Europa Universalis IV Preview
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Excellent, I am so looking forward to this. I didn't expect a hands-on preview on the escapist itself.
I personally never used the tutorials, instead learning by trial and error as I go along. Though I can see why it would be good to make the learning curve a bit less steep for those who want to get into it but feel intimidated by all the variables. In fact I want something which is more intuitive, but which retains that level of depth. Crusader Kings II had some good hints explaining the buttons for the first time you see a menu.
The map is looking nice in the mediterranean areas, I especially like the finishing touch of the Nile Delta.
I personally never used the tutorials, instead learning by trial and error as I go along. Though I can see why it would be good to make the learning curve a bit less steep for those who want to get into it but feel intimidated by all the variables. In fact I want something which is more intuitive, but which retains that level of depth. Crusader Kings II had some good hints explaining the buttons for the first time you see a menu.
The map is looking nice in the mediterranean areas, I especially like the finishing touch of the Nile Delta.
My goodness, this one slipped under my radar. Completely forgot it was even in development.
I've managed to sink so many hours into 3, I can't wait.
I've managed to sink so many hours into 3, I can't wait.
I spent a good while exploring the wiki when I first started on EU3, but nothing taught me the ins and outs of the game (and CK2 for that matter) like watching a decent 'let's play'.MammothBlade said:
Hated EU3, Hearts of Iron III and Victoria 2 but CK2 was decent, here's hoping they'll keep doing things right.
I have played many of PDS's games, so I've gotten used to their learning curves. If you can play one of their games, you can generally pick up another without too much hassle (other than the Hearts of Iron series I would say). After playing their games for so long, they almost feel simple to me while having a great depth at the same time. Once you get passed the initial layer of learning the interface, you're basically set and can accomplish whatever you want. A notable example is somebody doing a world conquest using the tiny island nation of Ryukyu. Looking forward to seeing if he can do it again in EU4...
If Europa Universalis is information overload, make sure to never touch Heart of Iron, you are gonna cry. 
But anyway waiting for it, would normally be waiting for paradox dev team game impatiently, but courses lately have been quite draining, so barely have the energy to be impatient.
But anyway waiting for it, would normally be waiting for paradox dev team game impatiently, but courses lately have been quite draining, so barely have the energy to be impatient.
That's not true at all. The depth is just a *bit* more subtle, in the way that all the variables and factors add up to a deep strategy and alt-history simulator. There are lots of different layers to it, much as in VC2.Hardcore_gamer said:
Of course, I want a second Victoria II expansion as well. My guess is one is in the pipeline for early 2013, they know Victoria fans want something. Here's hoping for an expansion focusing on political and military aspects.
Im with you there Rome was especially disappointing but CK2 is awesome i think i migh break the 1000 hour mark with it.Istvan said:
I really hope they can recapture the soul of EU2 in this one because EU3 felt like a lifeless sandbox with a bunch of alt history where EU2 felt like you were trying to fight history and forge your own destiny within it.
The one question that I have for EU4 is:
WILL WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL CONVERTER FOR OUR CRUSADER KINGS 2 SAVE GAMES?!
I want to take the Latin Empire, which didn't last past the 13th century, to the 19th Century!
WILL WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL CONVERTER FOR OUR CRUSADER KINGS 2 SAVE GAMES?!
I want to take the Latin Empire, which didn't last past the 13th century, to the 19th Century!
I'm really going to miss the detail of the Crusader Kings 2 map when this comes out.
What? Sicily is only two provinces again? Ireland is four?
The one real issue I hope they tackle that has persisted through the various iterations of Europa Universalis 3 is the lack of dynamic goals, strategies, and identities for states that "get lucky" so to speak and get a bit of momentum. They need to model better how states win or lose, and stop having the usual suspects win out in the end.
One problem is that no matter how free the political map is to deviate from history, the cultural map is incredibly static. Sure, the culture of provinces change, but the cultures themselves don't change, combine, or split. Since stability (and therefore long-term success for the AI) is tied to culture, the simplicity of the culture system means there is a pretty steep barrier to states that are multi-cultural. Now of course, there were such barriers in real life as well - what I'm saying is that the barrier is only comparatively high in the game.
Another problem is the lack of dynamic missions and goals for the AI as the game processes. The historically successful states get very good missions that they nearly always act to complete, which means they always have a leg up on their neighbors. States should be rewarded for getting lucky with missions that reward their momentum or risk-taking, allowing for alternate histories to consolidate themselves.
Okay, this turned into a longer post than I had wanted. Back to cheering six-province AI Trier.
What? Sicily is only two provinces again? Ireland is four?
The one real issue I hope they tackle that has persisted through the various iterations of Europa Universalis 3 is the lack of dynamic goals, strategies, and identities for states that "get lucky" so to speak and get a bit of momentum. They need to model better how states win or lose, and stop having the usual suspects win out in the end.
One problem is that no matter how free the political map is to deviate from history, the cultural map is incredibly static. Sure, the culture of provinces change, but the cultures themselves don't change, combine, or split. Since stability (and therefore long-term success for the AI) is tied to culture, the simplicity of the culture system means there is a pretty steep barrier to states that are multi-cultural. Now of course, there were such barriers in real life as well - what I'm saying is that the barrier is only comparatively high in the game.
Another problem is the lack of dynamic missions and goals for the AI as the game processes. The historically successful states get very good missions that they nearly always act to complete, which means they always have a leg up on their neighbors. States should be rewarded for getting lucky with missions that reward their momentum or risk-taking, allowing for alternate histories to consolidate themselves.
Okay, this turned into a longer post than I had wanted. Back to cheering six-province AI Trier.
.Spectrum_Prez said:
With the trading system and the colonization system you won't need any 'lucky nation' modifier to have Portugal dominate Africa and India in mid-game, it simply happens because Portugal is slanted towards exploration, seafaring and trade. Now there's a reason to put a colony in modern day somalia.
Bit of a Paradox fan boy here (except for War Of The Roses, sadly ... like M&B with all the good bits taken out and ridiculously pretty - and laggy - gameplay thrown on top), and if this game manages to catch that special 'something' that Crusader Kings II held ... then I have one thing to say:
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
The only thing that catches me is that each of the Grand Strategy flavours (EU, HoI, Vic, CK, etc) has differences ranging from minor to LUDICROUS SPEEEEEEED. Economy is done *this* way in CK, *that* way in EU, but it's *THOSE* ways in HoI. I have a lot of trouble when, having completed a thrilling Game-of-Thrones-esque campaign as the Duke of Orkney in CK2, I decide I want a round of the Confederates in Victoria ... and I get my arse handed to me because I'm not used to looking after more than about 15acres of farmland.
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
The only thing that catches me is that each of the Grand Strategy flavours (EU, HoI, Vic, CK, etc) has differences ranging from minor to LUDICROUS SPEEEEEEED. Economy is done *this* way in CK, *that* way in EU, but it's *THOSE* ways in HoI. I have a lot of trouble when, having completed a thrilling Game-of-Thrones-esque campaign as the Duke of Orkney in CK2, I decide I want a round of the Confederates in Victoria ... and I get my arse handed to me because I'm not used to looking after more than about 15acres of farmland.
I love paradox games, even if they did take me a while to get used to them, they are now some of my favorites. Now that I can parce the data that these games put out (except Hearts of Iron) I find them extraordinarily immersive and the complex and wide range of decisions makes them almost feel like RPGs of a kind in addition to the historical fiction games they are. The idea that paradox wants to simplify one of its more simple strategy games is upsetting to me. If they wanted to try and make their games more accessible they should rely on games other than those in the EU, HoI, Vic, CK set because although they do not have a large fan base they have a loyal niche one who can not get this quality in this kind of game anywhere elce, not to mention the fact that the simpler historical strategy field is really Civ's domain. It just seems like paradox may be displeasing their fans for little tangible gains. Now if paradox was talking about making HoI more accessible, or at least nicer to look at while I figure out what on earth is going on, I would be all for that. But as far as EU goes just fine tune what is there, make non-European states more potentially competitive (or dont rely so much on arbitrary modifiers to slow these nations down), and for the love of god add an official CK2 game port.
Hmm, looks like a fair compromise, none of the complexity is actually getting lost, they're just streamlining the information you need to recieve to make the best descisions. I'm all for it, let's call it the "Tell your advisor to speak plain (nation language here)"-button.
The writer is way to biased towards his own tastes. Part of the charm is the complexity. Simplefying a series is a risky gamble, and not the holy grail this writer seems to think it is. It depends on the game weather it would work. This article seems quite equivilant to asking why there isnt any actual footbal in a footbal manager game.
OH THIS IS COOL.
Didn't even know it was in development, explains how the remaining team fucked up CK2 with the new update as well.
Didn't even know it was in development, explains how the remaining team fucked up CK2 with the new update as well.
Guys, no one is talking about losing any complexity. The goal is to help understand the nuances of each game system so the player isn't forced to go elsewhere (wikis, forums, etc.) to understand what the game should tell them. Paradox is trying to figure out how to ease players into the game by teaching them to swim instead of dropping a kid into a stormy ocean and forcing them to survive. Most will just drown and quit the game.Entitled said: