What's the WORST thing in EUV?

[Bawhoppen]

Here's a different form of feedback.
If you had to pick ONE thing that's currently slated for the game, that you don't like, and wish were changed: What would it be?

For me, honestly it's the fact you can't stockpile resources. This feels very illogical and seems like it takes away so much mechanical strategic depth. Imagine stockpiling weapons or bricks for the long haul - or intentionally cause market crashes by hoarding items.
Of course there may need to be a deterioration system, particularly for things that rot/rust, and a maintenance/upkeep system.
(A close second is immersion-wise that the Chinese Religion is Mahayana Buddhism; this makes so little sense, and takes away so much from what is otherwise a rich and accurate portrayal of 1337's world)


What's yours?

 

[Sirbab]

Here's a different form of feedback.
If you had to pick ONE thing that's currently slated for the game, that you would changed? What would it be?

For me, honestly it's the fact you can't stockpile resources. This feels very illogical and seems like it takes away so much mechanical strategic depth. Imagine stockpiling weapons or bricks for the long haul - or intentionally cause market crashes by hoarding items.
Of course there may need to be a deterioration system, particularly for things that rot/rust, and a maintenance/upkeep system.
(A close second is immersion-wise that the Chinese Religion is Mahayana Buddhism; this makes so little sense, and takes away so much from what is otherwise a rich and accurate portrayal of 1337's world)


What's yours?

Dynamic terrain being teased then they decided it was too much work. Rip deforestation or expansion of farming.

 

[lo24681]

(A close second is immersion-wise that the Chinese Religion is Mahayana Buddhism; this makes so little sense, and takes away so much from what is otherwise a rich and accurate portrayal of 1337's world)

I thought they were changing that? regardless to answer the question, mine would be only one resource per location.

 

[Mef]

For me, honestly it's the fact you can't stockpile resources.

You can make your own market and stockpile goods in there, though.


As for the topic of the thread, I can't really think of anything that particularly stands out. There are things that I like, there are things that I don't like, but it's very hard to say what would be the worst.

Maybe the fact that RGOs are designed to be unable to use any input goods, but even that can be easily modded around by strictly limiting RGO levels and making most of the economy building based.

 

[Bawhoppen]

I thought they were changing that? regardless to answer the question, mine would be only one resource per location.

They said they didn't feel happy about this set-up, but still implied it was the best solution, as for some unfortunate reason they don't want to use Confucianism as the name despite it fitting perfectly

You can make your own market and stockpile goods in there, though.

I don't think that's the same as anybody being able to stockpile intentionally. Market stockpiles are more of an incidental feature, versus purposefully filling warehouses of gunpowder for your soon-to-be-war.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Right now? Probably the way trade income works. Tying it to crown power is better than how it was before, but really what the game needs is proper tariffs and state monopolies. Not sure if that will be reworked before launch though. If not I 100% anticipate a rework at some point.

Edit: I forgot about how control and trade propagation are calculated the same. That's actually a much bigger deal since it means either the disparity between sea and land trade is massively understated, or the ability to govern an overland empire is massively understated. Really control needs to be about communications infrastructure while trade is about moving bulk goods around. There's no reason to conflate the two.

 

[peteoj]

The fact that they haven't given me the damn Game yet

 

[Linbot#6018]

I don't understand why tribal pops, pops that don't live within the borders of a state, and societies of pops are all completely different things.

 

[Shayrin2]

Dynamic terrain being teased then they decided it was too much work. Rip deforestation or expansion of farming.

I think they made it pretty clear since the VERY beginning that this was extremely dependent on technological advances and not something they would even bet on being present on release.

 

[Sirbab]

I think they made it pretty clear since the VERY beginning that this was extremely dependent on technological advances and not something they would even bet on being present on release.

Yeah I know. But it was still dangled in front of our faces lol. It is worth pointing out the system supports it, so mods can happily change terrain. I think the issue was that the graphical view wouldn't change. So if I make all the Sahara farmland, it'll still look sandy.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

For me, it's the way antagonism and coalitions work.

They're moving in the correct direction, but I think that antagonism should be based significantly around perceived threat level, which is calculated based on strength, mutual opinion, cultural relations, the belligerent social value, etc.

I also think antagonism should be gained when starting a war, not just in the peace deal.

I also don't want coalitions to have an antagonism threshold, just a diplo cost to them. They shouldn't give you an automatic CB, but high antagonism should make it cheaper and faster to create the CB. Countries with truces should also be able to join coalitions for a stab hit, which also gets reduced with antagonism, so that if you're really really aggressive, countries will join coalitions immediately after peacing out with you (but would still have to truce break to dec on you). Instead of coalitions being an all or nothing thing, where either no one joins or because AE isn't high enough or everyone who isn't allied to you joins, joining a coalition should be more of a gradual decision, where first your rivals form coalitions against you, and the coalition will get joined gradually by more and more states based on how high your antagonism is (there should be more reasons to join/ not join a coalition than just antagonism).

I think this would present a nice, fluid system, where you don't ever want to appear as too powerful and too threatening, but can still expand rapidly if you can exploit a power vacuum for example, but that will put you on a collision course with rivals.

I think this builds a lot of nice gameplay loops and game narratives.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

Yeah I know. But it was still dangled in front of our faces lol. It is worth pointing out the system supports it, so mods can happily change terrain. I think the issue was that the graphical view wouldn't change. So if I make all the Sahara farmland, it'll still look sandy.

It will look sandy until you restart the game and reload the map, essentially.

I do hope that this feature is something they'll work on post- release, it's really super important and I'll buy a full DLC for that feature alone.

 

[Sirbab]

It will look sandy until you restart the game and reload the map, essentially.

I do hope that this feature is something they'll work on post- release, it's really super important and I'll buy a full DLC for that feature alone.

Wait for real? Hell yeah man, I may even make a terrain mod if someone doesn't beat me to it. You've made me much happier even if it's over a little thing.

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

It will look sandy until you restart the game and reload the map, essentially.

Where did they say this? I thought the map graphics were baked into the starting map setup?

 

[Monty is staring at me]

It wasn't explicitly said, I think, but I'm pretty sure that's the way their engine works. The vegetation layer is created during the map creation phase whenever you start/load a game; it's not hard coded, otherwise you would have to create a new 3D map if you wanted to mod the map. If you were to edit the starting vegetation with a mod, for example, that should show up on the game map. I think all you need to do to adjust the vegetation as a modder is adjust a single line of code, it's trivial.

I think the problem is that the vegetation layer is not coded to change during gameplay, which is probably for optimization, and they couldn't come up with a solution that works with how the vegetation layer is currently coded.

 

[ZarkinDrife]

No Mac or Linux support at launch :c

 

[KingLouie]

A couple of days ago I would have written something like it's too easy to expand rapidly or some problems with the UI.

But for me personally all that doesn't matter compared to the fact that there won't be a mac version of the game. Paradox was one of the reliable developers that, at least since I've know them, always published theis games for
mac (and as far as I know linux as well), but that seems to be over now.

 

[rasakblood]

Trade income being separated from estate loyalty and control.

I fear this will always make estate management trivial as trade income grows and you can tax less. This would directly make control far less important.

Combined this seems to make trade incredibly powerful even aside from the profits it generates.

I hope i am wrong.

 

[Lord Lambert]

The worst thing is that I got 2 weeks of access, but my parents arrived from overseas to visit literally an hour after I got access, and left a few short hours before I lost access, and I was sick with a horrible fever for 80% of that time too.

It is a cruel and undeserved punishment to have my access be so compromised and then have it ripped away

 

[Skykiller]

No Mac support. What could be worse than the fact you can’t play the game ?