Cause they are not making it better. They are adding mission trees on an old outdated game that has a lot of issues and such old code they dont even dare to code any more new features.
- 3
- 2
- 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.
I mean game runs perfectly fine for me, much better than all other paradox games save for Victoria 2
So true. People are asking for EU5 a lot and don't realise it'll be a TOTALLY different game to EU4, in a bad way for me. They'll want to fill it out with 3D models for characters just like they have with Vic3 and blow up the UI to make it look like a mobile game, no thank you! So yeah, more support for EU4 is good, then at least when EU5 does release I can carry on playing EU4 in it's complete version, without any areas that have no flavour etc.
- 4
- 1
Can I ask what CPU+RAM combo you use? Also, please define "perfectly fine", I see that as 60fps on speed 4 but Zaddy, for example, wants 144FPS. It's very relative.
I didnt even think about the 3d model thing. It will look so bad.
- 2
- 1
What I'm learning is that I have a different definition than a lot of folks here about what constitutes "perfectly fine". Ie what you may find a good experience I'd find unplayable.
Really, I'd be happy with a consistent 60 FPS on Speed 4. This is putting aside time progression which is harder to quantify, but as of right now is definitely several grades below "acceptable" to me.
- 1
Well, I get 60FPS on speed 4 roughly. You're running a better CPU than me so you should in theory be getting close enough to what I am getting.
Then please consider adding impassable terrain for the Andes, with crossings like the Alps.
- 5
- 2
- 1
I do hope EU V is a different game.
While I like EU IV, it can be better with what was learned with EUIV and new updated mechanics.
While I like EU IV, it can be better with what was learned with EUIV and new updated mechanics.
- 2
Not just the Andes, but the Carpathian mountains, especially for cleaner Romanian borders And for that isolated Kievan cultured province
- 1
THIS. Only playing with a mod can change the game's nature from a straightforward map painter to a country management game.
- 1
I know you said "no more provinces" a while ago, but at least South America needs new borders, wastelands and potential terrain. There were some great threads about it on the forums so I hope at least some of it will be considered.
- 2
Unironically turning some Andean provinces into wastelands would probably satisfy everyone. Just up the dev of the remaining provinces a bit to compensate.
- 4
the mission trees are clearly making 90% of flavor of the game and some nations are clearly lacking theese
seeing the incomming uptade a huge focus was made to improve every mission tree of the countries most affected by the next update, i do belive the devs understand that and everyone will have fun playing around these new missions
now you can point out georgia or persia are lacking missions compared to mughals, but after the next update you will say hambourg is lacking missions compared to lubeck
imo the mission trees should be all updated with small patches every month or two, there are nations super fun or hard to start with but sadly only have generic missions turning them into a more common "borring" starts
to answer " what after scandinavia" i would say " weeks of bugfixing"
the 1.33 combat system just sucks... sry but it's true
the 1.33 ai logic of building forts just sucks, fezan having a lvl 3 fort in desert without any income has no sens, while france having 16 forts before a war and delating all of them after losing a war has no sens eighter
there are dozens of changes in the new update that reduce the cost of promoting mercantalism, witch also has no sens knowing how little effect it has for the mana invested - quote from dev diary : "a change we are most excited about! For example, you can have Advisors grant -5% Mercantilism Cost per level, for a total of -25% at level 5:" idk if it's a joke but if they are realy exited about it, i am losing words
that being said maybe some changes into the trade system should be the focus of the next update (?), there are existing modifiers that are almost useless ( cf mercantalism, caravan power, trade power of ships naval doctrine etc )
also maybe insteed of nerfing / updating existent idea groups adding more of them for a whole wider choice could one day become a thing
that being said despite 1.33 discouraged me from beliving in eu4 devs capabilities, i am pretty confident in the next update and have lot of expectations for enjoyement in 1.34
seeing the incomming uptade a huge focus was made to improve every mission tree of the countries most affected by the next update, i do belive the devs understand that and everyone will have fun playing around these new missions
now you can point out georgia or persia are lacking missions compared to mughals, but after the next update you will say hambourg is lacking missions compared to lubeck
imo the mission trees should be all updated with small patches every month or two, there are nations super fun or hard to start with but sadly only have generic missions turning them into a more common "borring" starts
what kind of mission tree would you make for georgia as it was just the battleground between otto and iraq for centuries, they barrelly existed before italians arrived then they barrelly existed when otto arrived
same goes for persia from 1444 "ig" to "historicly" about 1600 they spend their time fighting ottos and the hordes, ig Qq and Ajam are both suposed to form persia but actually timmy is the "most" historical persia and their mission tree pushes them going mughals
persia and their gov is just super strong by the ideas and gov unique action button, the only rationnal missions would be to improve their " tall playing " in order to be in check with the history... but overall we could also expect a reversed "al-andalous" mission tree pushing them to re-re-reconquista in order to establish the shia califate (?)
overall i do agree that the middle east is lacking missions but imo they are already super strong and the cuntries with generic mission trees should have their missions changed first...
