Heh. After moving from Civ 4 to EU3 back in the day, I haven't been able to look back.
What do you mean, get better? What's wrong with endless warfare?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Paradox Grand Strategy - Thread of Fighting WW2 as Bithynia
- Thread starter Walshicus
- Start date
What do you mean, get better? What's wrong with endless warfare?
Civ-games have nothing on the complexity of the EU-games so you should be completely fine. They also offer something quite different, so its an enjoyable series to complement Europa Universalis. Although I must say Civ5 was probably the least deep in the series so far, and from what I have seen of Civ6, it continues the trend of reducing the important decisions
I really liked Civ2, it has much less features, but the ones it has matters. Civ4 is more complex and still pretty well balanced, so yeah, I would recommend either of those.Civ-games have nothing on the complexity of the EU-games so you should be completely fine. They also offer something quite different, so its an enjoyable series to complement Europa Universalis. Although I must say Civ5 was probably the least deep in the series so far, and from what I have seen of Civ6, it continues the trend of reducing the important decisions
I think Civ 6 has a lot more strategic depth actually. The new district system, builder charges, and Eurekas help a lot with that. Best Civ game I have played at launch IMO
Basileus777
Member
More complexity =/ depth. Civ games are generally better designed than Paradox's if anything.
Civ is like a boardgame, there's an infinite number of configurations and every game is different, but there is a limited moveset.
Paradox's games are detailed simulations, you can insert yourself anywhere, but the game will work with zero human input. On those rare occasions when all the systems are properly calibrated you can experience amazing chaos theory moments with little things coming together like taking France out of the picture in EU4 because of a lucky revolt or pagans conquering Europe because of Catholic infighting in Ck2.
Paradox's games are detailed simulations, you can insert yourself anywhere, but the game will work with zero human input. On those rare occasions when all the systems are properly calibrated you can experience amazing chaos theory moments with little things coming together like taking France out of the picture in EU4 because of a lucky revolt or pagans conquering Europe because of Catholic infighting in Ck2.
Glad to hear this! Like I wrote, I havent played it yet, but I hated Civ5 (after the excellent Civ4) and it seems like it takes a lot from that game. Will definitely check it out eventually.
I definitely agree that complexity is not the same as depth, and there is a lot of complexity in the Paradox-games that doesnt really add much to the gameplay imo. If Civ-games are better designed is a completely other question though, Civ6 might be, but even the best earlier games in the series, is nowhere near the depth of most Paradox-games.
Vinter
Member
While war certainly is fun, it gets annoying when I am trying to save some money and get rid of debt.
What I mean when I say "strategic depth" I am talking about decisions that were simple in Civ 5 being harder in Civ 6. I think Civ 6 makes you think more about each of your moves than Civ 5 does.
The most obvious example of this for me is builder charges. In Civ5 you could just spam workers forever and after a while it didn't really matter which tile you improved so you could just mindlessly fill in places. In Civ 6 the fact that builders have charges means you have to think about where to use them (or risk wasting production on making more builders). The district system is amazing too because every city you settle is now influenced by how well that landscapes conforms to districts and their bonuses. And since a lot of districts influence each other and want to be near similar geographic features there is a lot of thinking in how to place them. Eurekas also tie into this by giving you a reason to differentiate from the "optimal" line of stuff in order to get those bonuses.
hobblygobbly
Member
Yeah I grew tired of 4X games like Civ because they always lack on the diplomatic side of the game, it''s all about conquest and then conquest doesn't even have war goals/casus belli (again due to lack of diplomacy). I have fun with them for a day... and then I'm bored because I've exhausted basically everything the game has to offer in terms of gameplay variations from mechanics. The 4X genre in general is so stagnated and sterile at this point, there is hardly anything ever new brought into it, at this point you'd think diplomacy would've grown but it's been the same thing in the genre for over two decades now and something many people complain about but never improve.
Give Marathon game speed a try! Its the only one I play on nowadays
Basileus777
Member
Yeah, diplomacy still sucks in Civ games. It's my biggest gripe with the series.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
That feel when you send a band of warriors to a distant enemy and by the time they reach there, you're in a new age and it's 1000 years later.
The game is so arcadey it hurts.
I don't think Civ is for me, I'll return to it at some point in the near future. I'm going to focus on EU IV again for now.
I primarily focused on playing 1.15 (pre-Cossacks), but am now playing EU IV with all expansions enabled; a few questions..
a) Regarding the conditions for personal unions, I was once playing as France and suddenly got into a personal union with Muscovy once its ruler died without an heir. The condition for this is that I have to be in a royal marriage and not in an alliance, correct?
I remember another situation in which I was playing as Brandenburg, and a member of my dynasty was the king of France without an heir, but I was unable to claim the throne due to inferior prestige. Are Personal Unions automatic or do I have to press for it?
b) Regarding states and territories; is it practical to have core as many states as possible if I want them to be integral to my nation? I view territories as non-essential borderlands.
I primarily focused on playing 1.15 (pre-Cossacks), but am now playing EU IV with all expansions enabled; a few questions..
a) Regarding the conditions for personal unions, I was once playing as France and suddenly got into a personal union with Muscovy once its ruler died without an heir. The condition for this is that I have to be in a royal marriage and not in an alliance, correct?
I remember another situation in which I was playing as Brandenburg, and a member of my dynasty was the king of France without an heir, but I was unable to claim the throne due to inferior prestige. Are Personal Unions automatic or do I have to press for it?
b) Regarding states and territories; is it practical to have core as many states as possible if I want them to be integral to my nation? I view territories as non-essential borderlands.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Everything to do with personal unions
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ages-personal-unions-and-claim-throne.788829/
Personal Unions CAN be forced by claiming throne, and then going to war on that CB, but that negs relations with every country that has royal marriages with you and makes that country go hostile
Personal Unions can become automatic though, the way this works is:
There is an ingame timer, set as the following:
These tier dates will move forward one cycle, without the naturally occuring cycle, when:
Observed country in this case being the country you are trying to get a PU over.
Based off of these tiers, when a monarch has no heir, the little blurb of what happens when the monarch dies is as following, depending on the tier
How strongest is determined is a little vague, but it has something to do with the overall Adm/Dip/Mil Rank and Rating.
To determine if your dynasty gets priority of others, they look at development/the strongest label
Basically, PUs are complicated
As for territories vs cored states, if the state would make me money, I core it. Not coring borderlands can be even worse, as if those provinces are taken, you don't keep your core.
At times, if all the states' provinces are at max autonomy or something, I'll wait for autonomy to hit the floor of 50% first.
There are such few times I hit the state limit, although if that were to occur, I would probably prioritize the ones that make me the most money (taking trade into account)
So back when Hearts of Iron 4 came out I decided to get into the Paradox games, I quite enjoyed the game but I did find it a bit lacking in terms of the AI and some of the detail in the smaller nations. In time I'm sure all these issues will be fixed and I still had a great deal of fun with Hungarian, French and Soviet runs.
So after watching countless let's plays and listening to the the community here, I've picked up EU4. I went with Brandenburg at first and from then I've done quite a lot of play throughs and racked up for 250 hours in the game since mid August (played as Holland, Japan, Austria). I went for the near impossible run of Granada for a challenge and I actually managed to complete the re-reconquista which is personally one of my greatest achievements gaming wise due to the sheer difficulty of the task.
I think I'll take a break for a while but I decided I'd only do that after one last play through as France.
So after watching countless let's plays and listening to the the community here, I've picked up EU4. I went with Brandenburg at first and from then I've done quite a lot of play throughs and racked up for 250 hours in the game since mid August (played as Holland, Japan, Austria). I went for the near impossible run of Granada for a challenge and I actually managed to complete the re-reconquista which is personally one of my greatest achievements gaming wise due to the sheer difficulty of the task.
I think I'll take a break for a while but I decided I'd only do that after one last play through as France.
Looks like they're finally fixing forts in EU4 1.19. Of course to balance it out they're getting rid of combat width, which is a super stupid idea.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Forts thank god finally
Combat width oh god no. Mountains and hills have been my savior with smaller armies far too often, and it severely punishes gigantic doomstacks willing to engage armies that are smaller but can cover their limited combat width
That 100 corruption bonus, can't wait to see the achievement for it.
Also holy shit grain gives extra force limit FINALLY this was needed as farmlands are meant to be be good for large armies. Seems to benefit Commonwealth, Russia, Mamluks (Ottomans), and Ethiopia the most, to no real surprise.
Yeah, combat width is an integral part of the strategy, getting rid of it because "it makes combat take longer" is ridiculous. It allows smaller armies to face off against bigger ones and not get totally wrecked if you use all your advantages right.
I think corruption needs some more work, but it's nice to see things as a sliding scale with bonuses and penalties on both ends instead of just a good/bad slider.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Corruption change I do like, it's too easy to maintain super low corruption, which as a result means the effects of lower amounts of corruption can hurt even more. If was more like inflation in its benign vs harm scale, that might be better
If forts still take long to siege, you could create ridiculous chokepoints where you stack multiple forts in one main area that becomes impossible to leave. Scary idea
If forts still take long to siege, you could create ridiculous chokepoints where you stack multiple forts in one main area that becomes impossible to leave. Scary idea
I dont really like their new solution for forts
Yep, I agree. I prefer the way it works in the current version.
I'm sort of done with France now tbh, plus I've seen the cheese way of getting that achievement by doing no cb wars against Norway then going into Russia
Yeah I don't like the sound of removing combat width and changing the fort system like that. Late game is already a slog with the AI spamming level eight forts everywhere.
I'm sort of done with France now tbh, plus I've seen the cheese way of getting that achievement by doing no cb wars against Norway then going into Russia
Yeah I don't like the sound of removing combat width and changing the fort system like that. Late game is already a slog with the AI spamming level eight forts everywhere.
That's not the cheese way so much as it's pretty well the only way
Speaking of achievements, I finished an EU4 playthrough today, with the goal of getting the Burgundian Conquest achievement.
It proved to be a jolly fun playthrough, with some amusing complications, such as Poland getting Austria in a personal union, forcing me to take Sundgau from Poland in a war, release it back to Austria, then diplo-vassalise the Habsburg OPM. France, meanwhile, were beaten so bad that they ran off to the Americas and I ended up turning them into a protectorate. I was a bit worried that'd mess up the achievement, but it worked out alright.
The new ability for Great Powers to intervene in wars is terrifying. I ended up having to fight Prussia alone, despite being allied with Sweden and Russia, as the Ottoman would inevitably intervene and throw the balance of forces right out. The difference between a 1st/2nd class Great Power and an 8th class Great Power is pretty substantial!
It proved to be a jolly fun playthrough, with some amusing complications, such as Poland getting Austria in a personal union, forcing me to take Sundgau from Poland in a war, release it back to Austria, then diplo-vassalise the Habsburg OPM. France, meanwhile, were beaten so bad that they ran off to the Americas and I ended up turning them into a protectorate. I was a bit worried that'd mess up the achievement, but it worked out alright.
The new ability for Great Powers to intervene in wars is terrifying. I ended up having to fight Prussia alone, despite being allied with Sweden and Russia, as the Ottoman would inevitably intervene and throw the balance of forces right out. The difference between a 1st/2nd class Great Power and an 8th class Great Power is pretty substantial!
Basileus777
Member
What mod are you using?
Theatrum Orbis Terrarum for the map. I really like the look of it, and there's a bunch of options for it.
Basileus777
Member
Ah I hadn't fiddled with the customization, that explains why your map looks different than mine.
Doesnt it make sense to see the Ottomans strong though? I feel most games I have played both in EU3 and EU4, they were nowhere near getting to the strength they had at their height historically, so giving them a slightly higher chance of success should only be a good thing imo.
