Europa Universalis IV

[Kyriakos]

Hm, doesn't CKII start in the 11nth century? (never played it, no fun to just rule from the start). The Empire was not fading at all at the start of it. In fact it was probably the strongest entity in the western half of Eurasia, because Basil II.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

CK2 can start as early as 867 or 1066.

 

[Kyriakos]

^That is not at all far-fetched, considering that in 1920 there were even new currencies issued with the bicephal eagle as their emblem. So yeah, if Constantinople had become part of Greece, it is highly probable that in essense the state would present itself as the rebirth of the Empire. Pretty much the "Megale Idea" all along, so you can't fault Paradox there.

 

[Quintillus]

So whatever happened with the "How's Your EUIV Game Going?" thread? Seems to have fallen by the wayside quite awhile ago.

Anyway, I finally got around to playing some EUIV. Version 1.10, with the Byzantine and 100 Year's War bonuses. Probably a bit out of date by now, but who cares? The sound is slightly choppy at times, and while it doesn't seem quite as polished as Divine Wind 5.1, it's not bad for an initial release.

And I really like the game play so far. The adm/dip/mil power seems to be working. And I'm not winning every war. I took Milan as a spin, since they have some country-specific events, a good chance, but no guarantee. It's 1556 now, and it's been slow progress, with a fair amount of uncertainty. I control northern Italy, down through Siena and Ancona, but lack Piedmont and Venice, but until a few years back Tuscany was independent.

The biggest lesson I've learned so far is that debt can really matter in this game. After taking out Venice (and forcing them to give some of their provinces to the Byzantines, which helped lead to a Byzantine revival where they now control about 17 provinces in southeast Europe), Austria has been my main foil - and they still are. I fought a couple wars against them with Hungary, which were fairly even, but then Hungary, my faithful ally, imploded due to a peasant's war around 1500.

So, around 1524, I was aligned with the Byzantines and Algerians, and declared war on Austria, hoping to take Treviso. Well... that was a war like few I've seen in EU3. Back and forth and back and forth. Whenever I make gains, Austria hires some mercenaries and pushes me back. Whenever they start entering my territory, I hire mercenaries and push them back. Six years and eight months later, we make peace, and I get Treviso (having released Provence as a free state midway through to end a war with Naples that I couldn't handle at the same time). However, I also have twenty-nine loans of approximately 65 gold apiece, and am spending something ridiculous like 65% of my income on interest. For the next twenty-three years my primary focus is paying off those loans, and I only conquer Tuscany because of wars they start (at one point when I had no army, resulting predictably in hiring many mercenaries and taking out five loans). So that dev diary where they said armies were expensive, mercenaries were necessary, and loans were almost inevitable? Yeah... I know what that feels like now. At one point I was taking out a loan almost every 2 months just to pay maintenance for my army. And at the end of the war my manpower was almost depleted, so going without mercenaries wouldn't have really worked.

Outside of my territory, the biggest surprise this game has been that in 1445, Crimea became the senior partner in a personal union with the Ottomans. This is the main reason the Byzantines have revived, not the few Venetian provinces I helped them with. This union is kind of odd, but has worked out. Crimea has focused on the Caucuses, rather than Europe, but is one of two powers who can stand up to Muscowy and have a chance (Sweden being the other). However, their technology is inferior to both the Ottomans' and the Russians', and they're currently integrating the Ottomans (which is taking about 80 years), so I'm curious how that will play out. For now though, the Crimeans are doing well (even if the Ottoman score is somewhat higher than theirs).

Scotland also nearly conquered England, but from what I've read that isn't uncommon in EUIV's release version. France fell fairly far, but is recently on a revival, which is totally okay since they're my ally. The Holy Roman Empire has been a revolving door of regional powers. One becomes powerful (Brandenburg, Hesse, Saxony, Ulm, Bavaria, whoever), and a coalition forms and knocks them down. Rinse and repeat. Bohemia and Austria have made slight gains, but no one else has kept their gains for long. I like the coalition system so far partly as a result of that. Witnessing that in Germany early on is also part of the reason I've been moving so slowly - I've been trying to avoid the same thing happening to me, and so far have been successful (with help from my allies at times). All in all, I guess it seems more deliberate and calculated than EU3, where there were often plenty of relatively easy expansion targets.

