Discussion in 'All Other Games' started by MoreEpicThanYou, Aug 10, 2012.
EU4 is much more casual than EU3, now it's just too easy and most new mechanics make no sense
I fail to see how EU4 is much too easy. The AI is way better, now there's actually some challenge in taking a small nation and making it big.
Imho the removal of sliders, the changes to NIs and the less obstructive interface have reduced complexity quite a bit. Which is not necessarily bad, because the actual depth of the game hasn't suffered that much.
One good thing is that the times of looking up tech effects are over. That one was really, really painful for new players. Same for mission triggers and some game mechanics like unlawful territory.
how about we all just get crusader kings 2?
I actually think this game is better than EU3 already. Honestly my only two real complaints at this point are:
-Balanced around multiplayer instead of single player. This is annoying but also not new, Johan himself admits that all of their games have been balanced this way for a long time. Maybe not the best company decision Paradox has ever made considering the vast majority of players play single player, but that's their choice.
-Diplomacy is too easy, both for the player and the AI. Taking provinces by vassalizing and then annexing your vassals is far more efficient than going to war for it, especially since coring things yourself gets prohibitively expensive, but ESPECIALLY since Alliances are so easy to form that you can't actually go to war without getting gangbanged by half of the world. I inevitably end up roadblocked in every game, stuck with no more countries that I can easily vassalize and no countries that I can win a war with since everyone has too many alliances with everyone else and it just turns into a huge clustermess.
Other than that I'd much rather play this than 3, I think the depth is still about the same and EU4 is much easier to intuitively understand what everything is.
CK2 on the other hand I haven't been able to figure out AT ALL.
I love CKII - one of the barriers to my getting into EU games is that (as humorously alluded to in an earlier post) EU IV doesn't really seem to offer much gameplay beyond "conquer/annex the rest of the world", and offers only a rather limited variety of ways to achieve that. If CKII was just a matter of expanding into the other provinces and forming empires it would get stale fast - it's the variety introduced by the dynasty system that gives it both a hook and strategic diversity (as it also has rather limited mechanics in terms of how to achieve goal X).
What is it you're finding difficult to figure out about it?
Thanks, but I already have like 3 or 4 copies... ^.°
That being said, if you like medieval politics and find game of thrones appealing, CK2 is certainly worth getting. =)
I guess the whole "baron, count, duke, king, emperor" thing isn't exactly easy to understand for first time players. Same for the title systems, the different types of claims and the "auto-military access" thingy ("OMG why are there armies in my territory?!").
When you start (and, well, afterwards as well), all you really need to understand about the title system is which rank outranks which, since the main purpose of ranks is to allow you to vassalise - you can only vassalise ranks below yours (and I still get caught out by this, awarding duchies to people only to have them become independent. I start as Wessex, a petty kingdom, and a petty king = a duke).
Higher ranks can also hold more personal territory, so it's good to be able to create a new, higher title for yourself when possible (though once you hit Emperor there's no particular benefit other than sandboxing to holding extra territory - you get extra vassal armies, but the core territory of most empires gives you all the military you really need).
The different types of claims is something shared with EU IV, I think? For the most part a claim is a claim and the rest is flavour - the difficult thing to grasp (and I still don't completely) is what you need to do to place yourself to inherit a claim, since the succession system is rather arcane and it's difficult to trace who counts as a sufficiently close family member to give you a claim or inherit as a vassal (grandchildren don't seem to, for instance).
Commonly early in the game, you'll only be able to claim by:
(a) having a de jure title that contains land you don't own (for instance, if you form the Kingdom of England as Wessex, you can press claims for any English territory you don't own)
(b) fabricating a claim
(c) sharing a border with an infidel or pagan (allowing you to claim the neighbouring territory through Holy War), and:
(d) inheritance - this is ultimately the most important type of claim, but also the hardest to get to grips with. The earliest way you'll get a claim this way is by marrying someone with a claim, but pressing on your wife's behalf won't give you possession - having a son, pressing the claim on your wife's behalf, and then arranging for her to die conveniently soon afterwards is the surest way to get this land, but you have to be aware of the succession laws for that particular territory: I tried this approach with Aquitaine in one game, unfortunately Aquitaine had seniority succession so the territory wasn't inherited by our son.
At least in the early game I'd try marrying people with claims to keep the claims in the family, but not pressing them until they're due to expire a couple of generations later. By that time you'll hopefully have a better understanding of how the system works, since once you're into it it starts to become fairly intuitive as, like any Paradox game, there's a lot of rinse-and-repeat gameplay mechanically.
