• Breaking News

    Tuesday, August 24, 2021

    Home Unlabelled EU4 'Which country, what year, how well?' weekly thread : August 24 2021

    EU4 'Which country, what year, how well?' weekly thread : August 24 2021

    August 24, 2021

    EU4 'Which country, what year, how well?' weekly thread : August 24 2021

    'Which country, what year, how well?' weekly thread : August 24 2021

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 10:00 AM PDT

    In this thread, you can post a maps from your games, and other players can try to guess who you're playing, what year it is, and any other info you specify. Please only post maps in top-level comments. Such posts outside this thread will be removed by the moderators. [Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/search?q=author%3AAutoModerator+AND+%22Which+country%22&restrict\_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) to see past threads.

    submitted by /u/AutoModerator
    [link] [comments]

    gotta love influence ideas

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 09:54 AM PDT

    My Byzantium to Roman Empire endgame

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 06:46 AM PDT

    When nobody else volunteers to defend the reformation

    Posted: 23 Aug 2021 10:25 PM PDT

    Habsburg marriage policy at it's finest

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 08:17 AM PDT

    Roman Empire Should Have Mughals' Assimilation Mechanic

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 07:30 AM PDT

    As title says.
    Basically, most in the community agree that the Mughals are a very strong tag and Rome is pretty bad and basically only formed because Rome itself is cool / as an achievement. Another common issue brought up with Rome is that Roman culture is in the lost cultures group so you loose all the other cultures in your group from before you formed Rome.
    Giving Rome cultural assimilation mechanics would for the most part remedy that issue as well as make Rome more interesting and might even make players try to form it earlier on, add a couple more features to the special government type or reform they would be given, slap a mission tree on, maybe rework some of their national ideas and there you go, the Roman Empire is now more of a viable option.
    Also, I'm no historian in any way, shape or form but I think it makes at least some historical sense as, at least in Italy for sure (as well as many other parts of the Empire), the Romans did assimilate / Latinise the people there at least to an extent over time and maybe you could factor in the Pax Deorum in some way but that's sort of a different thing at the same time.

    Anyway, what do you think? Would this solve some of the Roman tag's problems or does it just detract from the uniqueness of the Mughals?

    I have no idea if anyone's suggested this before, I came up with the idea randomly but its totally possible someone (or many someones) have suggested this before and I apologise if that is the case. Thanks once again :)

    submitted by /u/LordAdamVader
    [link] [comments]

    Which of these nation ideas are the best and why?

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 02:19 AM PDT

    Revolution! Ah nah let's become a free city again. Revolution! Ah nah let's become a free city again. Revolution! Ah nah let's

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 02:21 AM PDT

    Alright, I already tried this some Months ago, then 1.31 hit and I lost my Save. So now again. I am not Kongo anymore. Kongo was my Slave Name. Now I am Strongo, the Great Power!

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 09:05 AM PDT

    My first Korea playthrough! (Formed Japan as Korea)

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 05:06 AM PDT

    The hardest achievement I did so far (after 7 unsuccessful tries)

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 10:45 AM PDT

    Does anybody else think late game maps are way less charming than the 1444 map?

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 08:58 AM PDT

    I mean that by the time you get to the 1600s, the world is basically dominated by a few massive blobs, rather than a collective of a couple medium sized blobs (Castile, Austria, Ottomans) and a bunch of smaller nations. The 1444 map has so many small, obscure countries that play important regional roles, and it makes me feel like anybody could become a power (even if that is not really the case). This is accentuated by the fact that by mid-late game, moderate/small powers like Florence or Serbia are basically irrelevant, and almost all significant war is just decided by a few big nations (coalitions being a possible exception). Late game, it can be fun to see what unicorns came into being, and what weird nations were formed, but often those are overshadowed by a mega-France or Ottomans. This not a criticism, but something I observed while simulating an AI only game.

    submitted by /u/gunhootin
    [link] [comments]

    EU4 - Development Diary 24th of August 2021

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 06:21 AM PDT

    True Heir of Timur

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 06:46 AM PDT

    Gotta catch them all!

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 01:23 PM PDT

    1777 Orthomans WC - Religious Build

    Posted: 23 Aug 2021 10:03 PM PDT

    I can't understand this ZoC at all

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 05:34 AM PDT

    Mexico just wants to clarify its stance on cultural appropriation ;)

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 10:07 AM PDT

    How the CK2 trade post system could vitalize colonization

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 04:51 AM PDT

    In CK2 you can establish trade posts in other rulers' provinces. These are buildings that exist independently from the province owner's buildings. They can be upgraded for various benefits like fortification or to increase income. I believe this system could form the basis for colonization in EU4 so that you use a colonist to establish a settlement or trading post, then you can upgrade it and by fulfilling some requirements it becomes your province - if previously not owned by any state. If it already had an owner the settlement could both coexist and even bring benefits like payments from the colonizer or production boosts.

    This would solve some of the problems that exist in the current system where EU4 must choose between making provinces uncolonizable or void of previously existing polities. Thus you could have North American tribes and Western African kingdoms coexist - violently or peacefully - with colonial settlements or trade posts. This is also much more historically accurate.

    Both the colonizer and the native society would always have the option to attack, raid, ignore or support the other. If implemented right, this system would incentivize players to follow more historical routes of colonization where for example Africa would be dotted with trade posts without being colonized entirely.

    This system could be expanded to allow competing colonial outposts in the same provinces and raiding/destroying the competitors - giving them a CB against you.

    Maybe the colonial system from Vic 2 could also be implemented in some way, where your maritime capacity (naval bases + ships) is translated to colonial power which would be required to expand your outposts until they become self sustaining. This would make navally superior powers much more able to outcompete their rivals and maybe make naval and maritime ideas useful for any colonizer.

    I think these changes might be too much to implement at this point, maybe even for a DLC, but what do you guys think? Would it be a better colonization system or just a huge mess? Perhaps something for a possible EU5 in the future?

    submitted by /u/arvidito
    [link] [comments]

    I want to rant about EU4

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 05:23 AM PDT

    EU4 is my most played paradox game. But I've always had the unsatisfactory feeling, like having an orgasm ruined every time I play EU4, and today I finally decided to take a shot at articulating it.

    I started a new game after avoiding it for almost a year. I decided to go for a Japan play-through. After a little while, I got the feeling of being both overwhelmed and underwhelmed. Being overwhelmed because I have to juggle a shit ton of complex interconnected mechanism, underwhelmed because none of them mean anything and the game is probably going to evolved in a way similar to most other ones I have played.

    So let's talk about the mechanisms. I don't want to mana bash here. That horse has probably reincarnated so many times that it'd attained buddhaship. I am more talking about their implementation and presentation - almost all mechanisms are timers, and almost zero effort went into packaging them as something interesting and meaningful. Think about it: technologies, the spawning of institutions, age, truce, favor, trust, estate, unrest, coring, colonization, conversion, casus belli... They are either triggered by a built-in timer (with some variations because implemented as repeated independent events) or manually triggered by the ticking up of monarch points. While it is true that in all strategy games resource gain is dependent on time, they always masquerade them as something substantive (money, IC, dark matter) and can be improved within the games' contexts. I realize that this is where I start shitting on the mana mechanism so I'll stop at that. But as a positive example, I was playing Oda today and got a missive from Kyoto demanding me to cut my belly open. So this is obviously implemented as a way to slow down your expansion in Japan, but it's implemented in such a way that you feel like you are dealing with the consequence of your action, instead of the in-game fun police coming with a restriction order telling you to stop having fun for a while. Anyway, in this game, you will inevitably hit a point where the most reasonable thing to do is to just stare at the screen waiting for those arbitrary restriction imposed on you to fade away. At times I can't help but think that this is just a waiting game.

    And what am I waiting for exactly? The lack of purpose, or the lack of measurement for success other than your size really is another reason that makes me feel like tickling an itch at the wrong spot. The other paradox games all have very engaging and well defined themes. HOI is a war game, CK is for the story and eugenics, VIC is for building a prosperous nation, stellaris lets your explore the mysteries of the galaxy among other things. Sure in all these other games you can also be obsessed with painting the map, but the map painting usually serves a purpose, either to secure resources for your empire, prove your micro skills or access the DLC you paid for that happened to spawn on the other side of the galaxy. In EU4, expanding your border is the mean, and the end. It's a vicious cycle of more land -> more cash -> more cannon fodder -> more land. There are no meaningful way to measure your success with parameters outside of this cycle. Development is just base mana gain + extra mana gain from cash as a function of time, prosperity is just a progress bar that fills up with time, your loyal population is just mana points over time. You can factor out all the fancy stuffs and find yourself sitting in front of 3 hour glasses playing with a colouring book. Playing tall? Never heard of it..

    I was gonna also talk about how a lack of dynamics the game has become but that really was never in the game other than the mission mechanism. And I find this topic impossible to expand on without the implication of major game design change. I do realize at this point that I have unconsciously imposed some of my expectation for a perfect Vichy game into EU4, but I also think that this game is now dragging it's bloated self out with some very poorly thought out design decisions.

    Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

    submitted by /u/MediocrePlatypus
    [link] [comments]

    Prussian Blue

    Posted: 23 Aug 2021 02:48 PM PDT

    I fear there have been a mix up at the hospital.

    Posted: 24 Aug 2021 12:41 PM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment