Europa Universalis IV Thread 3: If only we had comet sense...

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

AFAIK it's the most widely used word in literature for laymen on the subject, using the word fetish in its original meaning

[AgentPaper]

So, the latest dev diary is showing they're giving Southern/Central Africa some much needed love. On the one hand, I'm glad, because it's a part of the world that really needs some love in these sorts of games. On the other hand, it's also likely to result in hugely ahistorical situations like Castile owning the inner Congo basin in the 1700s. I'm more on the side of excitement, though.

It's ahistorical in that it didn't happen, but I'd hardly say that it was impossible for it to happen. Even with the concerns like distances involved, diseases, climate, hostile natives, etc, Spain or England or whatever certainly could have taken over large parts of that territory, if they'd been willing to spend the energy and manpower to do so. It's just that it would have been a huge effort for relatively little gain, compared to, say, mesoamerica where the hostile population was devastated by disease and even less advanced than the Africans, and there was more to gain with all the gold and cocoa and gold and did I mention lots of gold? (Or at least, rumors of such)

I guess they could add some historical accuracy by adding events related to disease and such that increase attrition for your forces in the area, or more likely just give the african nations there ideas that reduce attrition a lot, so they're the only ones who can field large armies in the area.

I'd also point out that while a player might decide to, say, take over all of africa as Ulm or whatever for the lulz, the AI is probably not going to do so as often, for the same reasons we don't see Spain taking over all of North and Central Africa in most games right now.

[Leecros]

the Europeans have always gotten far more access to Africa than they should ever be able to for the time.

[Artanis]

I don't think a concern like being "hilariously ahistorical" should generally get in the way of "being enjoyable to play," really. If making Central Africa more playable also results in it being more conquerable, well, that seems like a fair tradeoff?

I generally agree.

This is one issue that Paradox always had - and always will have - with their games: balancing gameplay with historical accuracy. Personally, in my experience I think they've generally done a very good job of it. Many times, their additions and/or changes to the game have had the benefit of improving both.

In this case, I think it comes down to if/how the AI - particularly big colonialists like Spain or England - reacts to it. If the AI doesn't bother with it much, then it won't really change the historical accuracy on that front while just giving players more options (namely, potentially having more fun when playing there; or the option to force their way that much deeper in as a colonial power). Kind of like the Random New World did*.


On the other hand, if we start to see everything south of the Sahara painted in Portugal Green, that would be kinda...yeah. Though in that case, I suspect they'll do something to cut down on that (like how they took steps to reduce Castille taking over all of Northern Africa every game).


*OK, OK, so Random New World wasn't that well-implemented at first**. But not knowing exactly what's over there is more historical when playing an Old World nation, and can be more fun...and when it wouldn't be more fun, it can just be turned off.

**I haven't tried it since the switch to the tile thing.

[SilverLeaf167]

So, with a couple more dev diaries out, what are people's first impressions of Mare Nostrum (and the patch coming with it)?

Personally, I'm afraid I'm starting to agree with the view that Paradox is just adding more systems and subsystems to the game just for the hell of it. I loved forts, development, estates, the new diplomatic system and all that, but these upcoming ones like States and Corruption don't look like they add anything fun or interesting to the game. They're just... almost arbitrary limitations you can't really do much about, and even when you can, it's just pressing a button every few years/decades. In any given game, they're going to be either irrelevant or annoying, depending on how serious the penalties are. Trade leagues seem much the same.

That being said, I appreciate that they're trying to fix the overseas system, and the main attraction - the naval rework - is still a bit unclear. Don't really have much to say about the espionage rework. Overall, this just might end up being the first expansion I don't buy on the first day, especially if my AAR is still going at the time.

[AgentPaper]

I think the states system is a lot like the demesne and vassal limit systems from CK2: Not especially exciting or fun for the player (they just put restrictions on you), but overall important for the long-term health of the game, and ultimately make the game more fun in the long run.

It basically makes it so that a player can be "large enough", where expanding beyond that size won't actually help them all that much. You can still expand beyond that, of course, but you won't get as much benefit, and thus as a player you won't feel as encouraged to, so you might instead be content with what you have, at least for a little while, and focus on other things, like boosting trade or colonizing or even developing, without feeling like you're just making a mistake by not constantly expanding.

Corruption is sort of similar, again not exciting to the player, but looks like a good tool for the developers to basically have it as a cost for doing things. It's another resource that the player needs to manage.

The new naval stuff will be very interesting to see, right now navies are not very useful outside of blocking a key straight (and then once you win the war you needed that for, they're useless again), so if they can make naval dominance and important and interesting goal to fight over, that'd be a big deal I think.

[Leecros]

Oddly enough, I don't really mind the corruption slider. It reminds me of how inflation used to be in EU3.

In EU3 your treasury screen had a minting slider. The more money you minted, they more money you made. However, the more money you minted, the higher your inflation went which caused costs to skyrocket. Corruption sounds like an inverse minting slider. The less money you invest into fighting corruption, the higher corruption will grow and the worse penalties you will receive.

As far as states go. We'll see how it's implemented, but that's pretty clearly a hard nerf to conquering large sprawling empires. I suppose it's to prevent you from steamrolling the map after a certain time, but it seems rather silly...At least, the states seem rather large from the screenshot on the dev diary. France is a state, Britain is a state, Germany is two states, Scandinavia is a state. Kingdoms can have 2 states, Empires can have 4. Administrative technologies can add up to 7 more states to your realm, and if you get the administrative idea group fully filled out, you get another state as well. The average player, or game is probably not going to have an issue with states...If i'm understanding it correctly

[rweird]

States would encourage geographically consolidated expansion however, rather than going and grabbing land everywhere to get just the right amount of war score, or taking high development provinces/important centers of trade on your continent but far away (once Imperialism is unlocked) for good land.

[SilverLeaf167]

Overall, I agree that it's important to have limits, resources to manage etc. but I just don't think they're especially interesting additions for a DLC you're supposed to pay for. By the time you're conquering a truly massive empire (which I usually don't), you're willingly going beyond what the game was actually designed for, so while it's alright to make it more challenging, going through a lot of effort specifically to prevent it feels somewhat silly.

I'm not exactly sure which parts are supposed to be free, actually, but either way they haven't really revealed many actual features people (read: I) would be interested in.

More reasonable borders and "diminishing returns" so to speak don't sound entirely bad though.

[rweird]

I think that States would be free (its unlikely you'd need to pay to get a nerf). Trade Leagues are probably DLC. Can't say about corruption, if low corruption gives benefits, DLC, if not, then it probably would be free.

Navy reforms probably would be DLC. Map changes obviously are free.

[Leecros]

I would imagine the paid part of the DLC is going to be whatever improvements they decide to do on naval stuff.

I will admit though, they sometimes have issues with making it clear what the divide is between free content and paid content.


And technically the cost of the DLC's is based off of everything they've worked on(including the free content) since the previous DLC, not just the paid content.

[AgentPaper]

The states system and corruption are almost certainly free features. The DLC itself probably consists of the new espionage system, the new naval actions, and perhaps the new naval combat stuff (though at least some of that might need to be part of the free version).

[Sian]

Given that the acknowledged WC record speed have dropped aggressively lately and is now in the low 1600s (... i want to say 1618 ... thereabout IIRC), obviously there is something that should be reigned in a bit.

[AgentPaper]

Given that the acknowledged WC record speed have dropped aggressively lately and is now in the low 1600s (... i want to say 1618 ... thereabout IIRC), obviously there is something that should be reigned in a bit.

Well, that's specifically (ab)using the horde razing mechanic to lower the cost of coring provinces and give you more points to do said coring with. Neither states nor corruption are likely to affect that much.

[Leecros]

It's also not the norm. If the average player could conquer the world in the 1600's i would think it would be more of an issues, but as it is. The typical EUIV player doesn't go out conquering the world at all. I'm not even sure I could do it and i would consider myself above average in terms of skill.

[AgentPaper]

Actually thinking about it, I think they may actually be making world conquest much easier in this patch, rather than harder. Or to be more accurate, less tedious. World Conquest isn't actually all that difficult even now, more than anything it just takes a lot more time and effort than most players want to put into the game. Past a certain point, it stops being fun and just starts being tedious to fight constant wars and constantly beat down rebels.

Now that everything outside of your core states are effectively overseas, you won't get as much manpower or money from them, but you'll also need to spend far less admin points coring them (kind of like you can now, only without the cheesy vassal wall). This means you can integrate new territory much, much faster than normally, which combined with the fact that you'll have a smaller army and manpower pool than you usually would (though still quite large), means that you'll face a bit more of a threat from coalitions and the few remaining larger nations, while also having less tedium from having to wait around for monarch points and coring.

Granted, probably still a lot of tedium and not a lot of challenge, but it's a step in the right direction, at least.

What I think would be cool is if you could, at very high tech levels, trigger a sort of "world war" scenario, where you (and whatever allies you have) essentially start the war to end all wars, with the goal of conquering the entire world. You'd basically trigger a world-wide coalition (though perhaps not all at once) that you have to fight, and if you win, then all countries become your vassals (including your allies), essentially giving you world domination.

[rweird]

A world war scenario like that is completely ahistoric (although a world conquest is too), so it is unlikely Paradox would intentionally add such an option.

[Artanis]

What I think would be cool is if you could, at very high tech levels, trigger a sort of "world war" scenario, where you (and whatever allies you have) essentially start the war to end all wars, with the goal of conquering the entire world. You'd basically trigger a world-wide coalition (though perhaps not all at once) that you have to fight, and if you win, then all countries become your vassals (including your allies), essentially giving you world domination.

Don't they actually have that in Vicky?


Disclaimer: My knowledge of Vicky comes almost exclusively from a Let's Play I read several years back, so grain of salt, YMMV, etc.

[rweird]

I don't know. They have crises that can turn into world wars (like WWI and WWII), although I don't know about world domination. Still, EU4 covers a different time period than Vicky, and I don't think it needs to do more for mega-wars (coalitions, 30 years war) seem to work. Don't know about the Napoleonic wars though, I don't think Rev. France is strong enough to do what Napoleon did (although most people start in 1444, and I've never seen France become the revolution target).

[Leecros]

Don't they actually have that in Vicky?


Disclaimer: My knowledge of Vicky comes almost exclusively from a Let's Play I read several years back, so grain of salt, YMMV, etc.

Sort of...In Vicky 2 if the game progresses long enough, there's a discovery that basically unlocks Great Wars. At that point any war between a certain number of Great Powers is considered a Great War. Great wars have reduced infamy costs for wargoals and usually involve a lot of people all over the world due to the whole Sphere of Influence system in that game.

I've never seen France become the revolution target).

I saw Rev. France once in my Scotland game when i pushed them to the brink. In two other games have I ever seen Revolution targets. One was Revolutionary Castile(Spain didn't form) and Revolutionary Scandinavia. The only true revolutionary nation that was actually relevant in a game. Castile and France when they went revolutionary in previous games went that way because they got crushed in war after war.

Once upon a time, I attempted to become Revolutionary Italy. That just turned into me almost imploding my country...

[Cristo Meyers]

So where would be a good place to start for a first playthrough? I've heard the Ottomans, which does sound interesting. I do have some basic grasp of what's going on, though no actual gameplay experience.

[Grif]

So where would be a good place to start for a first playthrough? I've heard the Ottomans, which does sound interesting. I do have some basic grasp of what's going on, though no actual gameplay experience.

Ottomans for learning the basic conquest and empire-building game, Portugal for colonisation aspects, Austria/France for diplomacy.

Byzantium for the classic underdog tale.

[Guancyto]

France is probably the best; you start off with a large and powerful economic base and plenty of territory, pretty good-sized armies and strong Ideas, a number of ready allies (Castile or Aragon, Austria if you're into that) and clear initial goals (beat Burgundy, kick England off the mainland).

After that you deal with diplomacy (you border the HRE and can deal with its shenanigans or not, as suits you), naval combat (take over England), land warfare (take over Spain), or you can focus on colonization and trade, since you are coastal Europe and well-placed to take advantage of it. Or you can do all of these at once - France is a strong, strong contender if you want to take over the world.

Portugal is better for colonization, Ottomans better for conquest, Austria better for babysitting, but France has a bit of everything and a lot of "whatever you want."

[OrcusMcP]

France is probably the best; you start off with a large and powerful economic base and plenty of territory, pretty good-sized armies and strong Ideas, a number of ready allies (Castile or Aragon, Austria if you're into that) and clear initial goals (beat Burgundy, kick England off the mainland).

After that you deal with diplomacy (you border the HRE and can deal with its shenanigans or not, as suits you), naval combat (take over England), land warfare (take over Spain), or you can focus on colonization and trade, since you are coastal Europe and well-placed to take advantage of it. Or you can do all of these at once - France is a strong, strong contender if you want to take over the world.

Portugal is better for colonization, Ottomans better for conquest, Austria better for babysitting, but France has a bit of everything and a lot of "whatever you want."

Yes to all of this. France is a great place to learn because it gives you practice on everything. Do an Ottoman run for your second game, I'd say.

[Leecros]

Byzantium for the classic underdog tale.

Byzantium is death for a first playthrough though.

If i had to rank the major powers from newbie friendly to less newbie friendly it would go like this:

1. The Ottoman Empire:

The Ottomans is the de-facto start to anybody looking to learn the basics of the game. They're large, They're powerful, and they quickly outstrip any initial rivals in The Mamluks and Timurids.

2. France:

If this was earlier versions of EUIV I would rank France and the Ottomans Tied, but as it is. Early game France requires a bit of diplomacy in order to avoid the bigger powers ganging up on them. You're right in the thick of the major powers in Europe from England to Castile to Austria.

3. Portugal:

It's odd that such a small nation would be this high on the list. However, Portugal starts in a great position for a more peaceful game where you just want to learn the mechanics of the game without too much risk to yourself. They start bordering Morocco and Castile. You will quickly outstrip Morocco in power and Castile will be your friend nearly every time. However, they aren't very powerful militarily.

4. Castile:

Castile is in a great position to do well. They have an early game event that may fire that gives them a Personal Union over Aragon and Naples which gives them a position rivaling France and The Ottomans. However, if you do not get that, there may be some trouble to be had. They are in a great place to start regardless. Especially with an alliance from France. They are one of two major powers that start with a Morale Bonus.

5. Muscovy:

Muscovy has great potential as a nation. In a 1v1 fight against all of their neighbors other than Lithuania they can win. They get a whole bunch of excellent missions to promote them expanding eastward and you can normally obtain an alliance with Poland which will remove Lithuania from the equation until you believe you can handle them. They also get free westernization if they conquer Danzig(i think?) and that's pretty darn good.

6. Austria:

Austria is a powerful nation, but there's a lot of management that you need to do in order to stay as Holy Roman Empire. It's probably a bit much for a starting player to grasp. They are quite powerful, but France and The Ottomans make for dangerous counters and it's all-around a powerful nation that can become more powerful, but isn't really new user friendly.

7. England:

England has a lot going for it. It's a reasonably powerful nation with a large navy which means that it will be difficult for anyone to beat you in a war. So why are they so far down the list? Well, because the early game of England can be miserable while just starting out. They have this little event called the War of the Roses that starts typically shortly after the start of the game which causes many rebellions to spawn in your territory. On top of that there's another event that hits them early that may cause a large number of heretics to spawn. It's a lot for a new player to handle right off the bat and possibly enough to cause a rage quit.

8. Poland/Ming

I couldn't decide which one to place here, so I just decided to put them both. Poland is a relatively weak nation compared to the other major powers, however they can quickly get into a Personal Union with Lithuania which causes them to become much more powerful. With some work you can form the commonwealth in the mid-1500's and become one of the most powerful nations in the game...However the "some work" is the important part. You have to constantly balance keeping your prestige positive and managing your elective government type. However, it's unlikely that your rivals. Austria, Muscovy, and The Ottomans will force a direct confrontation against you for awhile.

Ming is unique in that it's the only non-European nation on the list. Ming is by far the most powerful nation in Asia. You won't have money issues and nobody around you is going to make a move on you...However,they have their own government type that makes them dangerous to play to the inexperienced. Should you have a ruler with too low legitimacy, prestige, or stability...Your country will implode.

[Artanis]

I don't have a lot to add to these great lists, so I'll just chime in with a quick comment:


While it may not be the best for a first playthrough, Portugal is probably the best for a first play, especially if you're new to Europa Universalis. It's the perfect size and position to spend a few decades learning which buttons do what without somebody coming and immediately curbstomping you into the dirt. Once you've gotten your feet under you, you can decide whether to keep going with it or to go start a new game with one of the others on the list.

...then again, maybe it's just me being a sucker for navies. I always was fond of the "nya nya your transports can't touch me" style of warfare in strategy games


I do have to disagree with Leecros putting Poland and Ming anywhere near the list though. They can be great fun and have amazing advantages, but they each largely revolve around managing a couple of MASSIVE disadvantages that a complete newbie may very well have trouble grasping, much less overcoming. If you're still learning How2EU, dealing with something like Ming's f***ing horrifying government type is going to kill you.

[Guancyto]

Yeah. Poland was a great beginner choice back before all the game mechanics updated to successively make it less powerful. You got the PU over Lithuania and kept it easily, so you had a giant pet beatstick so long as you kept your Prestige high. You got Austria up to +200 opinion which was enough to join the Holy Roman Empire if you hadn't annexed any vassals or territory, so you never had to worry about getting invaded and could expand in Germany at your leisure. You got the mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order because there weren't any size requirements for it yet (you needed to have taken one county from them so they'd be small enough to fit under the subjugation CB). At that point you were the largest, safest, richest nation in the world with minimal trouble and the world was your oyster.

Even without not-necessarily newbie options like joining the HRE, it was a great nation where you had a series of successively-more-difficult but very clear goals to pursue (Lithuania first, then the Teutons, then Livonia, then a battle royale with Russia, with possible skirmishes with the Scandinavians/Ottomans in between), at the end of which you were on top of the world. "Well, now what?" "Now anything." It was a great intro to the sandbox of EU4.

The Poland of today has to deal with Elective Monarchy; there's the possibility of the Lithuania PU breaking due to the nobles taking charge. There's the penalties you get from the monarchy being successively disempowered by the Sejm. You can't join the Holy Roman Empire unless you cut away all your territory, you need the Teutonic Order to be really tiny in order to vassalize them, etc etc etc. (On the plus side, you do get to Westernize for free? But it doesn't give you new units.)

At this point I'd probably put Sweden higher on the list of newbie-friendly nations.

[Leecros]

Well, that is why i put it at the bottom of the list guys.

At this point I'd probably put Sweden higher on the list of newbie-friendly nations.

I didn't really put Sweden for the same reason i didn't put Brandenburg. Yeah, they hold huge potential to be powerful, but they are firmly in the position of 'one major error can cause you to be crippled for years' camp.

I put Ming, because if you can manage the government, which isn't really THAT bad compared to the hell that it was at the start of EUIV lifespan and in EUIII. You really aren't going to have any major rivals until at least the 1700's.

[Cristo Meyers]

oof, decisions decisions. I'm still leaning towards the Ottomans, if only because I tend to learn better by dividing the larger whole into smaller chunks rather than getting a shallower catch-all, but France definitely has its merits. I'll have to think about it a little while I'm refreshing myself on the mechanics and possibly buying Common Sense if I haven't already. Can't remember...

[SilverLeaf167]

oof, decisions decisions. I'm still leaning towards the Ottomans, if only because I tend to learn better by dividing the larger whole into smaller chunks rather than getting a shallower catch-all, but France definitely has its merits. I'll have to think about it a little while I'm refreshing myself on the mechanics and possibly buying Common Sense if I haven't already. Can't remember...

Well, I definitely second the Ottomans for that. I know it's not what you meant by "smaller chunks", but I find that one of their biggest advantages is, geographically speaking, all the directions they can go, a little at a time. As France, or most European countries for that matter, you'll have a big coalition on your hands in no time. As the Ottomans, you can fight a war or two in the Mediterranean, some in the Black Sea, a couple against the Mamluks, Persia and so on. You have a bit more room to play with, so to speak. You can just alternate between fronts to greatly reduce the aggressive expansion you build up, the bane of every conqueror. Even colonization (in Asia) is actually an option for the Ottomans.