ruler/heir - like the game doesn't know the general and the ruler/heir is the same person anymore. I'd been noticing this with consorts in the previous patch, when there was the added frustration that the consort-generals weren't free / counted towards the leader limit (or was that WAD?). Now with the ruler-generals and heir-generals, they're free, but otherwise their deaths have the same glitchy behavior as the consorts did.
- 3
Yes it will. All my saves from 1.32 are no longer usable. Although, I haven't tried to open and play them. My guess is that because they changed EoC mechanics, all saves are broken.
On another detail, the "Push back the colonizers" CB is broken. I cannot take any land as a defender, France. I've occupied all land of the agressor, but cannot demand land.
- 2
- 1
How do you know that they are no longer usable if you didn't load them? The warning message says "This can cause problems in the game and can potentially ruin Ironman saves", but it doesn't say that this is certain. The game doesn't actually do any compatibility checks. You get the warning even for minor updates like 1.31.5 to 1.31.6 which had no impact on the game and on saves.
The "load saves" menu has them listed under "incompatible saves", as in you have to check the "show incompatible saves" box to see them, which iirc is stronger than just "this may break stuff".
It gives a stronger impression, but technically it isn't different. Even minor version changes require you to check that checkbox to see the saves in the save games list
- 1
I assume this is a bug? When you pass the last Celestial Reform, you can use your mandate to convert the tributary of a different country into YOUR vassal. For example, you can steal Ava's vassals this way.
- 2
- 2
When the sprite picket was added it replaced the ability to select map graphics. Can the ability to choose map graphics be brought back.
A potential solution to the peace treaty changes could be to increase unjustified demands as well as aggressive expansion. You'd discourage but not forbid that way.
- 1
AFAIK the devs can make taking provinces in a specific CB give more AE and cost more warscore.
I strongly agree with this.
I gave 1.33 several hours play last night to test out the feel of the game.
Not to bag on, but as mentioned before I have nearly 4k hours in this game. The amount of forts I had to go through to get to Madrid as England was an extreme amount more than I am used to.
We can argue this is good for the game. We can argue that it adds balance. We can argue, and definitely this is correct, that the last patch didn't have enough forts. But it's going to take a lot of getting used to going through 4-5 forts just to get to Madrid (for the record, Iberian Wedding happened and Aragon had forts blocking ZoC to Madrid as well). I personally find sieging up there with dealing with rebels when it comes to how painful it is, and I'm someone who always takes offensive ideas and prioritises siege pips on generals.
If forts are going to look like this going forward, then I would have to strongly suggest maybe bringing in a siege specialist advisor, or otherwise shorten the siege phases by 20% or so. This is less a problem in the late game when everyone should have more than enough cannons, but in the early game you can literally spend ages just staring at your screen for sieges to progress. It's not about the game being 'easier' or 'harder', it's about how enjoyable it is to stare at a screen waiting for sieges to progress.
The patch is absolutely amazing and I love everything you guys have done, but this is a concern for me at least.
- 7
- 4
I think, a better way is to stop AI building forts right next to each other, since that doesn't actually do anything.
- 3
- 1
Yeah, the AI doesn't have a feel for using the Zone of Control rules for more efficient fort placement. And having fewer redundant forts means a better economy and they'll be a bigger threat on the battlefield.