Europa Universalis IV: Domination Announced

[EUnderhill]

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.

It does not "force" anything...in my lastest Venice game I knew I could get free cores by completing missions, but I decided to not go that way because the timed buffs I wanted to save for the Big One against the Ottomans.

And please let EU V be a competitive game where the scoreboard matters and mission trees are a meaningful (but not exclusive) way to finish on the podium. If we could get to 1725 with most of the majors still in contention, with a couple underdogs mixed into the lead pack, that would be great.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

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?

Not really, but it is not as bad as other HRE nations. So if they had to prioritise I would look at them first. The Westphalian/Rhenish missions in particular are really lacking. Also Saxony has a fairly good amount of flavour events for an HRE nation that isn't Austria or one of the Italians. It would be a dream come true if Saxony, Hesse, Swabian Nations, Thuringia etc. got more stuff...

 

[uberjedi]

Mission tree power inflation has become a way to squeeze DLC cash out of this poor old game.
The whole setup feels like a rather lazy development approach.

"Make new or updated interesting game mechanics and update the AI accordingly? Nah, too much like real work.
Just pump out some updated mission trees and sell it."

edit: grammer

 

[Sea_Wolf_]

I'm not a fan of them either but they're very neat and easy for marketing. Lions of the North has good reviews and sold well.

Mission tree power inflation have become a way to squeeze DLC cash out of this poor old game.
The whole setup feels like a rather lazy development approach.

"Make new or updated interesting game mechanics and update the AI accordingly? Nah, too much like real work.
Just pump out some updated mission trees and sell it."

Indeed, mission trees are stand-ins for good AI and good mechanics.

Great mechanics and AI would guide players into historically plausible situations all by themselves. Great game design would have a dynamic AI-driven system of rewards.

 

[Arizal]

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!

Wasn’t it Golden Century and Leviathan? Pirates and magic buildings seem to fit the bill to me.

 

[Sea_Wolf_]

Wasn’t it Golden Century and Leviathan? Pirates and magic buildings seem to fit the bill to me.

Monuments are cringe indeed, really badly implemented in the current state.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Monuments are cringe indeed, really badly implemented in the current state.

Stonehenge must be the worst offender in this regard. I mean no one cared about it until comparatively recently. It wasn't protected until 1882. It certainly wasn't being used for any religious or ceremonial purpose. Where is the bonus coming from, the 'magic aura' or something?

 

[ArtFart]

Stonehenge must be the worst offender in this regard. I mean no one cared about it until comparatively recently. It wasn't protected until 1882. It certainly wasn't being used for any religious or ceremonial purpose. Where is the bonus coming from, the 'magic aura' or something?

It's called a video game and not a simulator for a reason. It's to add flavour to an otherwise relatively boring aspect of the game (that being province management). You really don't need to look to deeply into it.

But if you want to, it's not outlandish to come up with an alt history path where it was recognised as a significant monument and it became a some what religious icon with pilgrimage routes etc.

Or you can just ignore it and carry on playing the games half the time I forget monuments exist anyway.

 

[EUnderhill]

It's called a video game and not a simulator for a reason. It's to add flavour to an otherwise relatively boring aspect of the game (that being province management). You really don't need to look to deeply into it.

But if you want to, it's not outlandish to come up with an alt history path where it was recognised as a significant monument and it became a some what religious icon with pilgrimage routes etc.

Or you can just ignore it and carry on playing the games half the time I forget monuments exist anyway.

It simply remained insignificant thoughout the era because whoever was playing England IRL didn't put in the 1000 ducats.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

It's called a video game and not a simulator for a reason. It's to add flavour to an otherwise relatively boring aspect of the game (that being province management). You really don't need to look to deeply into it.

I'm not looking deeply into it. It's fairly obvious that Stonehenge had basically no/minimal influence in that period. Compared to the other monuments, say, Versailles.

But if you want to, it's not outlandish to come up with an alt history path where it was recognised as a significant monument and it became a some what religious icon with pilgrimage routes etc.

What kind of religious icon? Unless my England/GB goes Pagan which can't really happen...That is the only way for it to actually have an effect. Which gives tolerance of other religions...

Or you can just ignore it and carry on playing the games half the time I forget monuments exist anyway.

I don't even have the DLC I just think Stonehenge doesn't fit with the other monuments and it giving a bonus makes no sense compared to the others.

 

[Ninking]

Monuments are cringe indeed, really badly implemented in the current state.

