1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Europa Universalis IV

Discussion in 'All Other Games' started by MoreEpicThanYou, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,132
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    Actually let's just try and boil it down to this: do you want French Spain to consistently happen, around 1550? To never collapse?

    Because that's what I reacted to.

    Regardless of what you think about my arguments, you must understand that this reflects EU4's vision of itself very poorly. I didn't mind having to defeat the nation but I felt it didn't mesh at all with what the game wants to offer.

    And yes, I was told I was just unlucky. Even after a concerningly large sample size. It happens and I accepted how the game was before you started poking around. I accept it and is trying to reevaluate how I play the game, and have started using mods.

    It's just that if this was the consistent outcome, an AI aggressiveness slider wouldn't be a lot to ask for.
     
  2. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,654
    So far, so good.

    In what way? Under which conditions should NED appearing be immersive, and under which would it not be? To answer your question, I did at least look up some history as a result of playing this game, and NED breaking from a contiguous nation that treats it like core territory is a *very* different scenario than how it broke from Spain, right down to the logistics of a potential war.

    I wouldn't go that far. But to use your analogy, the coating shouldn't damage what you're putting it on. It's a game first.

    I am disputing both parts of this at a fundamental level. In terms of 1444 history, current patch political map is (mostly) more accurate than early patches. In some areas of the world (hi Africa) glaringly so, even if it isn't perfect there's no random 1444 "Swahili" sitting next to nothing but Mutapa. Then the mechanics start to apply and history diverges...and it *must*, because the game rules can't align with history very well.

    So which times are non-historical borders okay versus not? What causes a person to conclude one picture "breaks immersion" and not another, despite no clear deviation of substance between the two? This is an important consideration to answer, because it lets us determine that the player is even capable of representing his subjective preferences.

    If we're to continue with this analogy, we really do need a way to distinguish "orange" from "hot dog" when we translate it back to EU 4 discussion. In the real world you and I share knowledge that would allow us to consistently identify properties that distinguish oranges and hot dogs, so when you tell me you prefer oranges that has meaning. However, if you were for some reason incapable of telling me distinguishing properties between an orange and a hot dog, I would doubt a stated preference between the two (aka if he can't distinguish these, why is one superior?)

    The distinguishing factor isn't there when it comes to "ahistorical game mechanics that don't break immersion" and "ahistorical game mechanics that break immersion". Your assertion was that the AI is too aggressive in a particular case (France vs Spain), and that this is inconsistent with history. But why in game terms shouldn't the AI do this? What mechanical incentives can alter it without breaking the game? Would either of these nations pass up the opportunity in real history, had they been able to actually conquer each other and sustain the holdings?

    There is a chance of collapse. Other nations can conquer it, bankrupt it so it can't fight its own rebels, or taking too much OE at once can do similar (AI rarely does this). There are disasters that can break nations, introduced specifically to accomplish the collapse you discuss that were not present when the game was allegedly better.

    It's not terribly common in the game, but it can and does happen, even without player intervention. That said, France + Spain (just Iberia) isn't even enough to achieve "empire" rank in-game. It's not the kind of size you'd expect a nation to collapse...multiple areas had larger nations for many decades in this period.

    To some degree. But I'm not willing to compromise interesting decisions/ignore causality for it. My immersion is mostly derived from success on making those decisions (made to optimize nation strength) properly, and it is emphatically damaged when those choices are arbitrarily rendered moot or what I choose has no meaning with regards to what I'm attempting to accomplish in the game.

    Yes, for the negative unfortunately. When you really swallow this particular red pill, there's a ton of broken elements in there. Broken forts (all post-common sense patches), misaligned AE (in some patches), wrong-UI, massively more inputs than needed, tons of inputs that barely move a nation to a stronger position but also don't carry any risk, > 100% tariff efficiency, false choices galore.

    Note that seeing the matrix in a game like FTL or Rimworld does not share this damage to immersion...it's directly a result of the mechanics themselves being broken.

    If it were good enough to do this it should try. But that's not the logical conclusion of what I'm saying, because this theoretical super AI would have to deal with...other super AI on the board.

    A human in such a game would get rekt, but there's always difficulty sliders. Regardless such a scenario is a pipe dream - even with devs best efforts in strategy games the AI is trash compared to skilled players. In 30 years that might not be true anymore, but for now the resource constraints on gaming are soundly in the "AI is going to consistently suck" territory. Still, within its limited capacity it should at least play the game in question.