-like whats the idea of incas having same mission tree as any north america tribe
-why monferat has no missions in order to re-establish byz
-why florence has one of the most op mission trees and bologna has same as ryga
and all these 3 i just mention was changed not that long ago
without a dedicated dept for mission trees updates and regular updates of these we can not realy expect a lot, the world of eu4 is just waaaaay to wide
same goes for persia from 1444 "ig" to "historicly" about 1600 they spend their time fighting ottos and the hordes, ig Qq and Ajam are both suposed to form persia but actually timmy is the "most" historical persia and their mission tree pushes them going mughals
persia and their gov is just super strong by the ideas and gov unique action button, the only rationnal missions would be to improve their " tall playing " in order to be in check with the history... but overall we could also expect a reversed "al-andalous" mission tree pushing them to re-re-reconquista in order to establish the shia califate (?)
overall i do agree that the middle east is lacking missions but imo they are already super strong and the cuntries with generic mission trees should have their missions changed first...
-like whats the idea of incas having same mission tree as any north america tribe
-why monferat has no missions in order to re-establish byz
-why florence has one of the most op mission trees and bologna has same as ryga
and all these 3 i just mention was changed not that long ago
without a dedicated dept for mission trees updates and regular updates of these we can not realy expect a lot, the world of eu4 is just waaaaay to wide
to answer " what after scandinavia" i would say " weeks of bugfixing"
the 1.33 combat system just sucks... sry but it's true
the 1.33 ai logic of building forts just sucks, fezan having a lvl 3 fort in desert without any income has no sens, while france having 16 forts before a war and delating all of them after losing a war has no sens eighter
there are dozens of changes in the new update that reduce the cost of promoting mercantalism, witch also has no sens knowing how little effect it has for the mana invested - quote from dev diary : "a change we are most excited about! For example, you can have Advisors grant -5% Mercantilism Cost per level, for a total of -25% at level 5:" idk if it's a joke but if they are realy exited about it, i am losing words
that being said maybe some changes into the trade system should be the focus of the next update (?), there are existing modifiers that are almost useless ( cf mercantalism, caravan power, trade power of ships naval doctrine etc )
also maybe insteed of nerfing / updating existent idea groups adding more of them for a whole wider choice could one day become a thing
that being said despite 1.33 discouraged me from beliving in eu4 devs capabilities, i am pretty confident in the next update and have lot of expectations for enjoyement in 1.34
- 2
- 1
So what im hearing is ai should keep its forts but just not delete after warthe mission trees are clearly making 90% of flavor of the game and some nations are clearly lacking theese
seeing the incomming uptade a huge focus was made to improve every mission tree of the countries most affected by the next update, i do belive the devs understand that and everyone will have fun playing around these new missions
now you can point out georgia or persia are lacking missions compared to mughals, but after the next update you will say hambourg is lacking missions compared to lubeck
imo the mission trees should be all updated with small patches every month or two, there are nations super fun or hard to start with but sadly only have generic missions turning them into a more common "borring" starts
what kind of mission tree would you make for georgia as it was just the battleground between otto and iraq for centuries, they barrelly existed before italians arrived then they barrelly existed when otto arrived
same goes for persia from 1444 "ig" to "historicly" about 1600 they spend their time fighting ottos and the hordes, ig Qq and Ajam are both suposed to form persia but actually timmy is the "most" historical persia and their mission tree pushes them going mughals
persia and their gov is just super strong by the ideas and gov unique action button, the only rationnal missions would be to improve their " tall playing " in order to be in check with the history... but overall we could also expect a reversed "al-andalous" mission tree pushing them to re-re-reconquista in order to establish the shia califate (?)
overall i do agree that the middle east is lacking missions but imo they are already super strong and the cuntries with generic mission trees should have their missions changed first...
-like whats the idea of incas having same mission tree as any north america tribe
-why monferat has no missions in order to re-establish byz
-why florence has one of the most op mission trees and bologna has same as ryga
and all these 3 i just mention was changed not that long ago
without a dedicated dept for mission trees updates and regular updates of these we can not realy expect a lot, the world of eu4 is just waaaaay to wide
to answer " what after scandinavia" i would say " weeks of bugfixing"
the 1.33 combat system just sucks... sry but it's true
the 1.33 ai logic of building forts just sucks, fezan having a lvl 3 fort in desert without any income has no sens, while france having 16 forts before a war and delating all of them after losing a war has no sens eighter
there are dozens of changes in the new update that reduce the cost of promoting mercantalism, witch also has no sens knowing how little effect it has for the mana invested - quote from dev diary : "a change we are most excited about! For example, you can have Advisors grant -5% Mercantilism Cost per level, for a total of -25% at level 5:" idk if it's a joke but if they are realy exited about it, i am losing words
that being said maybe some changes into the trade system should be the focus of the next update (?), there are existing modifiers that are almost useless ( cf mercantalism, caravan power, trade power of ships naval doctrine etc )
also maybe insteed of nerfing / updating existent idea groups adding more of them for a whole wider choice could one day become a thing
that being said despite 1.33 discouraged me from beliving in eu4 devs capabilities, i am pretty confident in the next update and have lot of expectations for enjoyement in 1.34
there should be added a calculation for the ai to build or delate a fort, exemple army size full cost + 3 lvl 1 advisors cost + navy size cost + fort upkeep > or < my median income of prod+tax+trade during the last 6 months = build or destroy a fort
dont get me wrong it's just an exemple but as it apears now the calculation is : own 200 ducats + own a province with building slot = build a fort
for real my first game in 1.33 was a mameluks game in 1450ish i get into a war with fezan and realised that freaking fort in the lybian desert... witch actually blowed my mind as they barrelly can affort their army upkeep
Why EU5 when you could have... EU6! I happen to be a Nigerian prince with exclusive access to future, unreleased, even unannounced Paradox titles. And for a very small sum of money, I could perhaps make it available to you.
- 1