Europa Universalis IV

Akka

Moody old mage.
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
14,416
Location
Facing my computer.
There's an EU4 --> Stellaris converter??? Please tell.
No there is not, but honestly you absolutely don't need it. After all, the only things that would carry through are the name of the empire and its symbol, what would a converter actually do (except maybe copy-paste the flag) ?
The history of mankind must start with Rome, then CK2, EU4, V2, HoI4, THEN Stellaris. Methinks.
I don't have Rome (the reviews about it were not very engaging) and if you kept the Roman Empire intact, the whole ultra-feudal CK2 would feel pretty weird anyway.
Also, yes in theory I should continue with V2 and HoI3/HoI4. But the idea is to reach Stellaris starting point (unified Earth), and I think I can probably manage it by the end of EU4. I guess if it's still far from this goal I'll continue on V2, though I've never played it yet and learning it just for finishing a WC might not be the best bang for bucks ^^

Anyway, I tried to learn a bit the new mechanics, but they are really too clunky and gamey and just F-ing annoying overall, so I went back to 1.14 and disabled Cossack to have a somewhat playable game. EU4 really has become a horrible mess, a pile of disjointed mechanisms without unifying vision and just trying to trip the player up at every corner and prevent him to do anything actually fun, and the last DLC for CK2 are also very subpar.

Maybe that's the reason Stellaris was so barebone at release : they can now apply their feature bloat habits so it ends up just right after ten DLC :p
 

Akka

Moody old mage.
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
14,416
Location
Facing my computer.
What do people regard as the last "good" version of the game? Which patch is best to roll back to?

Regards
I'm not sure there is an actual consensus. Plenty of grognards actually like all the features, plenty of hardcore agree with the systematic hamstringing of big empires to prevent blobbing (and TBH I can see their point even if I don't find it fun).

The consensus is that Art of War is the best DLC. Beyond that, it's pretty much up to individual opinion.
MY opinion is that I can stomach the changes up to just before Cossacks. After that it's just too irritating and annoying - I despise the estates, the states/territories, corruption and so on.
I just went to 1.14 because before that my export would break, but I actually disabled the Cossack DLC itself.
 

Arakhor

Dremora Courtier
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
37,763
Location
UK
I'm currently running 1.15.1, but that's because I had a game in progress before the patch.
 

Dell19

Take a break
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
16,231
Location
London
I generally stay on the latest version as I like adapting my playstyle to each set of changes.
 

Angst

Rambling and inconsistent
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
14,297
Location
A Silver Mt. Zion
I actually like having all the expansions but agree that there isn't a unifying vision for them. I'd guess they're scattered ideas from the development of the core game that they're dripping in - but were cut initially for a reason.
 

Dell19

Take a break
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
16,231
Location
London
I feel that they are limited by having to maintain multiple playable versions of the same game so whenever they introduce a new feature they can't necessarily change everything to fit that feature. The development change does cause issues for people on the free patch as they can't change government rank but they probably would have liked to tie even more stuff to it. For instance in the next expansion they are meant to be buffing great power status which will be linked to development.
 

Double A

♫We got the guillotine♫
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
14,275
Location
NC
From a QA standpoint, they should probably say screw it, if you don't wanna buy the DLC you just can't update your game. They already stopped selling their games on non-steam platforms.
 

Arakhor

Dremora Courtier
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
37,763
Location
UK
If they were going to do that, they might as well bring back expansions, which are inferior to DLC, because at least you have the option not to buy music, unit packs and the like.
 

Quintillus

Archiving Civ3 Content
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
7,402
Location
Ohio
The history of mankind must start with Rome, then CK2, EU4, V2, HoI4, THEN Stellaris. Methinks.

Although I'm split on HOI (because the situation at the end of V2 may or may not lead to it making sense to have an ideology-based war), otherwise I agree. Still, I've yet to play EU: Rome. Although I do own it and intend to play it someday, despite the mediocre reviews. I love the Rome timeframe, have read several books by contemporary (200 BC -> 200 AD) Romans in the past year, and enjoy games in that time period - I just have prioritized Rome II Total War and Civ3: Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire over EU: Rome in the past year.

And that leads to another question: Is there an EU: Rome to CKII converter? Or an EU: Rome to CK One converter, and CK One --> EU3/EU4 Converter?

No there is not, but honestly you absolutely don't need it. After all, the only things that would carry through are the name of the empire and its symbol, what would a converter actually do (except maybe copy-paste the flag) ?

Yeah, that's a good question, and part of the reason why I was curious if about a converter if there really was one.

I'm not sure there is an actual consensus. Plenty of grognards actually like all the features, plenty of hardcore agree with the systematic hamstringing of big empires to prevent blobbing (and TBH I can see their point even if I don't find it fun).

The consensus is that Art of War is the best DLC. Beyond that, it's pretty much up to individual opinion.
MY opinion is that I can stomach the changes up to just before Cossacks. After that it's just too irritating and annoying - I despise the estates, the states/territories, corruption and so on.
I just went to 1.14 because before that my export would break, but I actually disabled the Cossack DLC itself.

Yes, Art of War being the best DLC is a consensus, and the best version is subject to debate.

I think there are likely to be three common preferences:

1.11, before Common Sense and Development. 1.12 completely changed the building system, including removing unique buildings, and added development to absorb some of the excess monarch points from not needing to spend any on buildings. Personally, I felt that 1.12 without Common Sense was a bit flat, but 1.13 with Common Sense still hit a good balance (I did not play 1.12 with Common Sense or 1.13 without). 1.11 also is the last version before the new Fort system. While it was an adjustment the first game, I've grown to like the fort system. But I can see sticking by 1.11, too, especially if the person in question does not own Common Sense.

