Personally I think Imperator is the best map they're ever done and CK3 and Vicky 3 are pretty nice too. EU4 and HOI4 are hideously ugly, the map is in a weird spot between being hyper detailed like the later games and being completely flat like the earlier ones so all the terrain has this play-doh look to it.
>he doesn't mod the game to give you options to rape and violate captured female generals >just sits and complains about it on his malaysian smoke signals forum
Grim
Maybe they'll outsource the UI to someone competent like they did with HOI4. As much as I don't like HOI4, I consider it to have the best UI out of any Paradox game. Maybe not the best-looking, but definitely the cleanest, or at least it was closer to launch before they TNO'd it.
What do you guys want? most important thing for me is that they either cut the game untill the start of the 17th century and make a new one completely for 18th-19th or find a way to make this shit last, cause most games end up just before the 1600's
I dropped EUIV way back during Conquest of Paradise because the mana system took all the challenge out of the game. My biggest hope is that in EU5 they don't let the player fix their country's stability by spamming mana. Beyond that I want a tighter system for everything, maybe one that's not as deep as EUIV that's been DLCmaxxed but I think EU5 would benefit from losing some of EUIV's mechanics considering how bloated they are compared to CK3 losing mechanics from CK2. Also no mission trees because they take the sandbox aspect out of the game.
Any other anons actually feeling hopeful?
I want to believe, but what little they've revealed of the map makes me think it will be another clickfest like Victoria 3. Also there's no way in hell they'll be removing mission trees like I mentioned earlier, so it might be DOA as far as I'm concerned.
Loverslab mods are not the base game.
I have never seen anyone use LL mods in CK3, as far as I know they don't exist.
There is no point since Meiou and Taxes exists and that's the best Europa Universalis is ever gonna get
Hitomi's booba were real albeithough
>Hitomi's booba were real
I read a very long time ago that she did some specific surgery where instead of using silicone they inject fat from other parts of your body for the enhanced tiddies to look natural or something like that. But this information seems to have been scrubbed from the internet and now everyone's saying she's natural and her breasts just get bigger naturally. But there's no mention of macromastia whenever people say she's natural, so I'm not sure how she magically has O cups now.
>I'm so so sorry EU bros, you'll go from receiving content for a good game to some new fresh paracuck slop
That's been the status of the EU series since DW
European vidya companies seem to generally be in better shape than current US vidya companies are. Americans tech and entertainment really went special kind of moronic with bloat and diversity waste in recent years and are now paying for it.
>start off as happy CK2 let's player with hot Mexican wife and kids >quit your day job as car dealer >become full time EU4 let's player >reach 200K subs and make collabs with Northern Lion and Quill >become tired of EU4 and try moving into Factory >nobody watches Factory vids >be forced to return to EU4 >become depressed >our wife thinks you are pathetic and cheats on you >divorce >abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Biopic when?
2 months ago
Anonymous
All I remember is when he started crying on stream because he hit his kid or something.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The worst part is, is that when he was young and had hair he was a legit 9/10 chad, then he went bald and you can’t even tell he was ever good looking now.
2 months ago
Anonymous
He also used to be one of Paradox's most trusted inside men. He's a good guy I feel sorry for him in a way. If he's doing a European country and I have nothing better to do I'll watch his streams at work.
>start off as happy CK2 let's player with hot Mexican wife and kids >quit your day job as car dealer >become full time EU4 let's player >reach 200K subs and make collabs with Northern Lion and Quill >become tired of EU4 and try moving into Factory >nobody watches Factory vids >be forced to return to EU4 >become depressed >our wife thinks you are pathetic and cheats on you >divorce >abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Biopic when?
I thought his ex was colombian or venezuelan?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I thought his ex was colombian or venezuelan?
all latinos are the same
Anyhow, I find interesting how seems to be ghosted by Northern Lion, Quill, and Paradox
2 months ago
Anonymous
If I remember correctly, paradox cut all contact with him because Groogy is a whiny homosexual and got offended by something Arumba said or did during one of the first grandest lan things. It is possible the other content creators just fell in line in order to not lose their privileges
they've done an absolutely horrible fricking job on EU, they're without a doubt paradox's most incompetent studio, so i would be surprised if they actually got to develop a new entry from scratch.
i think someone said tinto had an A team/B team situation where they used eu4 updates to try to get experience for the newest tinto members. now maybe they've converged on working on eu5.
There is no "A-team" at Tinto. Tinto itself is the "B-team" of paradox, although they're actually more of a "Z-team". Tinto is little more than a prison for the worst of Paradox to work on their most bog standard map painters to keep them sequestered away from the games they think will actually make them money.
>Tinto is little more than a prison for the worst of Paradox
Unironically that always ends with kino.
Shrek was a prison for animators that done frick ups , Danganronpa and 999 was a prison for the craziest chunsoft devs , SaGa Frontier was a prison for people who refused to work on FF7, CoD WaW was made while IW was working on their MW
Honestly, as much as Johan was really belligerent back in the day, these days he seems to have become much more mellowed out and humble. Maybe it's from living in Spain instead of Sweden. I disliked him in the past, but while I still don't agree with his design decisions, I can't hate the man now. And hey, maybe his new attitude will lead to better games since he'll be more willing to reflect and reconsider stuff while making them.
He was humiliated in Imperator, his name was spread all over the fanbase as a sign of failure and bag game design, if that didn't humble him then it would be a lost cause
nah you are just forgetful
in hoi3 release he claimed he was on the verge of suicide (he is probably bipolar) because of the bad reviews and his coworkers helped him calm down
he has compared people with pedophiles for pirating paradox games
in eu4 he said the famous "i don't give a frick about the AI"
he is mentally unstable and NEVER learns throughout the years
>in eu4 he said the famous "i don't give a frick about the AI"
actually based, there are no gsgs with good AI, the technology simply isn't there and multiplayer will continue to be the only entertaining way to play these games
2 months ago
Anonymous
another negative IQ take by paradrones
2 months ago
Anonymous
>says the troony that thinks deeper AI mechanics are possible when most people already have issues running these games past mid-game on their toasters
You are completely clueless, there is no point in arguing with your kind.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>in eu4 he said the famous "i don't give a frick about the AI"
actually based, there are no gsgs with good AI, the technology simply isn't there and multiplayer will continue to be the only entertaining way to play these games
yes, advanced deeplearning AI that requires nasacomputers being beyond us is why paradox games are shit, not because of their 0 effort jeetcode that makes countries declare war on you without even checking if they can reach you, or ship their entire army into tiny islands without having naval superiority to ship them out
>tech illiterate moron is also an MPgay
figures
2 months ago
Anonymous
there are no grand strategy games with competent AI
What do you guys want? most important thing for me is that they either cut the game untill the start of the 17th century and make a new one completely for 18th-19th or find a way to make this shit last, cause most games end up just before the 1600's
Not that I'm expecting this from paradox, but I'd love more internal management so the core game isn't just blobbing which leads to the issue of every game being over by the 1600's.
I also really want them to fix colonization so it's still fun and useful but doesn't happen 300 years too early.
Yeah imperator almost nails it but it makes expansion too easy with mission trees that give out full state cores.
I'd kind of like to see a return to the infamy system with legitimate claims being much more rare. Also no more click to core.
Make it actually challenging to create and maintain large empires. Not through the use of some static modifiers, but through actual game mechanics you can engage with and overcome if you are skilled enough. This would require the modelling of internal politics with various regional factions, internal administration, economy, logistics, population etc. Basically make it as realistic as possible.
Not that paradox would ever do this, so the best I can hope for is a modable game where something like meiou can be implemented with a decent performance.
even if they did, their lust after DLCs makes the basic systems obsolete by the bazillion of autistic mechanics that add meaningless micromanaging, and you end up with a Frankenstein of empire gameplay system that is either too boring to continue to play or too unstable to keep your country together (hello estates autism in EU4)
One thing I want to add that would put a significant limit on snowballing is simply to implement an actually good AI. One that can think on a long term perspective, tries to maintain the balance of power, recognizes rapidly expansionist empires as a threat and doesn't just forget about them x years later as the AE has run out. In fact just having a large, powerful empire on your border should be a top priority concern for any country even if they didn't expand in your direction lately and the AI should be proactive in trying to contain that threat through various means.
>either cut the game untill the start of the 17th century and make a new one completely for 18th-19th
See I think they should do a later start date of either 1492 or even 1517 and make the beginning period of the game the actual rise of colonialism or the reformation. As it is EU mechanics have apiss poor tale end of the medieval era, and the early start date just ends up leading to a batshit 15th century with Spain, Portugal and England usually balls deep in the New World by its end and most player campaigns about 75% done by the time you get to era that you'd think would be the games main focus. Granted this would piss off romaboos. So not ever happening
Made culture and religions more interesting. Country can change depending the main religión or ethnic group
Rework arabs as diverse tribes.
Made things like Oran ,Gibraltar, malta ,Ceute and Melilla that are cores that a external country can conquest and forms his own colony
Yes.
EU4's DLCs are different than CK2's, a lot of them don't add meaningful mechanics, just more buttons to click. The few mechanics that ended up being significant were folded into the base game, like Estates with Cossacks. My point is, missing DLC stuff, which is CK3's biggest flaw, won't be a big deal with EU5; playing EU4 without them obviously sucks but only because you're used to them and their advantages, it won't matter in a brand new game where lots of other things have changed.
Also, it's Johan, he might be moronic at times but he still genuinely cares about the games, EU specially. So you bet I'm hopeful.
In the end its core systems that will matter. EU5 will have to have significant advancements instead of just being a more polished EU4.
The Sims is sort of the golden metric for how to do different generations of a game with similar sets of DLC.
TS2 and TS3 all had core systems that made their new versions of the DLCs feel different. The obligatory tropical island DLC felt different when you can use TS3's open world to take a boat into the middle of the ocean to fish and dive.
TS4 meanwhile lacked significant systems and just died in the shores.
Yeah
a lot of eu3 cucks seething about eu4 itt but it is actually my favourite(amongst other mappainting simulators) and last updates have been great with hispanics finally understanding how to code
But for some people it's never enough
I'm feeling hopeful because of what Johan has "said" and how btfo'd he got in the past surely has humbled him. I also think this is paradox's last chance to keep the dedicated fans of their games or it will be 4 sub par games in a row. I also think EU4 isn't as bad of a game as what people like to say, yes it has it's issues however it is an extremely deep Risk simulator and a lot of anons here forget how deep the game is because of how many hours they have spent in the game.
My wishlist: >Supply chain to army mechanics (more attrition with no port or cut off from your land) >Dynamic trade flow, or some way to model being the number 1 economic power in the world, why would trade not flow to Beijing if they were in control of the whole world. >Some way to make the game less tedious and micro intensive late game >Occupying a castle should occupy nearby areas the way a defensive castle already works. >Colonise further inland after unlocking specific technologies >No super natives on NA east coast.
There's plenty more but that is just off the top of my head. I also really dislike mission creep, and I think it removes the sandbox feel from the game and railroads it but people love them so they wont be removed as they sell DLC. But just using Hungary mission tree as an example you get like 5 PU's very early if you know what you are doing, the game is over by that point the rest is just a formality.
no, not at all
in fact i am 99% sure that paradox has unleashed their shill army here
if they need 3rdworlders to spam us about how great it's going to be and why we shouldn't be skeptical at all (even though we have literally 0 information so far), you know something is off
So is Europa Universalis just going to go dark for however long this fantasy gsg receives support? Tinto is obviously the team that will be making EU5 and this upcoming EU4 dlc looks like a wrap-up dlc.
>It means the development of EU4 is ogre.
Obviously, I'm not arguing otherwise. >And why would the jeopardize EU4 DLC by releasing EU5?
The same reason they "jeopardized" CK2 DLC by releasing CK3.
What guarantee do they have EU5 will sell better than EU4? CK2 was butt-ugly. EU4 isn't.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>CK2 was butt-ugly
you take that back
3 months ago
Anonymous
Frick your "feel" and frick you. Sales go up just by having graphics that aren't an eye sore. I literally installed and launched Darkest Hour for five minutes, before determining that those that praised it are bullshitters, because my retinas burned.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Frick you, CK2 graphics are immersive SOVL and much prettier than Darkest Hour. HIP's UI and map especially are even sexier than EU4.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>muh SOVL
A non-argument used by foxes that didn't get the CK3 grapes.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I've played CK3 and unironically I prefer the static portraits and hand drawn event pictures to CK3's 3D abominations and goofy poses that replace event pictures.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>too low test to appreciate huge titty eugenics mechanics
3 months ago
Anonymous
Loverslab mods are not the base game.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Huge titty eugenics mechanics exist in vanilla CK3. Not even kidding, you can breed your women to have giant breasts. It's part of the genetics the model system takes into account.