IMO monuments are interesting as map-based goals parallel to the missions and such. Sure, in real life monuments don't make a whole people perform better, but Europa Universalis 4 isn't and has never been a history simulator. Ever since Europa Universalis 0, the Svea Rike-series, there have been arcade:y aspects of the games.

If this game was realistic, there wouldn't even be monolithic "countries" with clear borders all across the world in 1444.

 

[ArtFart]

I'm not looking deeply into it. It's fairly obvious that Stonehenge had basically no/minimal influence in that period. Compared to the other monuments, say, Versailles.

What kind of religious icon? Unless my England/GB goes Pagan which can't really happen...That is the only way for it to actually have an effect. Which gives tolerance of other religions...

I don't even have the DLC I just think Stonehenge doesn't fit with the other monuments and it giving a bonus makes no sense compared to the others.

Again, it's a video game, stop analysing it against real world sources, because you will be dissapointed very fast.

I mentioned alternative history, that means it can be anything. They could of seen it as a sign of Jesus or whatever, it's a video game after all.

Monuments are things and areas that have something interesting in them, they don't need to corrolate to the specific countries historic path, they are just here as a bit of flavour and a boost for the player. That is all. Again, I suggest not looking too deeply into it.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Again, it's a video game, stop analysing it against real world sources, because you will be dissapointed very fast.

Yes it's a video game but it's not a complete fantasy one, there is meant to be a vague basis in reality for it. Stonehenge I just find a bit silly.

 

[ArtFart]

Yes it's a video game but it's not a complete fantasy one, there is meant to be a vague basis in reality for it. Stonehenge I just find a bit silly.

and the vague basis of reality is that stonehenge was there at the time and it's feasible to suggest it may have caught the attention of a preist looking for something to monetise which then esculated etc. It's entirely possible and therefore stays within the realms of realism for a game like EU4.

 

[morlin]

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.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Ive played several campaigns using same nations and each and every one of them turned out differently, depending on how alliances form, how and when wars are declared and whatnot.

Personally i feel the mission tree in some kind of form is absolutely necessary as without it the game would be a flavorless dull sandbox game where the only thing that distinguishes one nation from another is the name and color.

I personally dont care much for the buffs the missions introduce, its the unique events that i'd like to see more of. I really enjoyed the Gotland -> Denmark -> Unified kalmar union game with all the flavors and events it came with.

One im particularly fond of is healing the scism and disabling the papacy giving everyone a choice to convert. I'd definitely like to see more immersive events that include large regions.

If this wasnt a click-of-a-button kind of thing, it would be the engine checking if a set of conditions are fulfilled and then triggering an event. For ever nation in the entire world. You would probably need a monster cpu for this

 

[Arizal]

and the vague basis of reality is that stonehenge was there at the time and it's feasible to suggest it may have caught the attention of a preist looking for something to monetise which then esculated etc. It's entirely possible and therefore stays within the realms of realism for a game like EU4.

And how is a city encased in rock (Petra) supposed to make your diplomats travel faster?

Some monuments are explainable in their effect, but it remains that many are linked to our history, not to the emergent story that some believe EUIV to be made for.

Same with mission trees. They aim at making « a » specific history, either emulating the history that lead to us as inhabitants of the Earth XXIst century, or to enable the particular fantasies of « content creators ». They don’t let the game write its own story.

For a very easy example, in such a story maybe burgundy dominates Western Europe and Versailles never had a reason to be built.

Brandenburg gate was built in Berlin after the victory over Napoleon. Why would it be built in a remote corner of the Saxon empire? And so on.

 

[ArtFart]

And how is a city encased in rock (Petra) supposed to make your diplomats travel faster?

Some monuments are explainable in their effect, but it remains that many are linked to our history, not to the emergent story that some believe EUIV to be made for.

Same with mission trees. They aim at making « a » specific history, either emulating the history that lead to us as inhabitants of the Earth XXIst century, or to enable the particular fantasies of « content creators ». They don’t let the game write its own story.

For a very easy example, in such a story maybe burgundy dominates Western Europe and Versailles never had a reason to be built.

Brandenburg gate was built in Berlin after the victory over Napoleon. Why would it be built in a remote corner of the Saxon empire? And so on.

It's a video game my friend.

 

[Arizal]

It's a video game my friend.

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.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

and the vague basis of reality is that stonehenge was there at the time and it's feasible to suggest it may have caught the attention of a preist looking for something to monetise which then esculated etc.

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.

 

[EUnderhill]

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.

It had a place in Arthurian legend, and as such, could potentially be appropriated for Christian purposes.