Europa Universalis IV: Domination Announced

[ArtFart]

I doubt it, unless it was a pagan priest, Because a Christian priest doing that would not fare well. And this still doesn't explain the actually bonus it gives, which is tolerance to heathens and heretics, a bonus which only activates if you yourself are a pagan. So basically a temple of your own religion makes you more tolerant towards other religions.

Yeah that makes sense. A temple to a certain religion can indeed increase tolerance of other people around it, as they can see it as a sign of peace or a sign that people should co-exist. It's really not that far fetched, and I am confused as to why you are determined to make it seem like it's totally impossible.

Furthermore, I thought your original complaint was it would make no sense for a christian nation to benefit from stonehenge, a pagan monument. But it turns out you need to be pagan to benefit from it in the first place. So what's the complaint? Christian rulers aren't benefitting from it, it gives no bonuses to them, it onl;y becomes recognised and gives bonuses to pagan rulers. So that just invalidates your original complaint. I am so confused as to why you are complaining now, before there was a somewhat understandable complaint but now it just makes no sense.

 

[ArtFart]

I don’t care for this explanation. They could have implemented the monuments faar better, as modular ones, like in CK2 Holy Fury. Instead they went the deterministic approach and killed my immersion.

It's tied to a DLC, you can always skip/deactive that particular DLC. It's not like it's baked into the games OG code or anything. I also seem to remember that you don't even play the new versions due to disagreeing with the games direction, so that probably means you don't even have them in the game to start off with, so why are you complaining?

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I thought your original complaint was it would make no sense for a christian nation to benefit from stonehenge

My original complaint was that it doesn't really make sense for anyone to benefit from Stonehenge as it is offering basically nothing even in comparison to the other monuments. Even if you are pagan, why would it increase your tolerance of other religions rather than your own? Churches don't increase Christians'' tolerance to other religions in game etc.

Stonehenge had been abandoned for ages and it isn't even a compatible religious site for any of the pagan religions available in-game. The only way it would make sense for someone to be able to use it as a monument is if there was an ancient Brythonic religion available, and even then the tolerance bonus still wouldn't make sense.

 

[adin85]

I waiting for topics "X country dont have favour" or "This country is too strong".
As Polish I can say that we were stupid and we did not want tactics bonus in mission "Lifetime something".
This DLC looks very good. We will see if will better than Origins or Lion of North. I will be difficult.

 

[mohamed 2]

If I were a betting man, I would bet a money on that.

dear good sir johan nothing for my good tribe the dawasir in najd? :")

 

[ArtFart]

My original complaint was that it doesn't really make sense for anyone to benefit from Stonehenge as it is offering basically nothing even in comparison to the other monuments. Even if you are pagan, why would it increase your tolerance of other religions rather than your own? Churches don't increase Christians'' tolerance to other religions in game etc.

Stonehenge had been abandoned for ages and it isn't even a compatible religious site for any of the pagan religions available in-game. The only way it would make sense for someone to be able to use it as a monument is if there was an ancient Brythonic religion available, and even then the tolerance bonus still wouldn't make sense.

Again you're reading way to deep into it. It's a video game, not everything has to align perfectly for it to make sense. Some things can be a little more liberally connected unlike in the real world.

It's entirely possible that pagans around the monument continued to use it as a site of worship, so that when a pagan king/queen did take the throne they appealed for it to become a national monument. As such, this monument allowed respect from abroad, and this in turn increased the pagans tolerance of other religions because of the respect they showed.

You could write up a whole in-depth alt historical reason why it's there, how it could be signficant etc or you could just ignore it or even better recognise the fact that it's a video game that's not to be taken too seriously. Simple as.

 

[R.Graymarch]

There are so many monuments built* during the time period of the game that it's not really relevant to me to choose something built 2000 years before the start date.
I can be flexible to an extent, but here with Stonehenge we are very far from "aligning perfectly"

* or important enough to have a role even if built earlier

 

[Arizal]

It's tied to a DLC, you can always skip/deactive that particular DLC. It's not like it's baked into the games OG code or anything. I also seem to remember that you don't even play the new versions due to disagreeing with the games direction, so that probably means you don't even have them in the game to start off with, so why are you complaining?

Does that mean I can’t express my preferences for the future development of the series? I know I’m often repeating myself, but so are you and others in here.

 

[Silesian Burd]

DLC that's JUST mission trees?

Gosh.

 

[ArtFart]

Does that mean I can’t express my preferences for the future development of the series? I know I’m often repeating myself, but so are you and others in here.

Am I repeating myself though? Everytime I see a post from you it has almost always got something to do with mission trees = bad, even in topics that are not even about mission trees. I only really express my opinion on things in topics about the subject in in reply to someone else talking about the subject. But if I am repeating myself, please point it out so I stop, because it's an annoying habit!

And there is nothing wrong with expressing concern over future development, I do so with EU5. But expressing it in a way that is so tied to your own experience is ever so slightly bias, and expressing opinions over things you yourself have not actually tried is also rather strange (that's me assuming you haven't tried monuments etc, please correct me if I am wrong). Expressing concern about future development is absolutely fine, but if you are comparing it against things you have never actually tried it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For example, I express concern over the state of EU5's GUI/UI on release all the time, making compairisons to CK3 and Vic3. But I have played both those games, and tested both their GUI/UI's so I know what they feel like before I complain. If you have never actually tried something, how can you complain about it or express concern over the future of them?

 

[Sea_Wolf_]

Or the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus.

