Europa Universalis IV

[Quintillus]

I see where Paradox is coming from with rivals. From a diplomatic/cultural standpoint, having rivals makes sense, such as the English and the Spanish, or the Ottoman Empire and the Persians. Whether it's implemented the best way, I'm not sure. I could see tying it in with prestige and and having a seperate Power Projection metric. I also wouldn't mind there being more ways than (essentially) just war to project power beyond a small amount. Maybe not to high levels without war, but at least moderate levels.

I mostly agree with Oda on the forts. While not perfect, they're considerably less janky than in 1.12 when they first debuted, and in the end I like the tactical element and that you can't just carpet-siege a country from day 1. I'd certainly welcome AI improvements in that area - and it would be nice if the AI were smart enough with them to not require a big maintenance discount - but I'd consider it a step backwards if they were removed.

And that's part of Paradox's problem - it's really hard to satisfy everyone.

 

[Dell19]

I like forts as it means that an early defeat or victory isn't as decisive. The two issues are that periodically its not clear whether two armies standing next to each other can move towards each other directly or will have to take a convulted route whilst the AI does know. The other is that they are too expensive particularly after the corruption change. If I have to choose between an advisor or forts I'm always going to pick the advisor.

The rival system I'm fine with generally but it would be cool if they changed for other reasons than just one nation becoming too powerful as otherwise alliances stay too static.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The AI part I agree with.

The rest, not so much. Yes, it is sometime counterintuitive, and need tweaking and improvements, but forts that limit movements makes for far better gameplay than forts that require carpet-siege like the old system.

If Paradox went back to the old system, I would certainly count that as one of the worst change they ever made.

If they ever get the current fort mechanic out of early beta phase, perhaps I will agree with you.

I will not agree that mechanics that don't work yet (in an objective sense) should be implemented in a game, overwriting a known working model. From their cost model to their actual movement restriction rules, new forts do not work.

If they worked you'd have a serious case, carpet sieging wasn't exactly exciting times.

But they don't.

I'm not a fan of the new fort system, but that's more "meh" than "hate".

If you play the game enough, you learn to hate being penalized for occupying a fort, hate being unable to move anywhere because the game phantom thinks there are suddenly more forts mid battle (causing a shattered retreat with no movement, insta-wipe), hate level 8 fort spam late game that the AI doesn't pay for etc.

And that's part of Paradox's problem - it's really hard to satisfy everyone.

That excuse doesn't fly for year-long objectively bugged problems. 1.12 and 1.13beta had mechanics that were confirmed buggy, put in the game anyway, and are still bugged over a year later in 1.17.1. That's not acceptable practice.

The two issues are that periodically its not clear whether two armies standing next to each other can move towards each other directly or will have to take a convulted route whilst the AI does know.

The third is that they're bugged and don't work.

The fourth is that merging armies breaks prior province memory.

The fifth is that there are situations where occupying an enemy fort restricts your movement, even if that's the only thing that happens (IE you are penalized for controlling a fort).

The sixth is that there are bug/exploits that allow move-queued units to walk through ZoC deliberately.

The seventh is that AI subjects sometimes delete them despite not paying for them, and you can't "fortify march" now because they wanted to fix the "exploit" of using your own money to build in subject land.

The eighth is that their function and durability is not consistent with period logistics, and turns the very late game into a chore, despite that such was the time period they were least likely to last long or even legitimately impede army movement.

It's not a bad idea in principle. There have been many proposals to make them better, or at least not abject broken trash where you can't look at the map and determine where you can go. Pdox has ignored those, for like a year now.

Carpet sieges and assaults were objectively better implemented than current forts, because they had discernible rules and consistent function. If pdox was going to replace them, they needed to do it with a mechanic that wasn't in beta.

 

[Quintillus]

May I propose that we split the debate over whether the various changes in post-Art-of-War patches improved the game or not off into another thread? Or debate that at Paradoxplaza instead? While fun for awhile, IMO they've veered off into wall-of-text arguments from people who aren't going to change their opinion anyway, and have made the thread both less fun and less inviting to newcomers than when it was primarily about, y'know, playing EU4.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

It's a serious nuisance and good evidence paradox didn't actually care if this mechanic integrated with the game properly before using it.

Or, alternatively, good evidence that Paradox doesn't give a rat's ass about single player because they do all of their balancing in multiplayer.

 

[Double A]

I just started playing Vic 2 last week

 

[Arakhor]

Sorry to hear that, Altar. Have fun in other threads.

 

[Dell19]

I would bet quite a lot of money that won't be his last post in this thread...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sailor Mon:

Spoiler :

Fezzan Corridors:

Spoiler :

Opening to a scrublord WC/one faith attempt:

Spoiler :

 

[BvBPL]

Having fun with a Poland / Commonwealth game. My successes arent as remarkable as some other things occurring. Tyrone (Ireland) became a colonial power. The Livoian Order has been expelled from the Novgood/ Estonia region and now controls Norway and Sweden. Austria has conquered France and the Low Countries. This caused Frances capital to move to the Philippines area, causing its remaining European holdings to be label "French France."

Oh and Iceland is now the Holy Roman Emperor (which has become a hereditary title).

 

[JohannaK]

Still doesnt top my Xiu game where France was completely gobbled up by Burgundy and Aragon and was thence exiled to just the Philippines. It was the cradle of the revolution, too!

 

[PhroX]

Heh, reminds me of some interesting events in Iberia in a Dutch game I had a while back.

Portugal obviously gets exiled to....Alaska!

Spoiler :

So, I'm guessing that was Castille/Spain's doing? Right?

