Another DLC without Persia and Mamluk...
Huh, maybe they'll be in next DLC. Hope so.
Huh, maybe they'll be in next DLC. Hope so.
- 1
-
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.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.787
- 241.737
If I were a betting man, I would bet a money on that.
- 1
(runs to Ladbrooks)...all kidding aside I hope the Maghreb nations get just enough of a boost so that being over-run by Spain and Portugal is a much rarer occurance.
It's a bit ironic as I remember when the big complaint against eu4 was that the DLCs were obligatory. This DLC has mission trees and mechanics for individual countries so it's completely optional but now it's the shallowness of that approach that is criticised.
For me personally I'd prefer mechanics which are more general because that opens up interesting possibilities of combining things. A classic example for me is how naval barrage from golden century is really handy when playing Byzantium - however this also highlights the problem of having mechanics in a 'content pack' i.e. no-one wants to have to buy GC in order to play Byzantium. So the devs have definitely gotten better at separating the two types of DLCs and this is a good thing.
You'll notice this and the previous two DLCs are content packs (in style if not in price) so I think we're in a 'general mechanic drought', which combined with the power creep of rewards contributes to the reaction to yet more mission trees.
NB I think mission trees can have a role to play - for me eu4 is a bit of a puzzle game and well-designed missions can present an interesting problem to solve which otherwise wouldn't exist (e.g. just started a game as mutapa and you are pushed into a particular cult and particular estate situation which I otherwise wouldn't have chosen). Of course there are other ways that could be done such as events - but missions give you a better visibility of what's to come so your choices are a bit more strategic with them. Also, the rewards don't have to be game-breaking (like second golden ages and permanent power projection), I don't really need those to enjoy the puzzle.
For me personally I'd prefer mechanics which are more general because that opens up interesting possibilities of combining things. A classic example for me is how naval barrage from golden century is really handy when playing Byzantium - however this also highlights the problem of having mechanics in a 'content pack' i.e. no-one wants to have to buy GC in order to play Byzantium. So the devs have definitely gotten better at separating the two types of DLCs and this is a good thing.
You'll notice this and the previous two DLCs are content packs (in style if not in price) so I think we're in a 'general mechanic drought', which combined with the power creep of rewards contributes to the reaction to yet more mission trees.
NB I think mission trees can have a role to play - for me eu4 is a bit of a puzzle game and well-designed missions can present an interesting problem to solve which otherwise wouldn't exist (e.g. just started a game as mutapa and you are pushed into a particular cult and particular estate situation which I otherwise wouldn't have chosen). Of course there are other ways that could be done such as events - but missions give you a better visibility of what's to come so your choices are a bit more strategic with them. Also, the rewards don't have to be game-breaking (like second golden ages and permanent power projection), I don't really need those to enjoy the puzzle.
- 5
- 1
I would call that bet, and instead bet on the next to be a "Sunset Invasion":esque alt-history focused DLC.
EU4 needs at least one such before it reaches the end of its lifecycle!
- 1
Is this because mission trees give all the rewards? There is no other way to be rewarded in the game. Conquering lands gives more ducats, more manpower, but missions are popular because you can get "+1 monthly diplo power for the rest of the game" or "Kill the Sultan and his heir and destroy the Ottomans" with once click.
Mission trees are popular because they are the most obvious way to reward the player. They are a stand-in for actual mechanics. It's like how triggered modifiers used to be a big thing in early EU4, and now we almost never use them anymore. It's crutch code for actual mechanics.
- 7
- 1
Thats gonna be the South American expansion.
Bringing high American tech into the base game.
- 3
I'd say it is a little late in the life-cycle to put too much into new deep mechanics, except for market research purposes.
- 1
Better, because you'll only have one layer of gratuitous Britaboo exceptionalism, not two
Nah, RB's "Britaboo exceptionalism" will be completely nullified by the new version so still just the one layer of it (albeit greatly expanded).
It's consistently been in the top 20 sometimes the top 10.
Most played nations 2019 :: Europa Universalis IV General Discussions
Paradox has posted interesting chart in todays dev diary: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/460784/Played%20Nations.jpg Notice that it shows % of games played daily and top nation is at 6%. The list is: 1 - France 2 - Custom 3 - Ottos 4 - Byzantium (wth?) 5 - Castile 6 - England 7 -...