Peace also seems to be less boring than in EU3. I think the ideas help some with that - instead of 12 over the whole game, it's a real choice now whether you pursue another idea, or better technology. Diplomacy also seems to be more engaging. No more "sent them eight gifts and they'll ally" - the attitudes and behaviors of yourself and other countries matter a lot more. It probably does help that I have a few Diplomatic ideas giving me another diplomat and more relations, but I've spent a lot of time looking at various alliances and possibilities. Trade, I'm not sure yet. I haven't moved my two merchants very much, and my merchant fleet hasn't taken much of my attention (and was recently sunk at any rate). But it still seems less boring than sending merchants in EU3. And before I went 2000 ducats in debt fighting Austria, there was a time when I cared some about my trade power from buildings in provinces.

The flavor per-country also seems improved. I like the country-specific ideas, and I've noticed the Milanese-specific events, too. I'm currently an Ambrosian Republic, a unique Milanese government! I'd originally planned to be a monarchy, but when the opportunity came up, and it seemed to be a better fit than a Feudal Monarchy, I figured why not? It was a nice chance to see the new Republic mechanics, too, which I like - it's no longer "get a great ruler and keep electing him till he croaks with no penalties". I'm not sure being a Republic has helped me, but it's been enjoyable. I'm also not sure I'll always stay a republic, but for now, moderate stability costs (and thus good Republican Tradition) are important. The new stability system also is nice. I like that it's no longer an automatic decision to increase stability when that can be done - not only does it cost more, but there are lots of competing priorities for admin points. As a result, I've only been at +3 stability for two or three years out of 111 or so.

The republic has meant that I haven't been as involved in the HRE as I'd planned. Mainly rattling sabers - sometimes literally - with the Emperor, always Austria. I've considered trying to stir up some trouble, maybe go Reformed and convert a few electors or something like that. But so far, I've had enough on my plate at home that that's only been a daydream, and never seriously considered. Whereas in EU3, I may well have already done some meddling by 110 years in (although to be fair, not necessarily).

So yeah, overall, I'm impressed. It keeps enough of the game to feel like Europa Universalis, but the new mechanics really do seem to work. Whether I'll still think it's the bee's knees in six months, I'm not sure - after all, EU3W seemed like the bee's knees after I got it - but it's definitely a good thing that I'm as happy playing vanilla EU4 as EU3 with all expansion packs. There are definitely other games where the vanilla version has not been as good as its predecessor's complete version (Civ4 Vanilla vs Civ3 Complete being the best example for me).

 

[grandad1982]

1.1? You wait till you join us in 1.3.2. At least its better than 1.3 Still I wasn't so anti 1.3 as many people were.

I recall the release version as a golden age of being aloud to go and actually conquer stuff straight up. I'm hoping that the balance will shift slightly in that direction again (not to much just some).

As for my take in monarch point I also like them but I'd like some more ways of converting money in to points or tech rather than just hiring advisors. Not sure what though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Of course!

From Darkness (shameless self-promotion ).

It tries to balance out the game and add back some things from EU3 (e.g. some advisors, triggered modifiers). I guess the most important thing is that NI groups are a more interesting and diverse compared to vanilla. They are also offering more long term impact (e.g. innovative grants a boost to religious unity that reduces the impact from the reformation).

I tried it, but had several CTDs, so I turned it off and they stopped.

I run:
Mundus non sufficit
Additional trade routes
Better Terra incognita
Indestructible building
Ruler Traits

When I loaded United japan, I also had CTDs.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I tried it, but had several CTDs, so I turned it off and they stopped.

Odd. I didn't have any problems with the last few versions.
Did you by any chance use an old build with a recent patch?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

My biggest problem with EU4 is still the lack of any impactful long-term choises.

Sliders might have been terribly balanced in EU3 (without mods), but at least they added a long-term country management component to the game. Whenever you had an event that gave you +1 serfdom or -1 stability, you had to make a short-term vs. long-term choise. In EU4 these effects are replaced by short- to medium-term country modifiers with little impact.

Monarch point events, on the other hand, are even more no-brainers than the slider events from EU3. There is only a handful of events where it actually makes sense to sacrifice monarch points. But then again I hate these points to begin with, considering that they are awefully balanaced against each other. A single ressource like magistrates from EU3 would probably have been much better. It is a bit like science in CIV5: So important on the long run, that all other points or mechanics are just secondary.

And lastely you have the lack of *any* interesting internal struggle. I don't expect CK2 or Vicky II qualities here, but at least something like competing factions that adds a management and story-telling aspect to peace time would have been nice. As it is, EU4 is a rather boring war game where all you do is wage war, expand, wait, rinse and repeat. Everything else you do is just means to this end: More money for more soldiers and more ships...