1.13, before The Cossacks. The Cossacks introduced Estate and the new Diplomatic Feedback system. My personal thoughts are Estates are mildly interesting but I'm not sure if they really justify the level of attention needed to make good use of them, and that I'm not that keen on how with the Diplomatic Feedback system, trust is an element of investing favors into trust, rather than Trust being based on how you actually behave. I feel like trust should be based on whether you honour/dishonour alliances, not something you have some active control over.

Latest - AFAIK, there aren't any especially controversial changes with Mare Nostrum, but I haven't been following it very much either.

I do like my 1.14 single-player game, but whether it's really any better than my 1.13 games is tough to say. Estates were kind of interesting in terms of "if I let an estate get 80%+ power, what happens?", but I'm not sure they're really a great feature. Although with the change in 1.15 so that they require 40% approval (instead of 30%) to be content, they may be a bit more interesting.

From a QA standpoint, they should probably say screw it, if you don't wanna buy the DLC you just can't update your game. They already stopped selling their games on non-steam platforms.
If they were going to do that, they might as well bring back expansions, which are inferior to DLC, because at least you have the option not to buy music, unit packs and the like.

I kind of have mixed feelings on this. IMO, the real advantage of the current system is that you can buy the expansions/DLC/whatever you call them piecemeal, instead of in succession or having each new one include all the content from the previous ones (as in Civ3/Civ4). With an expansion every few months, having each new one include the previous ones doesn't really make sense for the developer - almost everyone would skip every other version or more. But if you had to buy each one individually in order, a lot fewer people would be in the market for the most recent one than in the current system.

OTOH, they do have to make sure that each combination works and doesn't have too terrible of gameplay interactions, which at 8 expansions or whatever it is now is rather complex. It also might hinder design decisions a bit. So while I can see that despite the QA complexity, the current system may well make the most financial sense, I can also see that it may not be ideal for design - there's the "if we add development, how is it not going to be completely broken for those without the DLC?" questions that are not necessarily easy, and (specifically in the case of Common Sense/1.12, but also more generally) they may not have always been able to get right.

As for Steam, I recall that for CKII, over 90% of their sales - and IIRC, over 95% - were on Steam before they went Steam-only. While that made me a bit sad from a competitive marketplace standpoint, as well as that I was one of the minority that had bought via Gamersgate, I have a hard time arguing that it made sense for them. Granted, if you can guarantee the Steam version is exactly the base version + Steam integration, the QA overhead may be near zero, but if you couldn't guarantee that, the decision makes sense. And last I checked, EU4 still worked with Steam completely closed, so it's not like it require Steam to run anyway.
 

Arakhor

Dremora Courtier
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
37,763
Location
UK
CK II will work perfectly without Steam running. You can even fire it from the Steam directory and it won't activate Steam.

Unfortunately, EU IV always triggers Steam in my experience, so I never got around to moving from the base directory.
 

Quintillus

Archiving Civ3 Content
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
7,402
Location
Ohio
CK II will work perfectly without Steam running. You can even fire it from the Steam directory and it won't activate Steam.

Unfortunately, EU IV always triggers Steam in my experience, so I never got around to moving from the base directory.

Just checked, and EU IV 1.1 (the original release without any patches), 1.5, and 1.13 all start without Steam. However, 1.13 pops up a warning that things may not work without Steam, and 1.5 and 1.13 don't allow selecting DLC to launch with without Steam, as eu4_launch.exe will not launch without Steam (though eu4.exe will). 1.1 doesn't have any DLC available.

It may be possible to get the DLC to launch without Steam with 1.5/1.13/etc. via command-line options, but I haven't looked into that.

This testing was all done with Steam having been exited prior to launching EU4.

Although I do agree that it would be preferable if it worked flawlessly and easily, including DLC, without Steam.

1.3

and you can't roll back that far

Interesting, what about 1.3 in particular makes it better than 1.4? That is was the last version before Colonial Nations?

I have 1.1 archived since that was my first game... by that time 1.3 was out, but I didn't have Internet on my desktop at that time, so I was still on 1.1. Missed out on 1.2 and 1.3 and now 1.4 is the earlier that can be rolled back to.
 

Akka

Moody old mage.
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
14,416
Location
Facing my computer.
Well to be honest you can also simply hand-edit "settings.txt" and bypass the launcher :p
 

Double A

♫We got the guillotine♫
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
14,275
Location
NC
Can't you just turn off colonial nations in defines.lua?
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
9,752
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
1.3? I would never play that far back. I'd at least want whichever was Art of War (for the map expansion which made the rest of the world actually not a borefest.

Some of the later expansions I like, others less so, but playing pre-Art of War EU would be a no go to me.
 

Akka

Moody old mage.
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
14,416
Location
Facing my computer.
I'd happily remove the new fort system and power projection though. Neither add something really strategic and are gamey as hell.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
9,752
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
There's a lot I'd change about the new fort system, but I likely wouldn't go back to the old one. Fort-painting was never a good game mechanism.
 

JohannaK

Heroically Clueless
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,745
Location
Heart of Etheria
I would never go back to the old fort system, but it's a close call because of the buildings system that goes with it.
 

Arakhor

Dremora Courtier
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
37,763
Location
UK
I don't usually have a problem with forts, but then I'm a fan of the AD&D Birthright setting and there forts were a major impediment to your armies as well. The whole point of castles is for land control, after all.
 
Top Bottom