I hope that Andes wasteland can be an exception seeing its demand.
- 7
-
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.
Nice! Maybe another expansion for the major powers, I guess it depends on the state of tech debt and overall game performance and stability by then. We shall see!
- 1
I think they won't add "new" provinces rather reshuffle areas eg remove a few provinces here and add them there etc.
- 4
Maybe give some of the tags wich got very shallow free missions something too like you did Poland. Wallachia for example.
- 3
- 1
Adding provinces is what gives game corruptions when people load from previous patch without thinking
- 1
- 1
Yep. One of the reasons why Johan didn't want to add anymore. But why stop adding provinces for everyone when a few minority don't read the very obvious warnings posted literally everywhere about new patches.
Plus, even without new provinces, most major patches are not compatible with older ironman games.
- 5
- 2
Isn't Poland's missions tied to the DLC? Lubeck's are free.
Agreed, same with i3 processors users wanting game to cope with them
- 3
- 1
Can we stop with this silly myth that the game only runs poorly because the user's hardware is insufficient? I just built a new computer with a current gen mid-range CPU (a Ryzen 5 5600, which can easily handle games much more demanding than this) and performance is still abysmal. The game runs terribly even on the absolute best of the best hardware. Try playing an older patch and you'll see how much the game has regressed in this regard over the years. This isn't something a hardware upgrade will rectify.
- 7
- 1
- 1
That's pretty strange considering I am on a 3600, 1 generation older than your current processor, and can handle the game perfectly fine. How much RAM do you currently have installed?
The processor does play a large part. An i3 isn't exactly going to have top of the line single core scores, and as we know, EU4 only uses 1 core. The higher the core score and efficiency, the better EU4 runs.
- 2
I have 16 GBs of relatively high-end RAM. I think I probably have higher standards for what qualifies as the game running "perfectly fine", ie you probably are perfectly fine with performance I view as intolerable. I don't know how long you've been playing, but I've been playing since 2015. In that time, even as I've continuously upgraded my hardware, performance has gotten worse and worse, especially within the last 4 years.
In fact, I would bet a decent amount that someone running a current gen i3 processor will have indistinguishable performance from my mid-range processor.
- 6
Well my view of perfectly fine is 50-60fps on 4 speed and the usual 25-30 on 5 speed. On 5 speed, the game runs through months very quickly (ironman with the month autosave too, but that relies on speed of storage more than anything), it gets very disorientating pretty quick!
I have 32GB of RAM so that may also make a difference. I know this probably sounds dumb to you but is your RAM running dual channel, if you've built it yourself it most likely is however. Are you on an SSD? If so is it M.2 or SATA?
I have been playing on and off for a few years now, but started seriously playing just before emperor, so I can't say I have masses of experience with pre-1.30 EU4, so it may be that I've never had it better so therefore I view it as perfectly fine. How did it used to run on 5 speed/4 speed?
Oh and something to note, Intel has always been ahead of AMD on single core scores, so if it's a 12th gen i3, it's probably got a higher single core than yours and mine processors, so I would expect it to outperform any Ryzen 5. Although what I think YellowPress was inferring is that most people who run i3 systems have fairly old/slow components in general, eg 8GB of RAM and a 5400RPM HDD which also effects the game drastically too. Or a laptop, and most laptops are not built for gaming in any sense, so expecting any game to run well is a bit of a stretch.
One more thing to add, again most people who are running an i3 probably have integrated graphics, which takes up an amount of the processors overall abilities, which naturally slows EU4 down even more as the processor is not working at it's maximum due to having to process graphics on top of the games calculations.
- 1
The extra RAM might help a bit, but the figures you quote are the same performance numbers I get, more or less. RAM is in dual channel and XMP is turned on, EU4 is on an SSD, etc.
You can try it yourself if you ever get curious, revert EU4 to like 1.28 in the Steam betas tab and try it out, the experience is so much smoother to me at speed 4 and 5. Not only do the turns run significantly faster, the FPS is much more stable. I can keep 144+ FPS easy on those patches. The game truly did run better by a significant margin in earlier patches.
Now for some people, that sort of thing doesn't bother them terribly much. But it renders any patch from the last 2 or so years basically unplayable to me.
But in any case, all I wanted to say that when users complain about EU4 performance, except for a few edge cases it's really not their hardware that causes the problem.
- 1
I decided to redo an old suggestion for this one:
Portugal Unique Nobility Estate: Order of Christ
With the unique country estates being a nice way to give flavour for a country I will leave my suggestion here (as i have done before Tinto) for a unique nobility estate for Portugal. The Order of Christ. But who are they? Where did they come...
- 1
Well I see 144FPS on a map game as complete overkill. I am more than happy with 30FPS considering it's not exactly a fast paced game, but I can understand why it's frustrating for you coming from a 144FPS set up.
But it's inherently true that EU4's engine has some significant issues performance wise atm. But hardware does definitely make a large impact, there is a roof, which it seems we have hit (60FPS on speed 4 for example), but laptops or older hardware running the game below that performance level is solely down to the hardware.
- 5
Its not just running poorly on low end rigs, but running slower than previous patches is fine considering how manchu sped the game up so much
I remember seeing some crazy performance on the subreddit and I found it, a 12700K running the game in what seems to be closer to 100+ FPS:
So I think it's safe to say that hardware is a rather large factor in EU4's performance, maybe not for us mid-range PC's but for those at the top end, performance seems to be lightning fast. (Note that this is Intel, as I said, they are the benchmark industry wide for single core score, I highly doubt you'd get even close to this level of performance with any AMD CPU until the 7th gen release.)
- 3
Okay, I can give you that buying high-end hardware will net you a better experience. Higher single-core speed gives you a better experience, so me saying that hardware doesn't matter at all isn't really true. That said, I don't think my performance expectations are completely unreasonable. I don't think expecting someone to spend $400 (or your currency equivalent) on a processor for a good experience is very fair. I'm not asking for 240 FPS Ray Tracing ULTRA with 1 second month times on speed 5. I would be perfectly happy with 60 FPS and good-enough speed 5 times. I can get that easily on older patches. But the past few years have been absolutely brutal on anyone with sub high end hardware.
- 2
Oh I totally agree, we shouldn't have to fork out hundreds on brand new processors to run the game well.
I guess I am lucky in that my expectations are significantly lower than yours. But I agree that EU4's performance has taken its toll, and I hope this upcoming patch makes a difference.
That being said, the best we can do is either put up with it and wait for changes, play on older versions or fork out 100's... I think I will put up with it for now!
- 2
- 1