-
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.
You basically can't *exist* anywhere from the Pontic Steppe to the Near East to Persia without the Ottomans getting claims on either your provinces, or provinces you'll want to expand into.This same phenomenonen has caused also problems in the diplomacy, btw. These days your trusted ally of 200 years suddenly becomes sworn enemy with swirly eyes, just after completing some mission and desiring 200 provinces you control. Its not ony player that is being railroaded.
And they'll hate you with a burning passion, so you best hope it's at least the late 17th-century when they're scheduled to explode, because otherwise you'll have a bad time (meanwhile, they still haven't conquered Egypt).
- 6
- 2
This is a very bold assumption. I assume you know that the AI is incapable of doing most missions, save for very simple stuff like "conquer X", so especially with the newer trees that are just overcomplicated and bloated to the limit.. yeah, they are exclusively a player-only mechanic.
For other things, even though the AI does do "something", it's extremely far from being even close to competency. Take events or govt reforms, for instance. Where the player with many events will always, or almost always tend to select a single option that is just best, the AI relies on extremely poorly implemented RNG-based weight system, and again, with the massive bloat that this game has received in the recent years, the devs hardly ever had time to even properly implement these weights, to a point where very often they lack them altogether
The problem is that most people just don't really notice, and for them the game turning more and more into a shounen anime power fantasy thing is a feature, not an issue.
- 11
- 1
For major nations, the game now seems like being geared towards meta play style. Which is something I don't like because it narrows down the options and makes it harder to roleplay. Take Castile for example- yes, it has always been a powerful starting nation, but I liked playing it because of many different opportunities at the start. Since 1.35 with early looming disasters and powerful mission rewards, the game just pushes player to get through early game pains as soon as possible, and to properly recover- unlock missions, PU Aragon and onwards.
- 11
Giving the player new powerful tools to solve problems has been a core philosophy of the paradox DLC model since it's inception.
I think what changed is the devs getting better at regularly making something they actually intended to make and that they stopped overhauling mechanics.
So the power creep is now a bigger percentage of the DLCs, it actually works as intended AND instead of it being a button hidden in some submenu somewhere, it's a notification popping that yells "click me to avoid having to strategize!".
I think what changed is the devs getting better at regularly making something they actually intended to make and that they stopped overhauling mechanics.
So the power creep is now a bigger percentage of the DLCs, it actually works as intended AND instead of it being a button hidden in some submenu somewhere, it's a notification popping that yells "click me to avoid having to strategize!".
- 4
Even when the AI does have weights for options its usually weighted for role-playing rather than optimization. So certain AI personalities are specifically weighted to be more likely to pick the worse event outcomes.
- 4
.png){kind=avatar}
No, the Ottomans' missions aren't disabled for the AI.
What I meant was that in the event where you (Ottomans) are in a war against Mamluks and can choose whether to wait 3 years(?) or something after having occupied Cairo and white peace them and turn them into an eyalet, or you can choose not to do it and just annex land from them normally, needing like 5 wars to fully annex them.
In this event the (Ottoman) AI has a 0 chance factor (meaning that they'll never choose it) assigned to the option which allows them to turn Mamluks into an eyalet.
- 6
maybe seems like nitpicking, but id call it the same.
if there was misunderstanding, i did not mean all the missions, i meant that some of the missions maybe were disabled, as it turns out they are. Many nations are still getting those conquer X get Y claims and later become Y missions working fine though.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
I said it before and i say it again.
We need a DLC with nothing but harmful new mecanics, disasters, bad events, and added negative modifers all over the place.
Adding nerfs in the form of optional flavour and extra content is definitely going to be far better recieved than just nerfing what people already paid for.
And i'm very certain a very large percentage of the playerbase would buy such a DLC. There is no shortage of prideful flexers and masochists among us.
We need a DLC with nothing but harmful new mecanics, disasters, bad events, and added negative modifers all over the place.
Adding nerfs in the form of optional flavour and extra content is definitely going to be far better recieved than just nerfing what people already paid for.
And i'm very certain a very large percentage of the playerbase would buy such a DLC. There is no shortage of prideful flexers and masochists among us.
- 12
- 7
- 3
- 1
I would buy! I have bought everything else, too, but still
I want to see more misery. Nations getting conquered by bankrupt failures only because they collapsed before them.
Jangtse flood was steap on the right direction. "Oh no, not again" did really mean something, for a time
- 1
- 1
- 1
That is basically what I told months ago and I kept getting downvotes.
I ended up leaving the game, it being my most played game for years now (+5000h)
Either they tidy up the mess or they won't see me for years, because EU V will also need its time to become good,
but maybe it will never become as good as EU IV was.
I ended up leaving the game, it being my most played game for years now (+5000h)
Either they tidy up the mess or they won't see me for years, because EU V will also need its time to become good,
but maybe it will never become as good as EU IV was.
- 1
- 1
Except when it spams at it and you have -3 stab and 20 mandate. Good thing the console is thereI would buy! I have bought everything else, too, but still
I want to see more misery. Nations getting conquered by bankrupt failures only because they collapsed before them.