3 months ago
Anonymous
kys you brainrot coomer
3 months ago
Anonymous
Keep myself safe? I will, thank you. I don't even use LL mods.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The 3D portraits are way too low quality, and THE official big breasts mod has compatibility issues with every single mod that adds new clothing.
Huge titty eugenics mechanics exist in vanilla CK3. Not even kidding, you can breed your women to have giant breasts. It's part of the genetics the model system takes into account.
Yeah, but the biggest breasts possible on vanilla are still far too small for me. Also, how do you even manage to actually breed until your dynasty gets big breasts? Never works out for me.
3 months ago
Anonymous
clothing?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'm talking about character body overhaul. It's only compatible with vanilla outfits, and right now nobody cares enough to release compatibility patches with mods that add more, stuff like Shogunate, Asia expansions, fantasy shit etc.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Money, of course. Their primary audience of people who actually buy the games and dlc, which congregates on their forums and leddit, have been shouting from the rooftops that they want Paradox to quit releasing DLC for EU4 and make EU5. This will be yet another opportunity to release a bare-bones new entry with the promise of adding back features in upcoming DLC, a model which has sadly worked out nicely for them with CK3. I believe it was Johan who already stated that EU4's engine is basically at its practical limit when it comes to adding meaningful new mechanics or features, which is why this last stretch of DLC has been focusing on adding flavour to fan-favourite areas of the map or just areas fans have said was lacking in it.
meiou runs like shit and doesn't stop the worst problem in eu4, that is brainless snowballing, it only makes it happen slower
it's better than vanilla but still not great
but snowballing is fun cuz you feel accomplished and OP by the end
3 months ago
Anonymous
Open up the world map in Paint and color it any way you want. Congratulations, now you are the most OP map painter in the world, nobody can oppose you. Sound like fun?
3 months ago
Anonymous
no cuz there's no challenge. but i like starting as a weak nation, then playing tall in a strategy game and then becoming OP
3 months ago
Anonymous
Let's not pretend that blobbing in EU4 is challenging in any way. You just gobble up smaller countries until eventually you are the biggest one.
Better yet, stop being a loser who jerks it to video game women, make your father proud for once in your life and find a girlfriend your age who you don't have to pay for sex with.
i'd only want that if they fixed v3's awful late game performance.
which maybe is possible, because apparently what causes v3's lag is the different building types + different pop types. it's one of the reasons v3 has buildings that can produce two different goods depending on production method, to reduce lag.
>different pop types
shouldnt really be an issue in eu5 since most pops will just be peasants and workers
also the total amount even during the endgame should be lower than vic3 starts with
By the time these morons make a working product generative AI will already be able to create custom video games better than any of the slop they produce.
robin hanson is a high IQ physicist who dipped into social science and he says the projections for first world fertility are not good, and the projections for AI advancements don't look good enough to compensate for the lower fertility, so technological innovation will slow to a crawl for the next couple centuries until fertility among high IQ people rebounds.
Surely the EU V devs have 11 years of notes on what worked and what didn't work with EU IV right? Think of just how much insight a literal decade of work on the previous game could be brought to bear on the next.
Not only that, but what didn't work in Imperator, too. Johan has had some kind of soul-searching journey and admitted he was wrong about everything, will never make another game with mana, and wants pop mechanics
>said he will never make a game with mana >said he will never make a game without message settings >said he will never make a game where you don't move armies on the map
yep, it's gonna be pure ludo
it was a relief seeing him talk about the message settings and armies after the v3 fricking disaster. i was about to say that despite his critiquing mana he'd surely include it in eu5. but technically eu3 wasn't that way, so johan seems open to new paradigms which is cool.
