Europa Universalis IV

[Higher Animal]

I wouldn't say arguably. It was the most populous state of Europe with a strong economy, disciplined and well-led troops and a quality navy (technically superior in naval engineering than the Brits, there's a reason French ships were used as flagships, though numerically inferior). Even getting a draw with France usually involved pulling in every other European Great Power (with the British bankrolling things).

The HRE should really be a punching bag between France, Austria, Sweden and (later) Prussia with maintenance of the balance of power and its use as a buffer zone seeing it preserved by outside intervention.

Had the HRE been unified then it would've dictated terms to France as it liked. Controlling the HRE as a matter of power politics should be more important than controlling France on the world stage.

France gets easy mode for the 100 years war in EU 3. France can easily control Castille/Spain. France can defeat any Eastern/Central power. France can build a bigger navy than Britain because the penalty is not severe enough to cause any trouble. France gets amazing historical leaders.

France is 100% too easy in EU 3. There is no need to gimp things further in that direction. At least make 15th/16th century france difficult as it would be historically.

ED: Unified Germany bigger and better than France. France defeated in Seven Years War. France should not be so indefatigable when it has a lot of losses to its credit. Give Joan of Arc/Richeliu/Loius XIV/Napoleon their due, but make things more difficult (thus more historical) if the game wants to retain either balance or history.

 

[kris]

ED: Unified Germany bigger and better than France.

there was no unified Germany during the scope of this game.

 

[commie]

Again they go back to the 300 year timelime. No prizes to guess what the first expansions are going to do.

 

[commie]

Prussia and later Germany successively cunt punched France until it became known as a nation of whimps.

After napoleon. Before that france was arguably the strongest nation in europe.

Pfft. during the EU timeline maybe in continental Western Europe, and only for a time. The Spanish dealt enough of their own cards in the region until the late 1600's, and as far as colonialist powers went, both the Spanish and English raped the Frogs. The Ottoman Empire was just as strong from the 1500's-1700 in Europe. Even Poland-Lithuania and Sweden and after 1660's Russia were all equally capable of laying claim to 'strongest nation' in their respective regions. France also was one fortuitous death away from ceasing to exist during the 100 years' war. Real French power only existed from about 1550-1700. France WAS powerful in the era before the scope of this game though: 800-1300 and the few Napoleonic decades after.

 

[Kane]

i already had a long discussion on the PI forums about that topic many moons ago and the outcome is that yes, france was the strongest nation in europe from the middelages until napoleon. deal with it.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

During most of the middle ages a third of france was under the dominion of norman/english kings. On atleast 3 occasions english armies numbering a paltry 10-15,000 brought a nation of 15million to its knees.

 

[Kane]

During most of the middle ages a third of france was under the dominion of norman/english kings. On atleast 3 occasions english armies numbering a paltry 10-15,000 brought a nation of 15million to its knees.

yes but contrary to today's politics map painting isn't a good indicator of the balance of power in the middle ages. they retook that land in a few years when the opportunity presented itself (and half of the various nobels ran over to the french king anyway). after the 100 years war france was arguably europe's super power with superior fleet and army, plus the end of the 100 years war led to a succession crisis in england now known as the war of the roses, that catapulted them out of the picture.

france also had superior economy and bureocracy. the at that time radical idea of cosmopolitanism gave them an economic backbone second to none (it's arguably part of the reason they won the 100 years war in the end, because england is/was kinda rich too).

 

[Raghar]

France WAS powerful in the era before the scope of this game though: 800-1300 and the few Napoleonic decades after.

Translated: Dark ages were caused by France.

 

[Malakal]

What France had was a combination of high population and remnants of Roman heritage in the south. France was as populous as Russia while Russia was both bigger and divided into many principalities.

 

[oscar]

France was the bad boy of the 17th and 18th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

Even getting a draw with France (Nine Years War) required every other European great power (sans Russia) to form a coalition.

 

[PorkaMorka]

This could be a dumb question but I will ask anyway.

EU3 and EU4 run on different versions of the same engine.

So, do they really need to scrap the entire EU3 base?

What if they ported EU3 to the updated engine and then spent the remainder of the development time working on implementing improvements that were previously too big to put into an expansion pack or DLC? Like improved economic and warfare systems.

Wouldn't that produce a better game than starting from scratch? EU3 took a couple of expansion packs before it was as good as EU2... it would be nice to avoid having that happen again with EU4.

 

[Smashing Axe]

Are any of the earlier EUs worth playing now? I was interested by EU:Rome, but was put off by what was supposedly bad game design.

 

[Higher Animal]

I'm not buying these arguments and sticking to my guns.

1. France is already the easiest country to play in EU 3, especially with historical modifiers turned on.
2. In EU 3 it is specifically possible to form Germany and it is also possible to ally with most of the HRE thereby making it an almost objectively superior coalition to that of France. How this could be disputed in any way is beyond me.
3. France lost the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War.
4. Nobody denies the brief and fleeting glories of certain French Emperors and moments (already listed) but there was never a hint of Euro domination that wasn't necessarily repulsed.

Why the EU 4 development team would skew things more in favor of the easiest nation thus twisting history and balance in the process is utterly beyond me. If somebody forms Germany or maintains a strong hold as Emperor of the HRE they should be above France in the power spectrum. I don't see why this is difficult to grasp since history rewards this interpretation.

 

[attackfighter]

Which is realistic

Nah, irl they often had to use diplomacy to play different factions against each other or to secure treaties with regional leaders. Also remember that by the late 19th century Zulus numbering 20k defeated a British stack numbering 2k - so even with breach loading rifles it was possible for the Europeans to lose against spear wielders. With muskets they'd have fared even worse.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Zulu's did have some rifles, though majority of their troops were spear carriers.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Zulu's did have some rifles, though majority of their troops were spear chuckers.

corrected

 

[attackfighter]

Zulu rifles didn't play a key role though, and when you say that the majority were spear carriers you mean the VAST majority. The rifles they did have were outdated and poorly maintained, plus I'm guessing they weren't trained how to use them very well.

Their victory was due mainly to their numbers and overstretched British lines, so in EU3 terms a large native force should be able to defeat a small, poorly lead European force quite handily even if the Europeans have the highest tech level. Currently EU3 allows Europeans to rape natives 10:1 even with relatively low tech disparity (they're able to do so when colonization first becomes available). Which isn't very realistic I'd say.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Yes, you're correct - it would be completely wrong to claim that Zulu's formed up in a neat formation to exchange volleys with the British.

Maybe they will bring the combat events from HoI3 to EU4? With those, native/primitive troops fighting on their own ground could have a heightened chance of "ambush" against invaders and if they outnumber them, maybe bring in "encirclement" as well, especially if you increase the bonuses.

 

[oscar]

I principally think of the Battle of Assaye as the example of European dominance during this period, where 6,500 British troops with 17 cannon beat a 50,000 strong Maratha Confederacy force (with 10,800 sepoy-quality troops) lead by an experience European general on the defense.

Even close to the start of the game you have Cortés conquering the Incans with 300 conquistadores. I realise skilled diplomacy with the natives was essential to his victory, but that is a pretty hard thing to simulate and I feel that EU3 has things about right.

My problem was more large 25k European stacks going at it around North America in the 1600s and the utter pain that is defending your little trade posts from being nabbed (and how they don't get occupied like regular territories).

 

[Luzur]

what i dont like is this tidbit:

-It's doubtftul that there will be a physical release of Paradox games from 2013 onward. (Johan)

Steam only from 2013 and onwards? guess i´ll get it from Piratebay from then on.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

what i dont like is this tidbit:

-It's doubtftul that there will be a physical release of Paradox games from 2013 onward. (Johan)

Steam only from 2013 and onwards? guess i´ll get it from Piratebay from then on.

Not Steam only, they have their own digital distributor in GamersGate, which does not have a semi-spyware element like Steam does. It's just a downloading site, basically. You download the installer in two steps, and otherwise it's just like a no-CD version of the usual Pdox game afterwards. I prefer it to Steam by a large margin.

 

[Luzur]

what i dont like is this tidbit:

-It's doubtftul that there will be a physical release of Paradox games from 2013 onward. (Johan)

Steam only from 2013 and onwards? guess i´ll get it from Piratebay from then on.

Not Steam only, they have their own digital distributor in GamersGate, which does not have a semi-spyware element like Steam does. It's just a downloading site, basically. You download the installer in two steps, and otherwise it's just like a no-CD version of the usual Pdox game afterwards. I prefer it to Steam by a large margin.

small comfort to a guy like me, who likes to actually feel the games he buys.

 

[Morkar Left]

What I find a lot more frightening and makes me really considering not to buy EU4:

-There is an in-game store button (Gamespot video of 8/16)

Wtf?

 

[GarfunkeL]

You can burn the installation files to a disk, Luzur, though of course it's not the same.

 

[ValeVelKal]

I'm not buying these arguments and sticking to my guns.
3. France lost the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War.
4. Nobody denies the brief and fleeting glories of certain French Emperors and moments (already listed) but there was never a hint of Euro domination that wasn't necessarily repulsed.

Why the EU 4 development team would skew things more in favor of the easiest nation thus twisting history and balance in the process is utterly beyond me

France participated to various extent to probably close to one hundred wars in the EUIII timeframe. That you cherrypick some defeats does not prove anything.
Moreover,why the War of the Spanish Succession is a clear defeat, the S7W is different : France lost the American part of the war, due to its naval inferiority, but drawed the European part. France was the first European landpower, but the second naval power, and almost never won a naval battle against the British (most exceptions being during the American Revolutionary War)

While France had a minor military decline in the second part of the 18th century (due mostly to the extremely low quality of its poorly chosen commanders), France was the prick of the European schoolyard in the 16th century, 17th century and early 18th. To take just a sample of the major wars from the 30YW (French contributes the most to the final victory in the 15 or so years of its involvement) to the end of Louis XIV's reign :

- War of devolution : France against Spain, Dutch Republic, England, Sweden (still a power at that time) : France wins.
- Franco-Dutch War : France, with token help from England and Sweden,vs the HRE, the Dutch and Spain : France wins
- Guerre des réunions : France vs Spain - France wins
- 9YW : France alone vs everyone else that matters in Europe except Russia - France losses after 11 years of war
- War of the Spanish succession : France and part of Spain vs everyone ese in Europe not stuck in the GNW. France draws.
- War of the Quadruple Allaince : Pile-up involving France vs Spain. France losses, but not merit here.
- SYW - continental : France + Austria + Russia + Sweden + HRE vs Prussia + Hannover + some UK + a couple minors. France shamefully draws.

Incidentely, most French military victories are not due to a particular French military genious (except a few moments, the most famous being of course Napoleon), but to France's deep manpower reserve and its capacity to mobilize ressources very quickly (centralisation + bureaucracy), thus allowing France to still be in the game after major defeats, whereas its opponents were often kicked out of the war after one or two defeats.

France should be the one against which everyone organise its coalitions, until a "strong" HRE / Germany is formed, at which point that new "State" should be the focus.

 

[oscar]

France simply had the biggest population in Europe at this time. Not to mention a centralised government, bureaucracy and very strong and self-sufficient economy. France is the bad boy of this era. France is the Germany of Hearts of Iron.