Armies in your territory are only something to worry about if they're red - and no, you can't shut them out or close borders. CK II is all about politics, but its diplomacy system is extremely limited and rudimentary - basically you can give people stuff for favours (i.e. improved influence), but that's pretty much it. You can't arrange treaties of any kind (alliances are something else linked to the dynasty system, and again are rather arbitrary in terms of who counts and who doesn't - in-laws of close family members count, grandchildren and cousins don't, for instance).
Another important thing is to understand that you don't "play" a country or title, but rather a dynasty. I have seen people locking up their firstborn sun (under primogeniture) because he plots for titles while your own character is 70 years old.
Often people are afraid to give away other titles to dynasty members or press claims for them. I once had a cousin with a claim on the kingdom of Denmark - which later ended up on my next character, thanks to seniority succession laws.
Something that bugged me about CK2 was that I managed to insert my son at the throne of Castilla as a Spanish minor - so when my queen died, I would inherit it, right? No. My son died first, and my grandson rose to the Castillan throne instead of him. No biggie, still my direct lineage right? No My game continued along my other son's lineage. So I both managed to "win" with my dynasty while not managing to "win" with my dynasty as I could actually not profit from the spoils. Won the dynasty, got kicked in the groin by the game? Dunno. That was really, really off-putting. I understand why the game mechanics are like that, but... You can't assassinate yourself...
Yes, it's one of the stranger quirks that a grandson isn't treated as a close enough member of your dynasty for you to inherit their land; once you're aware of that you can take action to manage it (i.e. kill them off and marry the widow to a closer relative).
If you get the Depressed trait you can indeed assassinate yourself - you get a "Commit Suicide" intrigue option. Entertainingly characterful, but I never use it since killing yourself to become a different character is very gamey.
But as noted by another poster, the game's not about territory like EU IV - there comes a point where there's no actual necessity to expand other than to progress the storyline you're developing (as in, take X's territory because X's dynasty is my arch-enemy, rather than just because it's there to be taken). So it's entirely possible to "win" while losing territory in the way you describe.
One reason to insert family members into other territories, even if you don't inherit the land, is that they're going to be more amenable to becoming vassals than culturally alien and non-dynasty rulers, if you ever secure a de jure claim (for instance, if you somehow come to inherit whatever empire title is available for Iberia, and the Castillans are king-level rulers still of your dynasty and culture). As an English ruler, for instance, it's often quite helpful to take Ireland this way, invading by stealth by marrying the Irish ladies to good Anglo-Saxon Wessexes.
Having seen a lot of Civilization Let's Plays by forum user TheMeInTeam, I saw this on my youtube subscription page and it certainly was a nice surprise
TMIT's Let's Play with Benin
I don't think you should judge EU4 without its mods in mind. Mods do vastly improve gameplay. EU3 wouldn't be fun if it weren't for mods.
I'm working on bringing the More Provinces Mod to EU4, here is a VIP screenshot to my friends on CFC to get you all wet.
(don't worry, I will be making a partitions-compatible Poland as well. This game's modular modding allows that to work with ease)
Are you working with DanubianHero, TLO?
I'm his co-modder. You've probably seen me with the username 'polskagola' on Paradox Forums.
The detail and quality of my Polish borders are what we hope to accomplish everywhere feasible. The next version will be out in two or so days from now with a redone central and eastern Europe plus much more.
Post a pic of the only thing that matters (Byzantine Empire)
As you wish.
I think Greece and Anatolia is one of the few areas of Europe that hasn't received much love as of yet. That is sure to change though, considering we redid Anatolia at least 3 times in EU3.
Balancing the Ottomans is a constant need to look at their provinces often as well. Anyway if you got any suggestions, fire them away. I'll send it to DanubianCossack / do them myself. (Though for the time being I am occupied with redoing Lithuania)
Lemnos is a Byzantine Province...should make things a lot easier
You could have 2 provinces in Crete (Peloponnese might not need 3, although Venice only had the small bit of Messenia).
Rename Edirne to Macedonia or something else.
Thessalonike had its own province iirc.
Edit: I think that Kozani was not the larger city in that province, Kastoria probably (?) was.
Serres might be better substituded with Amphipolis (which has a port). But Serres is ok too and i think it had a huge number of churches in that period, although it was not a major city.
So... thoughts on the new expansion/patch? I only got to play it for a short time last night so I'm not sure what to think yet. The big buzz that has everyone rabble rousing is Paradox making it harder to do vassal feeding... I get why they did that, but without also reworking how coring/OE works I fear it may make expansion too difficult. They bill this as an empire building game, let me build an empire. It isn't fun to expand by declaring war, taking 3 provinces, then waiting 20 years for them to core. Maybe if there was stuff to do during peacetime I'd be more okay with that, but as the system currently exists all you do is fight a war and then stare at the screen for an hour waiting.
Separate names with a comma.