Mission tree, events, and national ideas for Scandinavia along with updated monarchy and republic reforms Mission trees and events for Poland, Lithuania, and the Commonwealth along with new Winged Hussar units Mission trees and events for Finland and Lübeck along with updated theocracy reforms New achievements, modding additions, and idea group changes for patch 1.34Įight new monuments, idea groups and policies rebalance, crownland and government reform progress, government capacity, and other miscellaneous changes for patch 1.34ĪI changes and adjustments for patch 1.34 Questions about Norse content in Lions of the North Minor patch to facilitate the launch of Europa Universalis IV on GOG Lions of the North Īll developer diaries about the Lions of the North immersion pack and patch 1.34 (aka Sweden). Roadmap for development of the next update, along with the introduction of new idea groups and changes to old idea groups New content for Portugal, Prussia, and Korea New government mechanics, great projects, holy orders, naval doctrines, and other content for patch 1.35 Release of patch 1.35.4 and introduction of History Lessons DLCīalance changes and usermodding additions for patch 1.35 So here ya go:All developer diaries about the Domination expansion and patch 1.35 (aka Ottomans). This is just my own opinion, but I know quite a few other people on the forums share it. As others have said, the Leviathan review thrashing was because Leviathan released as a hot mess, even for Paradox. Sure, they've added a lot of stuff I dislike, or implemented stuff I like in theory in ways I dislike in practice ( cough tributaries cough), but they've also tweaked existing mechanics in ways I prefer, or added new mechanics that are good.Īs to OP yeah, it's worth coming back. A lot of this plainly comes down to the number of actors on it, and the increased fidelity of the map, sure, but with the greater depth to mechanics like religion, government, states and administration, movement locking etc? I can't think of a version of the game I'd rather play. While there are many mechanics, and more importantly, implementations of mechanics present that I do not enjoy, I think the game board feels more alive now. With that said, I do also think the game is in a better state than it has ever been. The instantaneousness of it feels very artificial, and many bad mechanics have been tied to development. I think it should be possible to shift population around over time - both de- and re-populating - and through long-term efforts, increase the output of your country, but I agree that development is a very badly implemented mechanic. I was optimistic at the time Common Sense was released, but after observing how it affected the game's direction I've come to the conclusion that it changed the game for the worse.Ĭlick to expand.This is a really well-reasoned take, and one I tend to agree with. This becomes especially strange when you take into account how monarch power interacts with the number of provinces and tags in the world: more tags = more monarch power, which means absurd levels of development in certain regions of the world.Īs someone who originally fell in love with the EU series as a historical simulator, it pains me to see one of my favourite games transform into a 4X. Developing provinces is the equivalent of materializing population out of thin air using monarch points, resulting in silly, ahistorical outcomes where Ryuku can acquire the population and production power of Paris or Beijing within a couple generations, when in the past it used to be a tough challenge for Ryuku to field more than 1-2 regiments. With this in mind, the development mechanics introduced in Common Sense flattened the landscape, so to speak. Some regions had lower development and were more challenging than others, but that diversity was part of the fun. The early development system for EU4 worked quite well, all things considered, and tended to produce historical outcomes. Pre-CS EU4 development essentially worked like EU3 while the EU4 world's population would no longer increase over time as it did in EU3, the relative strength of highly populated and sparsely populated regions largely remained. Province base tax/prod/manpower were largely static over the course of the game, only changing with major events. Base tax/production/manpower was meant to abstract EU3 population and resource mechanics in an easy to understand way. So here ya go:Īllowing players/AI to develop provinces was bad for the game long-term, in my view. Click to expand.This is just my own opinion, but I know quite a few other people on the forums share it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |