Fart Master
Savant
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 241
They probably went with steam only due to the fact their games get pirated up the ass. With steam you have a much harder time updating the game if they distribute the patches through steam only.
There's a shitload you could add, and a lot of the basic mechanics were fundamentally flawed. EU3 is also behind the Clausewitz games that came after it in terms of capabilities under the hood.What is the point of Europa Universalis IV? A sequel, for sequels' sake? What refinement could they possibly add? ... Course, I don't even remember EU III.
What is the point of Europa Universalis IV? A sequel, for sequels' sake? What refinement could they possibly add? ... Course, I don't even remember EU III.
People have been saying that vanilla EU is shit since the first one. Which means people are less excited about EU IV the game than EU IV as a modding platform.After seeing what they did with EU2->EU3 transition there is a LOT that can be added and expanded upon. Just compare what we got in CK2/Vic2/HoI3 compared to games before them. Its a damn god evolution with more and more stuff added.
Of course vanilla EU3 was shit so probably it will take some time for EU4 to "mature" to a state where its better than EU3.
Finally its really obvious that EU3 has aged very much. New graphics are always a nice addon for my map painting experience.
Well you're the modder so I guess you would know. I always get suspicious of sequels one they start numbering in the threes.There's a shitload you could add, and a lot of the basic mechanics were fundamentally flawed. EU3 is also behind the Clausewitz games that came after it in terms of capabilities under the hood.
What is the point of Europa Universalis IV? A sequel, for sequels' sake? What refinement could they possibly add? ... Course, I don't even remember EU III.
The problem is that they've never managed to get the AI countries to routinely achieve their historical expansions. Consequently, the game tends to play poorly as a sort of domino effect of this.
If Muscowy never forms Russia there is a power vacuum in the east. If the Ottomans snake to the East fighting hordes instead of attacking Europe there is less pressure on Austria, so it is free to harass Europe instead of defending it.
Etc.
Very difficult game to balance and I fear that it will take a few steps backward.
EU takes place over a very, very long period of time, and that's its main strength: The fact it, like CK2, allows for history to be fucked in the ass throughoutly. Simply put, simulationist elements are absolutely retarded when you have a game with so many potential variables introduced. Enforcing historical accuracy in a sandbox of that size is just plain dumb, as aptly demonstrated by Ubikebab.
I'm hoping colonization is done better than in vanilla EU3 or MMU. The events in MMU where the natives may destroy your colony were nice, but overall that could have used some improvement. Also the requirements for sending out explorers and conquistators in MMU were retarded. Sure, it shouldn't be as easy as take one national idea go colonize half of kwanzania, but MMU just went into the other extreme. Without having those 5 NIs devoted to colonization/exploration all you could do was pray you get an event where you get the chance to buy an explorer (the price of which of course scaled to your level, which meant it was too expensive in most cases). Who probably would die due to random factors way before he would find anything worth colonizing.
It's an important aspect of the time period and it would be a shame to see it neglected.
EU takes place over a very, very long period of time, and that's its main strength: The fact it, like CK2, allows for history to be fucked in the ass throughoutly. Simply put, simulationist elements are absolutely retarded when you have a game with so many potential variables introduced. Enforcing historical accuracy in a sandbox of that size is just plain dumb, as aptly demonstrated by Ubikebab.
EU takes place over a very, very long period of time, and that's its main strength: The fact it, like CK2, allows for history to be fucked in the ass throughoutly. Simply put, simulationist elements are absolutely retarded when you have a game with so many potential variables introduced. Enforcing historical accuracy in a sandbox of that size is just plain dumb, as aptly demonstrated by Ubikebab.
Russia and the Ottomans get a lot of cores and so forth that give them the potential to be much stronger than some random blobs occupying the same territory, stuck with wrong culture wrong religion non-core provinces. If they manage to reach their historical expansions they will be good challenges for the player in the late game, when he has also built up a powerful country. If those regions remain divided between several weak blobs, the player will have fewer challenges in the late game. Usually in unmodded Paradox games there are few challenges, so you play for a while then quit.
Spanish conquest of Mexico and Inca/Tawantisuyo empire is a good example: It was essentially a bunch of guys lead by some charismatic and clever fillibuster against a entire empire, all with enough jewgold to fund a armed expedition based on dreams of jewgold, nobility titles and sexy brown women. The governor of Cuba even tried to stop Cortez.
Not really. At least it wasn't for me. I managed to subjugate novgorod, ryazan and pskov fairly quickly then I ganged up on gh and colonized all the way to vladivostok before the mid 16th century.From EU3 experience, Muscovy is one of the hardest starts ever. Shitload of enemies from all sides, shitty diplomacy, as you are orthodox, and even other orthodox ruler hate you, shitty resources, shitty tech group, shitty income, shitty trade and whole load of other crap you have to deal with.