I was one of the gays who criticized Johan for board game design, and I hated mana then and now, but many of the design choices of CK3 and V3 are maybe worse for having departed from that, maybe. Him being obstinate and sparring with fans meant he has balls too and dressing in a toga was very kawaii also. #believeinjohan
>said he will never make a game with mana >said he will never make a game without message settings >said he will never make a game where you don't move armies on the map
yep, it's gonna be pure ludo
>gets exiled out of Sweden >mental and physical health improves, starts smiling more, the bud of virtue has been planted into his soul
Makes you think a lot.
Not only that, but what didn't work in Imperator, too. Johan has had some kind of soul-searching journey and admitted he was wrong about everything, will never make another game with mana, and wants pop mechanics
The only thing they ever take note is the constant DLC model
I believe in Johan, but corporates will ruin his vision and force him to make slop. Let's face it, dumbed down paraslop sells like candy so from a business perspective it would be a terrible step to go back to making actually complex games which filter morons.
They haven't dumb down anything, only made things less convolutated and gave more access to information with the in game tooltips, since you know, they never did ONE good tutorial. the mechanics are pretty much the same in all sequels
>They haven't dumb down anything
They made it so only 1 AI character can scheme against the player at a time in ck3. And countries can only be attacked by 3 AIs at a time. It's fricking dumbed down.
They will continue with their candy-esque graphics, won't they? Frick, Imperator:Rome looked good, but ck3/vic3 are such eye cancer. It ruins the immersion. Also, so far there is no reason to play vic3 over vic2. I've never got into ck2, got about 100 hours in ck3 and i'd rather learn to play ck2 than put any more hours into 3
>got about 100 hours in ck3 and i'd rather learn to play ck2 than put any more hours into 3
If 3 hasn't grabbed you then 2 certainly won't
the series is essentially for two types of people: literal austistic hardcore roleplayers who will intentionally make stupid harmful decisions if their leader has personality traits which dictate doing so, and plebbitors who use it as a maymay generator
>literal austistic hardcore roleplayers who will intentionally make stupid harmful decisions if their leader has personality traits which dictate doing so
Game is unplayable after, at best if you are incompetent, like 2 generations and you already bloobed half the world, role playing is literally the only way to have any fun in it
it has more dumb, gamey skill trees than ck2 if that's your criteria for an rpg
however that's actually detrimental to roleplaying since it ruins immersion
3 months ago
Anonymous
the upcoming unlanded gameplay is going to render CK2 obsolete
3 months ago
Anonymous
unlanded gameplay WAS FRICKING DONE IN A MOD FROM FRICKING 3 YEARS AGO, AN FOR 0$
jesus christ paradrones are really something
3 months ago
Anonymous
The mod is buggy as shit plus has poor interaction with other mods. When Paradox makes it part of the game then the other mods will have to adapt.
Plus, the DLC will come out at 0$ too, like every other DLC I have installed.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Every single time someone pulls the "it was already done in a mod!" line they conveniently neglect to mention that said mod was poorly implemented/buggy/left unfinished. Modders have done just about every idea people would want out of CK3, so I don't know what people want Paradox to do in terms of DLC that hasn't been covered already by some janky mod.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The mod is buggy as shit plus has poor interaction with other mods. When Paradox makes it part of the game then the other mods will have to adapt.
Plus, the DLC will come out at 0$ too, like every other DLC I have installed.
unlanded gameplay WAS FRICKING DONE IN A MOD FROM FRICKING 3 YEARS AGO, AN FOR 0$
jesus christ paradrones are really something
3 months ago
Anonymous
>every single mod is janky reeee
3 months ago
Anonymous
>said mod was poorly implemented/buggy/left unfinished
just like the average paradox dlc
>You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic.
Oh no no no mana bros how do we cope
I can't fricking take it, I spent quite a few hours trying to solve this issue but I can't, I made a compilation mod for the americas and tried to import the Europa Expanded Inca mission tree but only mission slots 1 and 2 appear, 3 to 5 are empty or are replaced by generic mission trees. Can someone help troubleshoot for me?
Do NOT count on it. Don't ask me why, but I just have a feeling that things just won't be that simple. Seriously, wait, save and then see. Wait up to a year after the release of whatever this is if you have too you'll probably need that time to save enough money for half the proper expansion packs anyways
In CK3 you literally do not have access to any difficulty above normal, feel free to check the wikipage to confirm it yourself(I did the same in my bafflement last time I played the game and found that I could not raise the difficulty, only lower it). I think that says a lot about CK3 and modern Paradox in general.