It makes things interesting, that's for sure. In my game, the Ottomans weren't really a Great Power, but closer to a Superpower, if not a Hyperpower. So having them intervene was a genuinely terrifying thing to behold. For example, at points during my game, I'd be attacking Prussia with my allies the Papal States. I was around 3rd rank, Prussia was 5th and the Pope was 8th. In terms of numbers, the two sides were roughly equal. But because there were two Great Powers taking on one, others could intervene. So the Ottomans intervening with their 300 force limit and massive wealth lead to some issues.
It was a lot of fun though, as I had to work out ways to counter that threat and start more limited wars that didn't run the risk of descending into world wars.
hobblygobbly
Member
When I was playing as Poland (and later Commonwealth) I found that the idea that increases core creation cost for the enemy really helped me with the Ottomons trying to push further into Europe through my backdoor of Crimea.
Has anyone here been keeping tabs on the Vicky2 - HoI4 converter project? The biggest reason I'd ever want to get HoI4 is megacampaign potential (HoI3 converter was never really stable, Darkest Hour is not an ideal sandbox), but because I don't own the game I can't keep tabs on the thread.
Currently playing a campaign as England..
1) Is there ever a fundamental reason to debase currency in EU IV? I always try to keep my budget in the positive, but I wonder if the game as it stands currently is trying to make it simple to fall into debt.
2) Secondly, what's the ideal composition for an aggressive naval fleet? (majority should be galleys, and a core of heavy ships, with transports in a separate fleet?) Or how about heavy ships only if I can afford it.
3) I've been experimenting with the espionage options. I don't see any significant benefits in "Stealing Maps" .. "Slander Merchants" to reduce -10% global trade power should be more devastating. "Sabotage reputation" and "Infiltrate Administration" seems pretty useful though.
4) With regards to the HRE, if I wanted to implement all the reforms as Emperor of Austria, is it feasible to do so before the Reformation/30 Years War or after?
1) Is there ever a fundamental reason to debase currency in EU IV? I always try to keep my budget in the positive, but I wonder if the game as it stands currently is trying to make it simple to fall into debt.
2) Secondly, what's the ideal composition for an aggressive naval fleet? (majority should be galleys, and a core of heavy ships, with transports in a separate fleet?) Or how about heavy ships only if I can afford it.
3) I've been experimenting with the espionage options. I don't see any significant benefits in "Stealing Maps" .. "Slander Merchants" to reduce -10% global trade power should be more devastating. "Sabotage reputation" and "Infiltrate Administration" seems pretty useful though.
4) With regards to the HRE, if I wanted to implement all the reforms as Emperor of Austria, is it feasible to do so before the Reformation/30 Years War or after?
The new fort system is still fucked up. Looks ok on paper, but armies are still able to ignore the rules seemingly at random. Playing Mamluks at the moment, fighting a simple war with Karaman and they're able to waltz through 7 areas all with active forts. From Turkey into Syria then through Egypt. If this was a bigger war (i.e. vs Ottomans) this would have fucked me right up.
They're making it so forts only affect the province they're in in the next patch. Or do you have the 1.19 beta?
Red Arremer
Member
Part of it is the Crimea vassalization event that was added. It gives the Ottomans a decently strong subject within the first few years of the game, that will eventually end up getting absorbed by them.
Having a big vassal like that from the get-go and also having a very easy path of expansion through the Balkan and Anatolian minors and then the notoriously weak Mamluks/QQ as well as Arabian minors makes the Ottomans a powerhouse even in AI hands.
Yeah, using the 1.19 beta right now.
Ok, just learned that it was out. Classic Paradox breaking the thing they're trying to fix.
Hopefully it'll be fixed in the final release of 1.19, it is super annoying when it happens.
EU4 forts will never be fixed.
I mean, if this is how the fort system is meant to work, it's complete trash and needs ripping out entirely.
Red Arremer
Member
I'm currently talking to DDRJake about this, and showed him Uzzy's screenshot. He said that due to the access through France and Lorraine, it works as intended.
2:13 DDRJake: crux of the matter there was that access through France let them go to Calais
2:14 DDRJake: If you can enter a Zone of Control you can move within it, so all of Bourgogne is up for grabs
2:15 DDRJake: Looks like he had mil access in Lorraine, so that's okay to be in
2:15 DDRJake: from there he can enter both luxemburg and Rethel's areas
2:17 DDRJake: Try it yourself, without addition MA, Austria can't even get into Rethel without sieging LUX
2:17 DDRJake: and they don't have a chance of getting North, so Burgundy is very safe in the Lowlands
(btw Uzzy was that walk through Burgundy's land there your left-shift pathing, or was it the automatic pathfinding?)
If you have any issues with the fort system, please make screenshots. If enemies can walk through your ZoC when they shouldn't, please try to make screenshots with their path. I will forward those to Jake.
2:18 DDRJake: rule-wise it's very simple. I'm not saying it's great or even better, thatIs why I want beta feedback
2:19 DDRJake: and not staged screenshots
...
2:25 DDRJake: That's one weakness of the new system, you can walk through a ZoC if there are no forts behind it
Also as a note, if you have any other Beta feedback, let me know. I'll keep an eye on the thread and will forward stuff to Jake.
2:13 DDRJake: crux of the matter there was that access through France let them go to Calais
2:14 DDRJake: If you can enter a Zone of Control you can move within it, so all of Bourgogne is up for grabs
2:15 DDRJake: Looks like he had mil access in Lorraine, so that's okay to be in
2:15 DDRJake: from there he can enter both luxemburg and Rethel's areas
2:17 DDRJake: Try it yourself, without addition MA, Austria can't even get into Rethel without sieging LUX
2:17 DDRJake: and they don't have a chance of getting North, so Burgundy is very safe in the Lowlands
(btw Uzzy was that walk through Burgundy's land there your left-shift pathing, or was it the automatic pathfinding?)
If you have any issues with the fort system, please make screenshots. If enemies can walk through your ZoC when they shouldn't, please try to make screenshots with their path. I will forward those to Jake.
2:18 DDRJake: rule-wise it's very simple. I'm not saying it's great or even better, thatIs why I want beta feedback
2:19 DDRJake: and not staged screenshots
...
2:25 DDRJake: That's one weakness of the new system, you can walk through a ZoC if there are no forts behind it
Also as a note, if you have any other Beta feedback, let me know. I'll keep an eye on the thread and will forward stuff to Jake.
Here's one for you. Ottomans are able to waltz back and forth through my territory. I know it's because the offending zone is counting as friendly for the Ottomans as they have forts there and in the adjacent zones. I could understand if we were at war, as they've got land on both sides to provide "supply" or whatever, but during peace time they should not be able to walk through like this.
FWIW I of course can not enter any of their territory.
edit: Just wanted to confirm, but activating fort maintenance allows me to march through those areas as freely as the Ottomans, which is in line with the fort "rules". Military Access seems even more pointless than ever right now.
FWIW I of course can not enter any of their territory.
edit: Just wanted to confirm, but activating fort maintenance allows me to march through those areas as freely as the Ottomans, which is in line with the fort "rules". Military Access seems even more pointless than ever right now.
Is the new "Vassal Limit" game rule for CK2 busted? I thought the number looked high when I started a new game at half level (Matilda of Tuscany with a limit of 30), so I started a new game at quarter level and she still gets 30. The HRE had a limit of 43 under both conditions. I disabled my mods to see if that was the cause, but I'm not seeing any changes. Was hoping this would be a good way to prevent blobbing without resorting to more drastic measures.
Edit: found a relevant thread on the CK2 forum. Seems that the Demense rule is bugging out and affects both that and Vassal limit, with the Vassal Limit rule doing exactly nothing on its own.
Edit: found a relevant thread on the CK2 forum. Seems that the Demense rule is bugging out and affects both that and Vassal limit, with the Vassal Limit rule doing exactly nothing on its own.