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, so is it better than the final versions/mods of EUIII?

Meiou was quite fun in my view, although i never played it past the mid 17th century cause by then there was little to do anyway for a non-colonial power.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

It is. There is no denying the huge leap the engine has taken - and the new trade system has added a whole new strategic layer to the game. Islands and colonies are now vital posessions. In the end, it is more like a EU3.5 than a EU4, though.

But if you liked EU3, you will also like EU4.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Odd. I didn't have any problems with the last few versions.
Did you by any chance use an old build with a recent patch?

I was using 1.5d

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Ah, yes, I think that one had a bug with some HRE entries that could cause occassional CTDs. Current one is 1.5e that should work fine (apart from a CTD when viewing the patriach authority, but that will be fixed in tomorrow) with the most recent patch.
(But keep in mind that this mod will changes a wide range of things, so it is probably incompatible with most other stuff.)

 

[Birdjaguar]

I tried it, but had several CTDs, so I turned it off and they stopped.

I run:
Mundus non sufficit
Additional trade routes
Better Terra incognita
Indestructible building
Ruler Traits

When I loaded United japan, I also had CTDs.

Ah, yes, I think that one had a bug with some HRE entries that could cause occassional CTDs. Current one is 1.5e that should work fine (apart from a CTD when viewing the patriach authority, but that will be fixed in tomorrow) with the most recent patch.
(But keep in mind that this mod will changes a wide range of things, so it is probably incompatible with most other stuff.)

Incompatible with all the bolded mods?

I cannot download from the workshop, so is there another place to download 1.5e from?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Incompatible with all the bolded mods?

I cannot download from the workshop, so is there another place to download 1.5e from?

Trade routes *might work*
BTI *might work*
Indestructible Buildings *might* work, but will override any building changes from the mod (one of them being that less buildings are destroyed upon conquest)
Ruler Traits is *highly unlikely* to work, since this mod does also have ruler traits and the overlapping files will cause missing country modifiers, resulting in CTDs shortly after the game starts

An easy way to figure out how your chances are is copying the first 3 mods into the From Darkness Folder. If you get any "Override File" warning, they aren't looking so good. If it is for for country_modifiers.txt, they will certainly NOT work. In that case you will have to merge all new country_modifiers into a single file.

Download link for 1.5f:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/6bqyqojqrr2wvza/From+Darkness+1.5f.rar

 

[calad]

My biggest problem with EU4 is still the lack of any impactful long-term choises.

Sliders might have been terribly balanced in EU3 (without mods), but at least they added a long-term country management component to the game. Whenever you had an event that gave you +1 serfdom or -1 stability, you had to make a short-term vs. long-term choise. In EU4 these effects are replaced by short- to medium-term country modifiers with little impact.

Monarch point events, on the other hand, are even more no-brainers than the slider events from EU3. There is only a handful of events where it actually makes sense to sacrifice monarch points. But then again I hate these points to begin with, considering that they are awefully balanaced against each other. A single ressource like magistrates from EU3 would probably have been much better. It is a bit like science in CIV5: So important on the long run, that all other points or mechanics are just secondary.

And lastely you have the lack of *any* interesting internal struggle. I don't expect CK2 or Vicky II qualities here, but at least something like competing factions that adds a management and story-telling aspect to peace time would have been nice. As it is, EU4 is a rather boring war game where all you do is wage war, expand, wait, rinse and repeat. Everything else you do is just means to this end: More money for more soldiers and more ships...

I like monarch points but problem is that there is very limited way to gain and use them. If civilizations were calculator games then eu4 is random calculator game. There is a huge difference if your ruler is 666 or 000 but even in long run it will most likely be balanced out.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I like monarch points but problem is that there is very limited way to gain and use them. If civilizations were calculator games then eu4 is random calculator game. There is a huge difference if your ruler is 666 or 000 but even in long run it will most likely be balanced out.

Tbh I don't have much problems with ruler stats.
Since they changed the die roll function to 2D4-2, the average stat distribution will be much more equal in EU4 anyway.