    Spain and France actually *ally outright* in a healthy number of games (England and Austria both hate France, Spain might hate one of them). Ming starts uber, and pdox has taken pains to turn them thermonuclear again (to the point where taking Mandate of Heaven is something WC players avoid despite giving access to core cost reduction, a major accomplishment to find something that bad!). In typical dishonest Pdox DLC fashion they have yet to fix tributaries completely, going on a year since implementation (no surprise, given forts still don't work).

    Yes, sometimes France gets 3 way'd by England/Burgundy/Spain (when Burgundy doesn't disappear into thin air despite having an heir anyway). Sometimes France takes Spain. Sometimes they ally. Sometimes none of that happens. Aq Qoyunlu fails every time. These things happen. The model can only do so much...but what I still haven't seen is what criteria for immersion dictates which of these happening is okay and how often. If something "breaks immersion", it must have violated some anticipated experience. That anticipation was based on *something*, and if we accept that *something* is rational then the criteria a person uses would be consistent.

    Keep in mind that pdox plaza is littered with suggestions that in essence screw over elite play with RNG w/o counterplay. That is not a credible way to "collapse" a nation in a game setting. If we want collapse, we need a reason for collapse, and that reason needs to make sense in how it interacts with other mechanics (even the core premise of one decision-maker for 377 years is a major deviation in consideration relative to actual history...would a nation under such a ruler trying to optimize for its own well being rather than any one person actually collapse? Hard to say).
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
  3. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,132
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    :)

    :)

    EDIT: Uh, my initial reaction to this was crap. Well, my solution to it would be some kind of dynamic algorithm that recognized complex premises to procure interesting situations. We're not there yet (see: EU3 and, well, No Man's Sky), but perhaps some day we'll get there.

    Oh, I agree. The issue isn't really whether or not it's a game, but how many people the coating respond to.

    Oh God, I'm so happy they fixed Africa.

    I agree.

    I agree, really.

    Well, this is true, but again, the reason I ranted to begin with was because this particular construction consistently didn't collapse. The chance you mention, a chance I want to be present, didn't make it through in my game. But, again, I'm told I was just unlucky. And that's fair.

    Oh God, I want to stress that if the game wanted to be *truly* simulationist, it would have little to no input of player agency, and would be boring as hell. But I can see you recognize that this isn't what I want to happen; and I similar do not want this to happen to your gaming experience.

    This is actually a real point, but it seems like I don't have to outline it to you; you recognize that the red pill takes away a somewhat large experience of your appreciation of the game. This is a serious problem in most games, I think; I've had the same issues in Civilization, Magic: the Gathering, Age of Empires II... It's a sad fact that we have to face this fact. :(

    Personally, I think that the ideal game would both challenge you at your level and allow initial players to experience the immersion I'm talking about. What I asked for initially was just an aggressiveness slider. I sadly don't think the AI will ever challenge you. Whatever they'll introduce, you'll know about, and you'll master it.

    And this is the true reason my experience was illegitimate; what I experienced was just unlucky. I'd like to emphasize that I presented my rant only after 5 or so games; I didn't immediately jump to the forums.

    But I was still wrong.

    When I first ranted about this issue, many players suggested that I should add a suggestion to Paradox's forums. I never did. Their forum is indeed littered with good to poor suggestions; and regardless of my considerations of game design, I have no real mechanical solution to my issue. I'm lucky in the sense that my experience was unlucky, and am lucky in the sense that the Steam workshop has a few mods of other similar-minded players that prefer to play the game as I want to.

    Regardless of what happens, I want to stress this: I never want the game to turn into a state that you can't experience it in the way that you want. I want you to be happy. Luckily, I think it'll take a lot of work for them to ruin it for you.
     
  4. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,654
    I think it depends entirely on how well the game is made. I gave examples where it does not exist to my knowledge...and I play nearly exclusively tribal/extreme Rimworld (hardest settings) and hard mode in FTL. I know all the core mechanics and a ton of hidden tricks in both games. But these games don't have glaring false choices on what are purported as standard options. They don't hide rules outright like Civ and Pdox games. This is to a degree because they're simpler in scope, but Firaxis and Pdox both have way more manpower than the companies that made these. Unlike Tynan's team or Subset, which know their limitations, Firaxis/Pdox routinely kick out products that sell a game with many objectively bad implementations/broken interactions. To someone who knows the game inside and out, these issues are more glaring.

    But they don't have to exist, and in some games they don't or are much more limited.

    If we're bringing up new player immersion, I'd like to go aside a little and point out that the #1 issue when I've tried to bring anybody into EU 4 is the learning curve. UI isn't trustworthy and broken forts caused two different people (one quite experienced) to quit entirely. There's an enormous trial-and-error gameplay burden coupled with 10000+ extra unnecessary inputs, per game. I've watched half a dozen different people of different skill levels and immersion preferences drop the game over this, not that Pdox seems to care.

    For that matter neither does Firaxis, who has put nearly no credible AAA effort into their controls or UI for over a decade now.

    Anyway, I misinterpreted some of what you were going for. We're not actually disagreeing on too many things, despite our different approaches.
     
  5. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,132
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    I'm not quoting you this time because yea, we actually don't really disagree on anything. :p
     
  6. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,354
    Location:
    Columbus
    I'm now circa 1674 in my Swedish game, and French Spain is no more! After a quiet 20 years from 1645 to 1665, things heated up really quick. Within a month, three major wars started:

    1. Swedish Claim on Lithuanian Throne. I'd chanced into a situation where we had the same dynasty, and they had a weak heir. I didn't plan to expand aggressively, but was getting tired of how aggressively they were expanding, so I decided to put an end to that by conquering them. :mischief:
    2. Ottoman Conquest of Somewhere in Mamluke Lands, on the exact same day. Of course I called them into my war too, to the Ottomans had a two-front war.
    3. Castillian War of Independence. Castile, Sweden, and Ming versus France, Naples, Bohemia, and Poland.

    I thus found myself at war with all three of my rivals (Bohemia/Poland/Lithuania), plus France, at the same time. But Poland was at war with Hungary too, so that helped. I prioritized Lithuania, whose forts were pitiful, and PU'ed them without ever fighting a serious battle - they also had been fighting Uzbek - and brought them in to the other war just as Ming's troops finally arrived in Europe. This let to Bohemia and Poland expending most of their troops in the vast Lithuanian plains against what was left of Lithuania, plus Ming, gaining essentially worthless land, while I put (literally) all my troops against France, and Castile, having freed their lands of France, focused on Neapolitan North Africa. And it worked. France's war enthusiasm plummeted as they became occupied, and they granted Castile their independence. I even convinced Ming to form an alliance out of it.

    Only downside now is I have too many strong allies. Ming, Ottomans, Lithuania, Castile, Austria... thankfully Lithuania still hates me, so it's not all honey and roses yet. But it's a bit difficult to find challenges after you just defeated all three of your rivals at once and still have a bit of extra manpower. So my guess is I'll continue to gradually expand and colonize for a few decades (if I wanted to, I could probably aggressively expand, but I did that as France in my last game), and may well not reach the 1800 mark if the challenge is sufficiently low.
     
  7. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,654
    After a bit of a break from the game just to learn that HOI 4 is actually more broken, I'm off on another run myself

    Spoiler :


    Trying to one tag from here.

    Edit: Finished the run:

    Spoiler :
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
  8. stfoskey12

    stfoskey12 Emperor of Foskania

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2010
    Messages:
    861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    35° 12' N 97° 26' W
    I'm still not sure how people can get a world conquest in this game. After 334 hours of playing, this is still the best I can do.
     
  9. Lohrenswald

    Lohrenswald 老仁森林

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    5,913
    Location:
    The end
    You can only do it by inane minmaxing, and the game is tailored to people who are stupidly into that
     
    cardgame likes this.
  10. Leifmk

    Leifmk Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,037
    Location:
    Outskirts of Oslo, Norway
    i have some ridiculously huge number of hours in this game and I still haven't done a WC. I've several times gotten to a point where I could have done so with enough boring grindwork, but never managed to force myself to actually follow through.

    (Like, if you're playing Austria and manage to get to the "revoke the privilegia" reform by the mid-1500s with 70+ HRE princes making up everything east of France and west of Poland... nothing is going to stand in the way of a vassal swarm of that size and you still have well over 250 years to eat the world, but man is it a grind.)
     
    cardgame, Yeekim and stfoskey12 like this.
  11. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,293
    Location:
    Estonia
    Same here.
    In fact, I don't think I've even played into 19th century more than once or twice.
    Once you become No 1 Great Power, it just stops being interesting...
     
  12. Leifmk

    Leifmk Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,037
    Location:
    Outskirts of Oslo, Norway
    After a certain point, half the fun in this game is in finding amusing new ways to make world history go off the rails into silly territory. Coptic Ottoman Holy Roman Emperor? Sure.
     
    cardgame likes this.

Share This Page