With EU4's launch of Leviathian, big thanks to Imperator's devs for making 2.0 so smooth!

[Torugu]

Oh please do humour me and explain how that is something I have done hahaha

Hey, I like your videos so I'll help you out:

You don't get to deflect actual valid arguments about the matter at hand (why the current port system is an improvement over the old one) by giving snarky responses to obvious rhetorical questions.


Edit: This was either added later or I overlooked it somehow.

There is a stark difference between the infrastructure needed to build fishing ships and warships.

Which is why you're spending 125(?) gold to build the infrastructure.

The Romans once built a fleet in a lake, I think the Greeks of Troizen can find a spot on their 100 kilometer coastline to put down a few ships. And besides, this is a gameplay issue above all.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I'll help you out

You'll help me out by accusing me of doing something that you are guilty of? Ooookay bud.

You don't get to deflect actual valid arguments about the matter at hand

I am not deflecting anything. I made my argument about why I dislike the changes to ports, your rebuttal was "have you even played X" and I provided proof that I had via the achievement unlocked image. You then shifted the goalposts to mean a coastal greek minor and again, I posted proof that I had, this time via the video.

If one of your questions was rhetorical, I did not catch it, and none of my responses were meant as snarky or snippy (other than maybe the goalpost moving image, which I feel was absolutely deserved)

I still do not see a valid reason why ports as they are in 2.0 are better than they were pre 2.0. It is still a downgrade for me.

 

[Marcus Pica]

I can find at least half a dozen natural harbours in our meagre 46.6 km of Slovene coastline (represented in-game by a third of a territory perhaps) and every big island of the Dalmatian coast has at least as much natural harbours. True that some coasts are less suitable, like beaches along the Rimini riviera in Italy or some Spanish coastlines with sandy beaches mostly, but still given the scale... The game already limits shipbuilding by port level. Perhaps there should be a limit on whether you can build only a single or several port levels, while level 1 ports could be build everywhere.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Perhaps there should be a limit on whether you can build only a single or several port levels, while level 1 ports could be build everywhere.

That is sort of how it currently works. As settlements cannot have more than 1 building, you can't get lvl 2+ ports unless there is a city.

 

[Akbar The Great]

I understand that it is incorrect, I am simply stating the reality that is the way you have written it leads into that kind of assumption. Hence "It reads like". I did not imply your intention even once.

There's nothing wrong with how it is written, you've simply made a mistake. I think you thought you saw someone supporting mana and jumped on them, as the snarky reply "you say that like it's a bad thing" proves.

I hate mana, you hate mana, we all hate mana - let's move on.

 

[Marcus Pica]

That is sort of how it currently works. As settlements cannot have more than 1 building, you can't get lvl 2+ ports unless there is a city.

True, but it is limited to territory rank (settlement, city, metropolis) not to whether a natural harbor is present or not (natural harbors as such don't exist as a concept in the game). So I would add a natural harbor modifier to some territories and then limit the building of larger (higher level) ports to but cities and metropolises in territories with a natural harbor. Even better, the natural harbor modifier on a territory would simply reduce the cost of higher level ports.

Aquileia was one of the largest port cities in the Roman Empire and it is situated in a silted lagoon of the northern Adriatic. That didn't stop the Romans to build a large port, it probably just presented more challenges and increased cost with excavation and deposition of material compared to some natural harbor with optimal depth, wind and wave protection, flat areas fit for port activities and storage etc.

 

[Akbar The Great]

Since building slots are limited you actually aren’t that free to build ports everywhere without minding the opportunity costs such as investing in pop related, economical, or military buildings. It takes 3 building slots to being able to construct middle sized ships.

So I actually just end up building 1 or 2 port hubs with stacked boni to construction speed via invention tree (I think it’s one of the civic inventions tree) and trade good surplus, and then just here and there one port to park the fleets. I’m not even building them in every province.

I guess it also depends how large you are and how coastline you have, I still think ports should be limited to cities with agreeable coastline, but on the whole ports and markets in particular are so meh.

We need a buildings tree really and we need levels to those buildings so you can build your great Harbours etc in Carthage, Alexandria, in the Historically accurate locations, maybe in other territories those ports are limted to level 3 and the huge ones go to 5.

The more I think about it, buildings just need an entire redo. If this is a civ building game, then building it needs to be far more engaging and has to have much more depth.

 

[antrachton]

Oh please do humour me and explain how that is something I have done hahaha

There is a stark difference between the infrastructure needed to build fishing ships and warships.

Like... a bit more wood?

 

[Lord Lambert]

I'm curious, was there a big outcry of desire for ports to be buildable everywhere @Snow Crystal? Where did the idea come from to make this change?

 

[Snow Crystal]

I'm curious, was there a big outcry of desire for ports to be buildable everywhere @Snow Crystal? Where did the idea come from to make this change?

Not really, no. At least not one that I ever saw.

It has been something that has been discussed several times internally - all the way back to 1.1, if I recall correctly? Seeing as we worked a lot on ships, ship combat, major rivers, etc, it's just natural that it was discussed. I also recall that it came up as a discussion in 1.3, with even more major rivers and the mission trees. E.g having a port added to a territory as a reward was something we would want to do, when we first started looking at missions.

As it had been brought up so many times, and usually shot down because of technical reasons (see having to add port coordinates for every single territory by the sea, for example), I was surprised to see it in the Design Doc for the patch that would eventually end up becoming 2.0.

 

[Torugu]

Not really, no. At least not one that I ever saw.

It has been something that has been discussed several times internally - all the way back to 1.1, if I recall correctly? Seeing as we worked a lot on ships, ship combat, major rivers, etc, it's just natural that it was discussed. I also recall that it came up as a discussion in 1.3, with even more major rivers and the mission trees. E.g having a port added to a territory as a reward was something we would want to do, when we first started looking at missions.

As it had been brought up so many times, and usually shot down because of technical reasons (see having to add port coordinates for every single territory by the sea, for example), I was surprised to see it in the Design Doc for the patch that would eventually end up becoming 2.0.

Fortunately a good idea doesn't need a massive grassroots movement to be a good idea.

 

[Bovrick]

I'm personally content with the situation with Ports from a real-life reasonableness test; the requirement for a City to exist to make larger ships feels like a good gateway mechanic too. My issues are:
1) Unit differences for ships don't feel pronounced enough a lot of the time, so the incentive to engage with Port levels isn't strong enough. Even if you added static modifiers to Territories to model natural harbours, it probably wouldn't matter much.
2) The ability to manage a large fleet (# units) doesn't track its infrastructure - to have a massive Light Ship doomstack you can get away with minor Ports, and those ships can be maintained/healed en masse. The only bottleneck ends up being money, and time to build the ships (and time-to-build is rarely a relevant factor in these games).
3) The Naval game in general isn't relevant enough *cough* trade needs to interact with the map and militaries *cough*

 

[Torugu]

I'm personally content with the situation with Ports from a real-life reasonableness test; the requirement for a City to exist to make larger ships feels like a good gateway mechanic too. My issues are:
1) Unit differences for ships don't feel pronounced enough a lot of the time, so the incentive to engage with Port levels isn't strong enough. Even if you added static modifiers to Territories to model natural harbours, it probably wouldn't matter much.
2) The ability to manage a large fleet (# units) doesn't track its infrastructure - to have a massive Light Ship doomstack you can get away with minor Ports, and those ships can be maintained/healed en masse. The only bottleneck ends up being money, and time to build the ships (and time-to-build is rarely a relevant factor in these games).
3) The Naval game in general isn't relevant enough *cough* trade needs to interact with the map and militaries *cough*

Now these are criticisms I can agree with. Especially point 3) is something that really needs to become a bigger part of the game. Right now there is very little incentive for a maritime trading power to maintain a significant fleet. And that just seems off.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Not really, no. At least not one that I ever saw.

It has been something that has been discussed several times internally - all the way back to 1.1, if I recall correctly? Seeing as we worked a lot on ships, ship combat, major rivers, etc, it's just natural that it was discussed. I also recall that it came up as a discussion in 1.3, with even more major rivers and the mission trees. E.g having a port added to a territory as a reward was something we would want to do, when we first started looking at missions.

As it had been brought up so many times, and usually shot down because of technical reasons (see having to add port coordinates for every single territory by the sea, for example), I was surprised to see it in the Design Doc for the patch that would eventually end up becoming 2.0.

Interesting, thanks

Fortunately a good idea doesn't need a massive grassroots movement to be a good idea.

lol

 

[Daft]

Ouch, just checked Leviathan reviews on Steam.

A bit sad really. Although, I haven't played EU4 in many years.

 

[Herennius]

That is sort of how it currently works. As settlements cannot have more than 1 building, you can't get lvl 2+ ports unless there is a city.

Sorry for the nit-picking, but in the later game you can enable a second settlement building with the Rural Planning invention. So lvl2 is possible, but I concede that it is of course no help to get the benefits of 3 or more stacked ports

 

[Kadanz]

If landlocked hungary can have an admiral, I can have a fleet on a lake as landlocked greek opm. It's only fair.

 

[Mortmal]

Indeed that was the last quality update from paradox, let's hope this team will stay like this and the suit let them do more content pack at their own pace.

 

[maxk94]

As the title states. Recently, EU4 launch a new 1.31 update, which was lets say.. controversial among gamers and reviews due to reports of bugs, crashes and insane exploits which made the launch choppier than a choppy ocean full of chopsticks.

This has made me really want to give big kudos to the Imperator devs for making the 2.0 launch relatively speaking very smooth and almost bug free! I have had a geat time with it and think its a fantastic addition to the game, and hoping for more news on the way soon

Maybe Leviathan is Johan's attempt to bring dozens of players to Imperator?

Since the EU4 patch I have at least moved a few players to I:R away from EU4 <3

 

[Torugu]

It's all part of a genius marketing strategy for the announcement of Imperator 2 at PDXCON.