I think vic2 is the most interesting game from the bunch, yet I have the least amount of hours in it. I wish they scrapped vic3 and started over, fricking braindead Black personcattle ruined the series
lmao Johan humiliating Paradox corporate shills unironically gives me some hope.
Will this truly be his redemption arc, or will we have another Imperator/Victoria3?
I hate to say that I agree with Johan in this case. If they were doing autistic simulationism there'd be a reason for discerning between tradition and professionalism but EU4 is anything but.
Army proffesionalism was supposed to be more fickle, something that could be deliberately achieved and within a generation, and easily ruined within a decade, compared to army tradidion which you worked generations to build. In the end both became currencies (dreaded mana) that you could instatly gain or spend in different ways, and the real short term value was relegated to "army drill"
Uhh, I've noticed that a lot of known paradox shills on youtube like opb have released Imperator videos in the last month or so completely out of the blue. Sounds like they got a heads up (which has been known to happen) and this might not be EU5 but some sort of an Imerator sequel or spinoff. Maybe a Dark Ages game using similar mechanics.
>which is why we went with the Gall Stereographic projection
Usually I find the discussion over the mercator projection to be quite shallow and full of misconceptions, centered about >muh evil colonialism
But this time there's a practical concern about it: for a game that has a heavy focus on Europe, not using mercator is an dumb thing. Look at this fricking image, say you are playing in sweden, which *was* a relevant empire on EU's timespan, you look at your capital and it's fricking tiny and hard to differentiate among the other locations/provinces/whatever, while some place in Africa inhabited by an irrelevant tribe gets to be fricking huge
And, for having games centered around painting maps, Paradox still can't make a fricking globe
> Finally, we have what we currently call “passages.” These are land locations that can not be settled by anyone, but can still be traversed by an army, with some insanely heavy attrition, or allow trade to pass through. Think of passages across the Saharan desert.
Holy mother of based.
>competent guy
maybe over a decade ago, he has long since hit the wall and is nothing but a liability for paradox
he has been behind some of the worst decisions and worst releases (both games and dlc) we have ever seen from this company
other way around, he was shit a decade ago but he realized his mistakes and is about to deliver his magnum opus
just read some of his comments in the forum
If anything sea lanes are the complete opposite of gamification. In real life you can't just sail a ship wherever you want because you will literally hit dead zones with no steady wind, intercontinental sailing is constricted by the routes where there is reliable wind and currents to actually move your ship. In comparison EU4 where you can just sail your fleet around anywhere in the open ocean with no concern is very gamey.
The map should have a few more lanes though, there should at least be another route from the Azores to the Caribbean in between the two routes there currently are.
I hope that ‘impassible wastelands’ only affect troop movement, and that they are still tiles that can be clicked on, conquered, and have people and resources on them. Its not like no-one lives or nothing is grown in the Alps or Appalachians or the Congo basin.
Plus it just looks ugly, real life maps didnt have massive holes between countries whenever there was a desert or mountain range.
I get that it might be good for performance reasons to not simulate sparsely populated regions, but it is annoying seeing the Alps or the Pyranees being unclaimed by anyone on the map when there were always people living there and there was always a state that owned them and exercised control over them.
You don't need to sacrifice anything. You can have land that is both impassible for troops, and can be clicked on, owned and has properties like dominant religion and culture.
>Next week we’ll be back talking about something that could be rather controversial…
Judging by how those sea provinces look (especially when compared to Victoria 3), my guess is next week's article will discuss how shoving troops around is obsolete and we should all eat the Vic3-style three button slop.
based "you will probably not like our games from now on" johan
truly reformed, he surely learned from his mistakes after a lifetime of never improving and always reacting emotionally to critics
I don't think I understand how piety is not mana. I mean, don't get me wrong its absolutely not as egregious as monarch points were by a longshot, but still its very mana-like.
Gold I agree is not mana but if I were to be a dickhead I could probably quibble about it and come up with arguments for why it is an abstract resource.
>I don't think I understand how piety is not mana.
It's not innately mana because it's obvious what it's supposed to be an abstraction of, and because it should make sense in that context and should have a function beyond being spent for instant effects
Of course when the devs are moronic enough they can forget those shoulds and start treating it like mana
I haven't played any CK games and I don't play EU4 very much, but basically, mana is where a resource is decoupled from what it's meant to represent.