A prime example where Monarch Points fail are NI groups: If you pick a MIL NI group first, you actually weaken your military during the early game (because early MIL tech > MIL NIs). And the low Monarch Point limit basicially forces the player to pick NI groups to get rid of excess points they'd otherwise have to burn on "ahead of time" techs. Another thing is using ADM points for cores and stability. It is just... terrible. It turns every stab hit event into a point-sucking disappointment. In EU3 you also had to use income to boost stability, but money was a lot less important because you couldn't use it to circumvent certain mechanics (like coring or WE reduction). It just took time to recover. In EU4 it is always a bad, bad, bad thing. And lastely, everything is intant in EU4. -3 to +3 stab? Could take years in EU3. Takes 1 days in EU4 if you have the points. 15 WE? No problem, down to 0 with some DIP points! Got 20 inflation, something that took decades to fix in EU3? Nullo problemo, just throw some ADM points at it and instantly shoo it away...

But I guess I am one of the few people that actually liked magistrates back in EU3. Imho they were a much better system, because they were a single ressource used by all related mechanics and scaled a lot better as the game went on (e.g. by increasing gain from government type) and without screwing with the tech progress.

 

[calad]

Tbh I don't have much problems with ruler stats.
Since they changed the die roll function to 2D4-2, the average stat distribution will be much more equal in EU4 anyway.

A prime example where Monarch Points fail are NI groups: If you pick a MIL NI group first, you actually weaken your military during the early game (because early MIL tech > MIL NIs). And the low Monarch Point limit basicially forces the player to pick NI groups to get rid of excess points they'd otherwise have to burn on "ahead of time" techs. Another thing is using ADM points for cores and stability. It is just... terrible. It turns every stab hit event into a point-sucking disappointment. In EU3 you also had to use income to boost stability, but money was a lot less important because you couldn't use it to circumvent certain mechanics (like coring or WE reduction). It just took time to recover. In EU4 it is always a bad, bad, bad thing. And lastely, everything is intant in EU4. -3 to +3 stab? Could take years in EU3. Takes 1 days in EU4 if you have the points. 15 WE? No problem, down to 0 with some DIP points! Got 20 inflation, something that took decades to fix in EU3? Nullo problemo, just throw some ADM points at it and instantly shoo it away...

But I guess I am one of the few people that actually liked magistrates back in EU3. Imho they were a much better system, because they were a single ressource used by all related mechanics and scaled a lot better as the game went on (e.g. by increasing gain from government type) and without screwing with the tech progress.

Exactly. System is very banal and exploitative when you fully understand it. If you want quickly to westernize then in early game dont research at all diplo. tech. It is surprisingly unimportant because ships updates after level 10.

They could have made gaining and using points more variable. CK2 was period of feudalism and lords. EU4 should have been building more effective goverment, limiting power of monarch and creating institutions. Current system makes only sense if every country were absolut monarch: one ruler determines fate of entire nation. Instead they brought silly national ideas and unique national ideas that simply are unbalanced and ahistorical. For example Mamluks are better traders than Venice, Genoa or Hansa. Historically they were warrior caste in Moslem Egypt.

 

[Luckymoose]

Why would EU4 be about limiting the power of the monarch? The time period was more about solidifying the power of the monarchy than destroying it.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Why would EU4 be about limiting the power of the monarch? The time period was more about solidifying the power of the monarchy than destroying it.

Well, even absolute monarchs were quite limited in their actual power, since they had a lot of different factions and groups to deal with (both at court and in the realm). It should certainly not be CK2-like free vassal level, but why not bring back the conflicts between nobility, burghers, clergy and peasants or make rebellions a bit more organized? The chinese faction system is pretty bare-bone, but it can actually be used to model factions in all countries.

I think MM had a quite interesting concept for internal conflict:
It had several factions that were trying to increase their power within the country and grant different benefits and penalties depending on their actual influence. The best thing was that it was less about random events and more about player actions. So the system more or less reacted to playstyle.

A bloody warmonger would steadily increase the influence of his military, which would grant more and more benefits for the military, but also damage all the other aspects of the nation (and iirc once factions held too much power, they actually abused it and had some hefty penalties attached to them).

The player should have absolute power, but some of his decisions should carry heavy consequences for the country.

 

[calad]

Why would EU4 be about limiting the power of the monarch? The time period was more about solidifying the power of the monarchy than destroying it.

I said that it was time of new institutions as well.

England got parlament. There was French and American revolution and of course there was Renaissance. My point was ruler wasnt anymore alone deciding about everything. Society got more complicated: universities, bureaucracy was re-invented, proto-parties were organized in countries and military officers were educated in Academy.

Now all points come from monarch. There are buildings, ideas and events but they dont really match very well what I pointed out. If I may say again EU4 makes sense if society jumped from feudalism to absolute monarchy.