Spoiler :

I don't even.... Dare I take look at Iberia?

Spoiler :

Just...no...I give up....

 

[JohannaK]

OH MY GOD, I don't think I've ever even seen Catalonia in EU4.

A pity that it no longer controls actual Catalonia...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Auld Alliance reversed (formed GB after):

Spoiler :

Yet another example of France getting piled/killed. I got the achievement by vassaling them diplomatically. I had a few other small distractions too.

 

[BvBPL]

Any suggestions on where I can I find contemporary (reflecting recent patches) guides or strategies for EU IV? There is so much dated stuff it can be hard to find current information.

 

[Quintillus]

Well, it's finally come to it - Venice is at war with Timbuktu! Now things are really going to get real!

Spoiler 1920x1200 :

Well, okay, Timbuktu won't be able to do much, and Mali probably won't either. But Spain has declared war on Venice, seeking their independence from the tyranny imposed on them 30 years ago by the Queen of Venice when she inherited their throne. Venice's current king is but a lad, and I would fear for his future if he were not allied with the Commonwealth... but if Venice loses Spain, let's not pretend that it would not by and large be in my interests.

My current allies in this Ottoman game are The Netherlands, England, Russia, Georgia, Alodia, and Ethiopia. All of which, of course, are heathens, but as a humanist country, why should that both us? We hope to eventually make Georgia and Alodia vassals in spite of the faith difference, while Russia is a land ally against the Commonwealth, and England and the Netherlands serve as a hedge against France and Spain. The Sunni Byzantine Empire is a vassal, as they have been for over 150 years, although a disloyal one for about 98% of that time due to being a historical rival. In retrospect I would have annexed them outright, but there is some prestige in "convincing" the heirs of Rome that Islam is the one true faith. I may yet place my own dynasty on the throne to further legitimize our claims to Europe, but the current Eastern Roman Emperor is simply too good to replace.

The most surprisingly successful country thus far is Theodoro, who escaped my ambitions just long enough to ally with my own ally, Russia, and then gobble up lands from Crimea and, quite recently, the Golden Horde. I would show them who's the real boss of Crimea, but I'm not quite ready to forsake Russia yet - the Commonwealth is still formidable, and it was not that long ago I switched alliances from a hapless Nogai whose bacon I had already saved more than once to Muscovy-soon-to-be-Russia.

In the New World, French La Plata is the model colony, with Portuguese Brazil having become a bit of a rebellious embarrassment. Spain has colonies in the West Indies and Mexico, but little wealth to show for them, while Scottish Colombia is proving a bit more lucrative for its overlord - who, shockingly, is neither rivals nor enemies with England, and has not fought them the entire game. I've never seen such a peaceful relationship between England and Scotland in all my EU4 games. Brittany and the Netherlands are working on colonizing North America - again, the peace between France and Brittany has been a surprise, though not an unpleasant one.

My current plans are to focus on expanding in Arabia, Africa, and towards India, with expansion into Europe as aggressive expansion allows. Italy would be a tempting target, but good coalition bait as well, and the Pope and I were allies back in the day, so we're a bit lenient on him for old times' sake The Pope was even so kind as to not join the Religious League Wars when I supported the Protestant cause, which naturally deserves commendation for his dedication to peace.

All in all a pretty fun game. Perhaps a bit too much dedication to helping my allies early on - notably Nogai, who was almost completely depending on my military to not collapse - but overall a good Ottoman game, and despite the end of Janissary support, still with a bright future. Paradox has also added quite a few Ottoman events since I last played them (in multi-player, that time) in 1.7.3, so it's been worth giving them another go.

 

[Arakhor]

I have a bizarre 1.17 game going on right now, where both Wallachia and Trebizond are being unusually successful and Anatolia is being tidily divided between various powers.

 

[jackelgull]

How the hell am I failing this hard as the Ottomans!

Ok then, so maybe failing isn't the right word, but my usual strategy has stopped producing the desired results this patch. Eating Serbia and Bosnia early on in one war when their both only allied to each other produces a coalition with teeth, and AQ gets eaten by QQ before I can take back my core and spit out Syra for me to vassalize, feed its cores and then diplo annex. I do wish I had the DLC that allows me to give territory to vassals in peace deals, or at the very least a way to give my vassals land I don't want to core and deal with the rebel problems for without a prestige loss.

 

[Silv Something]

I bought this game during a summer Steam sale and just finished my first and so far only game. Steam says it took me 100 hours (!), though some of that was getting a handle on the controls and mechanics at the beginning.

I played as the Ottomans; I think I was pretty successful. Despite the fact that I never took colonial or exploration ideas, my colonial nations grew quite large. It seems taking colonies from others is much faster than doing it the hard way.

Toward the late game I was creating bordergore in Europe, making France spit out nations most of which I was able to vassalize but Gascony refused. I was allied with them and they declared a nationalist war on France, who was fighting her revolutionaries.

My very last war was against Bengal and Malacca so I could bring my Indochina region into the contiguous Ottoman empire. Ottoman Indochina had started out as a mission to conquer a province with the chinaware trade good and grew from there. I never did get around to conquering all of the Americas or the British Isles. Now I'm looking for a new nation to play as.

Spoiler :

 

[Quintillus]

I'll say you did well! Quite possibly than I will do in my current Ottoman game, and I'd played 700 hours before it started.

I don't suppose Scandinavia or Ming were long-term allies? Both seem to have also done very well.

There's so many interesting nations to try. IMO, an HRE game, particularly as a mid-sized HRE nation, is a classic, but there's a lot of variety across the world, and even now there's a lot of areas I haven't explored sufficiently in-depth.