Jangtse flood was steap on the right direction. "Oh no, not again" did really mean something, for a time
- 1
And said mechanics with powercreep are used by the human MUCH better than the AI, which handicaps it even more so.
- 3
Yes, definitely, and the missions are definitely strongly to fault I think - I stopped playing EU4 regularly when the new mission trees came out, despite the fact I was initially quite supportive of the idea. They're far, far too generous with their claims and PUs and allow you to steamroll certain things.
On another point with the dev increases I think it's far too easy to become empire-tier now. I thought it was too easy before but now I see nations empire-tier in 1600 when they should really still be kingdoms. I wouldn't be against raising the dev needed to 1500 or even 2000. It should be difficult to just proclaim yourself an emperor outside of certain formables and events.
On another point with the dev increases I think it's far too easy to become empire-tier now. I thought it was too easy before but now I see nations empire-tier in 1600 when they should really still be kingdoms. I wouldn't be against raising the dev needed to 1500 or even 2000. It should be difficult to just proclaim yourself an emperor outside of certain formables and events.
- 3
- 2
- 1
EU4 also needs a lot more "double-edged sword" mechanics. For example Absolutism and the revolution disaster, it's impossible to avoid significant unrest if you max out Absolutism, and there should be a lot more mechanics of that sort.
- 7
- 3
The last dlc Was very problematic.
The biggest Problem is the overhyping from Spain in eu4. Spain wasnt even a great power in most of the eu4 timeline, but the devs think their the new Roman emporer.
We need Lesser buffs and more challenging Management of empires
- 6
it is only significant if you don't have enough armies to counteract immediately. But yes, you are right, EU IV needs more rewards that are bound to negative things and no mission railroad.
Event wars can start earlier. I saw Sirhind declare on Delhi 15th November 1444 and some succesion war in the first few days of December. It was in patch 1.30 or higher
- 1
I mean it literally was,
Under Charles the Fifth it basically reached hegemon status, controlling fast regions of Italy and France along with the entire Habsburg Netherlands, Spain, basically Portugal, Austria and was the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Not to mention the territories on the Americas.
They beat all other military and naval powers at the time.
It declined from being the greatest power afterwards, but remained powerful in its own right and was a power to constantly consider until the War of the Spanish Succession,
For 50% of the game it was a significant power and for a time the literal greatest power.
In the end Great Britain and France would become the 2 rival great powers and France would probably have become the hegemon if Louis the XIV hadn't been coalitioned by the wit and diplomacy of William of Orange, but to diminish the power of Spain is just idiotic.
This also highlights a problem in Eu4 in that historically no country got away with being the greatest for long. All empires fell into decline.
The ottomans, Louis XIVs france, Habsburg Spain,
The game doesn't properly have an answer to stop empires.
- 8
- 1
No.
We are not trying to make the game easier, nor 'power creep' is our design philosophy. What we're trying to do since a couple of years ago when PDX Tinto's tenure of EUIV started, is to fix, balance and polish the game systems and mechanics while trying to add more and deeper content. This is not an easy task, as the game has almost 10 years old, its systems being the oldest of Paradox's games, and has many, many mechanics and features coming from different DLCs. But when possible, we've freed up or made compatible mechanics from different DLCs, while keeping adding as much content as possible to older DLCs and the base game. We've also tried to actively refresh and rebalance old systems, as the idea groups, and we've also tried to implement challenging content, as with the disasters for Mali, Ottomans, or Castile. There was also a big update to the AI in 1.34, and I'd say that it's in better shape than it had been for years.
Can we do things better, and keep improving? For sure. I think that we could do better with features like the disasters, and maybe we could give some more love to things like the AI management of reforms that Jarvin has mentioned. But I also think that we've influx replayability and more gameplay differentiation to the game with the new reforms, privileges, ideas, etc., opening new possibilities that were not there 3 years ago.
We are not trying to make the game easier, nor 'power creep' is our design philosophy. What we're trying to do since a couple of years ago when PDX Tinto's tenure of EUIV started, is to fix, balance and polish the game systems and mechanics while trying to add more and deeper content. This is not an easy task, as the game has almost 10 years old, its systems being the oldest of Paradox's games, and has many, many mechanics and features coming from different DLCs. But when possible, we've freed up or made compatible mechanics from different DLCs, while keeping adding as much content as possible to older DLCs and the base game. We've also tried to actively refresh and rebalance old systems, as the idea groups, and we've also tried to implement challenging content, as with the disasters for Mali, Ottomans, or Castile. There was also a big update to the AI in 1.34, and I'd say that it's in better shape than it had been for years.
Can we do things better, and keep improving? For sure. I think that we could do better with features like the disasters, and maybe we could give some more love to things like the AI management of reforms that Jarvin has mentioned. But I also think that we've influx replayability and more gameplay differentiation to the game with the new reforms, privileges, ideas, etc., opening new possibilities that were not there 3 years ago.
- 19
- 12
- 3
- 1