The empire is more popular than any East Asian nation. Korea doesn't break the top 20. But it's a pet nation due to one dev really liking Korea.
- 3
I like Korea its that one far east nation when you wanna play in that region and you dont wanna deal with Shogun or Mandate of heaven BS.
It's consistently been in the top 20 sometimes the top 10.
Most played nations 2019 :: Europa Universalis IV General Discussions
Paradox has posted interesting chart in todays dev diary: https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/460784/Played%20Nations.jpg Notice that it shows % of games played daily and top nation is at 6%. The list is: 1 - France 2 - Custom 3 - Ottos 4 - Byzantium (wth?) 5 - Castile 6 - England 7 -...steamcommunity.com
The empire is more popular than any East Asian nation. Korea doesn't break the top 20. But it's a pet nation due to one dev really liking Korea.
Because that statistic only counts game starts rather than actual play time. Thus the typical restart half a dozen or more times to get ideal diplomacy set-up counts as much or more than a full playthrough of some other nations (depending on how long the person plays in a session).
- 3
- 2
I agree its not the sole reason they are the most played, as another person who replied, mentioned these nations (Great Powers) are bigger, stronger, easier, and also just survived to the end date of 1821 (with the exception of Ming), But again, I do agree the cyclical nature of overlooking and ignoring nations. Though I will say, even if playing a nation like Saxony which has some decent flavor, does it really meet the standards of Brandenburg/Prussia? especially now that they are updating it again?
I respectfully disagree, if the comment sections on the past few dev diaries have meant ANYTHING, its that many many players want to play other Nations and regions MORE. Maybe not as much as France or Castile or England, but MORE. And they don't, simply because the new and higher standards of gameplay overlook these nations, so they are more boring. Personally, I would much prefer to play Scotland over England, Aragon over Castile, Zoroastrian Persian runs over the ottomans, heck Egypt over the ottomans, BECAUSE those other nations were successful in history. I love seeing other nations survive and thrive in the game that historically died out (except for Ming, screw Ming, I want to see more Qing in my runs). And sure, I concede people play these big nations more as they have more familiarity with them, but you reallly think people still wouldn't play smaller nations *more* if they had the same level of care, flavor, and overall things to do? I'd ALWAYS pick Burgundy over France if they had a branching Mission Tree like the Teutons and their own unique French formable that isn't France. I'd Pick Brittany a ton if they had Celtic culture and a mission tree to form Gaul. Honestly, they have so much more creative freedom with nations that ceased existing, because you don't have to tailor the mission trees to fit history, which is such an exciting prospect... but has not been executed enough.
- 1
A lot of this DLC has felt very pet Project-y to me, none of the others have ever felt that way before(to me). They felt necessary. Then again, I'd do the same thing for Georgia and the Caucus region for how much I love Sakartvelo. But also because it has zero flavor over there. Heck even some event chain that allows you to pick staying Orthodox, or flipping to Islam as Circassia would be something (and Historical)
- 1
Johan, the game feels extremely railroaded. There is almost no sandboxing anymore. If you try to do your own thing, you will be penalized, have issues and even lose the campaign. The game "forces" you to follow the current mission system. I understand that at this stage, you will have to produce something and sell it (for profit - you are a business after all). This is how it will go till the end of development for EU 4.
But for the love of God, don't go this route in EU 5. The mission system is bad. We want freedom to play as we like, without getting penalized. Freedom! Please, innovate in EU 5.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Read the actual posts. Restarts to get the right set up aren't counted and your statement is misleading.
Last edited:
It's super hard to simulate every possible situation with one single sandbox, or should I say, one single world ideology. PDX games are deeply dived into history, which contains numerous information from longue durée to someone who were thrown out the windows. Victoria 3 is basically a sandbox now, but if it could no longer held any new mechanism (or should I say, something that beyond the reach of modders), freedom would be replaced by designed routines, by force. I believe that's what EU4 is now.
I believe that most of us don't hope to see every PDX games end up being narrates like TNO, but the age (Or should I say the "epoch"? Not sure how to express this.) is always moving forward. PDX's underlying codes are getting better to held a better sandbox, but that of the old games can't meet the needs from a new age forever. But I believe that it would never be some types of new toryism, because if there were EU5, it would definitely start as an excellent sandbox.
EU4 might never die. It just fades away.
- 1