Again you're reading way to deep into it. It's a video game, not everything has to align perfectly for it to make sense. Some things can be a little more liberally connected unlike in the real world.

Actually, it is a historical sandbox simulator very clearly, with a lot of attention to historical detail, it's not set in some Warhammer 40.000K world.

 

[ArtFart]

Or the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus.


Actually, it is a historical sandbox simulator very clearly, with a lot of attention to historical detail, it's not set in some Warhammer 40.000K world.

If we take a look at the steam tags, it does state simulation, but also alternative history. It's a alternative history "simulator" (I mean who actually thinks EU4 is a simulator?). Making compairisions to warhammer 40K makes absolutely no sense. Putting Stonehenge into the game doesn't automatically make it a science fiction genre or invalidate everything else in the game.

The game is there as a sandbox like you said, it gives options to the player, one of these options are the not so far fetched idea of exploiting natural and man made structures for their own benefit. It's a video game at the end of the day, I really don't think anyone seriously considers this game as a simulator, and even if it was a simulator, it's an alternative history simulator, so adding things like stonehenge, which can only be used by a pagan religion, does indeed fall under that category and as I have stated a few times now a full backstory to back-up the idea of stonehenge could very easily be made with very feasible ideas to suit the "simulator" part of the game.

 

[Desolator Trooper]

SO, old DLCs like 3rd Rome is annuled with Domination?

 

[Arizal]

I see « alternative history simulator » as meaning the game simplifies the concepts through which we understand history. A country, an army, money, population, infrastructures, all is restituted as graspable notions we use to play.

The game can also be automated, via the AI and triggers. This allow us to let the game play itself. The in-game world evolves based on the parameters that are constraining it.

It is not a perfect simulation, but it is one nevertheless. The way diplomacy works, as an example, is a simplified view on how international relations function.

I always wanted Paradox to deepen the aspects of the game that make it seem alive, that allows you to wonder about what just happened in-game and why it didn’t happen in reality.

When a mission tree is the reason, there is no wonder. Someone somewhere decided events would go that way, based on their dubious sense of fun or historical accuracy.

 

[Oporto]

I see « alternative history simulator » as meaning the game simplifies the concepts through which we understand history. A country, an army, money, population, infrastructures, all is restituted as graspable notions we use to play.

The game can also be automated, via the AI and triggers. This allow us to let the game play itself. The in-game world evolves based on the parameters that are constraining it.

It is not a perfect simulation, but it is one nevertheless. The way diplomacy works, as an example, is a simplified view on how international relations function.

I always wanted Paradox to deepen the aspects of the game that make it seem alive, that allows you to wonder about what just happened in-game and why it didn’t happen in reality.

When a mission tree is the reason, there is no wonder. Someone somewhere decided events would go that way, based on their dubious sense of fun or historical accuracy.

You post good ideas and I would really like for them to see the light of the day. But, unfortunately, EU IV path seems to be set in stone until the development finally stops. We can only hope that EU V will be more of a Nation Constructor like you kept proposing.

 

[Sea_Wolf_]

I see « alternative history simulator » as meaning the game simplifies the concepts through which we understand history. A country, an army, money, population, infrastructures, all is restituted as graspable notions we use to play.

The game can also be automated, via the AI and triggers. This allow us to let the game play itself. The in-game world evolves based on the parameters that are constraining it.

It is not a perfect simulation, but it is one nevertheless. The way diplomacy works, as an example, is a simplified view on how international relations function.

I always wanted Paradox to deepen the aspects of the game that make it seem alive, that allows you to wonder about what just happened in-game and why it didn’t happen in reality.

When a mission tree is the reason, there is no wonder. Someone somewhere decided events would go that way, based on their dubious sense of fun or historical accuracy.

It's a cheap deterministic workaround alternative to implementing deep mechanics or AI.

Considering you're paying for them, it's Paradoxes incarnation of loot boxes.

 

[ArtFart]

Considering you're paying for them, it's Paradoxes incarnation of loot boxes.

Wow, now THAT is a brilliant joke!

 

[Esni Infi]

I, for one, am really looking forward to this new iteration! A little bit miffed that Persia/Mamluks/Indian majors/Mughals (Mughals are plenty strong tbh, but a lil change or even nerf won't hurt!) wasn't given anything but that's alright.

New mission trees offers fresh play throughs for us, and for AI to grow stronger. Pretty hyped to revisit some of these nations!

New Ideas (and rebalancing of old ones!) Are the one I'm looking forward to.

New estates privileges and Government reforms are great too. More useful options is generally better.

New mechanics added in Domination seems pretty nifty too. I hope the iteration of Decadence that gets released is punishing enough for the player to need to actively work to prevent it or suffer the consequences. I really hope the new Mandate for EoC makes it worthwhile to take MoH. It still seems pretty meh to claim, given the disadvantages of MoH.

Troops pips adjustments are alright, though to me they rarely matter that much.

I haven't bought Origins (pretty meh)/Lions of the North yet, and I probably will wait for a discount before buying them plus Domination, but I feel like EU4 is taking a step in the right direction in my opinion.

If this new patch/DLC works out well, I think we might see more empire breaking mechanics introduced in the next one.

Have fun and stay safe!

 

[FruitPenguin]

Welp, here's to another 8+ months for Byz+Middle East (sans Ottos) DLC.

Hopefully the Prussia update gives poor Brandenburg a reason to exist after LOTN Teutons styled all over it.

Sadly this comment did not age well as Teutons is now cemented as the best way to form/play Prussia, as the Brandenburg mission tree, especially the militarization part is worse overall