Diplomacy points in EU4 are bird mana. They are bird mana because they don't concretely represent anything. You can spend them on naval technology... but also on cultural assimilation... and also on your diplomatic corps. What do they represent? Nothing, they're just there for a thematic bundle of things that are related to diplomacy, trade, culture, and the navy in general. They're mana. Diplomacy points in Victoria 2 aren't mana. You spend them on diplomatic actions with other countries. They represent your government's capacity to undertake a specific subset of closely related actions. Victoria 2 even represents other diplomatic actions, the SoI mechanics, with a different point system (influence points), underlining the fact that distinctly different branches of your government are not using the same resources.
So if piety is only representing one specific thing in whichever game it's from (say, your character's adherence to their religion - the degree to which they are adhering to its teachings and values), then it's fair to say it's not mana. If it's representing multiple unrelated things (say, both your character's adherence to their religion, AND your church's resources being spent on converting local populations to that religion), then it would be mana.
I don't think I understand how piety is not mana. I mean, don't get me wrong its absolutely not as egregious as monarch points were by a longshot, but still its very mana-like.
Gold I agree is not mana but if I were to be a dickhead I could probably quibble about it and come up with arguments for why it is an abstract resource.
It's abstract idea by itself therefore it being abstract does not make it mana?
he is completely right though, you need abstractions in a video game and the only bad ones are the ones that directly create nonsensical dilemma like developing the economy of a province or teching up
Have you ever played the hit game Age of Empires 2?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the famous gsg AoE 2
2 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't ask if you liked how abstraction was implemented, I asked if you were familiar with the concept of spending resources to advance.
2 months ago
Anonymous
How is that relevant? AoE2 is a highly abstracted RTS.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And so is EU4. Trade routes were a valiant attempt, but it's all abstraction all the time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And EU4 suffers for being too abstracted. It should be less abstracted. Unlike AoE2, which is basically a PvP game with historical window dressing, EU4 is a GSG, a simulation. So what's your point?
2 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't, actually. It suffers from having nothing to do, except blob.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It doesn't, actually. It suffers from having nothing to do, except blob.
Actually it suffers from being far too abstracted, and the fact that there's nothing to do except blob comes in large part from that abstraction.
I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5? I think EU4 could definitely do with less abstraction but I also think people really have a hard on for "remove mana and remove all abstraction" it's a game at the end of the day and abstraction is going to be there especially in a gsg.
>I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5?
Well, to start with, I'd derive technology from industries, because that's largely how it works in real life, instead of them being something the government does (lmao).
2 months ago
Anonymous
>comes in large part from that abstraction
No, it comes from every internal threat management mechanic being absolutely gutted.
Corruption? Just pay it to go away.
Hostile cultures or religions? Just spend some resources to change it.
Powerful factions? Just... wait them out.
Overextension? Turmoil? Autonomy? Worthless, worthless and worthless.
This is why I like Victoria 3. This is why I will ask it be made even harder.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Actually it suffers from being far too abstracted, and the fact that there's nothing to do except blob comes in large part from that abstraction.
Think rebels being a joke is a big part of it.
Conquering and occupying a province are two different things.
EU4's rebel system is a predictable whack-a-mole approach. You know 10 years in advance where and how many rebels will show up. So, you use all your armies in every war, just remember to bring them back a few months before the rebels show up.
Revolts don't take into account opportunity at all, some 20K pretenders rebels think they can win against your army of 100K while you are at peace.
Even EU3's revolt risk was a better system, the fact every province had an independent random rebel chance meat, you (at least in theory) were forced to station large number of your troops in your provinces, unable to use them for war.
Ideally rebels would be more opportunistic and wait for a moment of weakness, like if you are in peace and have full force limit, there is no point rebelling, but they should wait for time when you lose half your army, and then all rebel groups should attack.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Think rebels being a joke is a big part of it.
Rebels would make more sense as actual breakaway states (with fast construction of forces to represent paramilitaries / guerrillas / sympathetic breakaway forces so they don't just get instantly stomped) which the player can annex at, initially, no infamy / AE cost (but if they don't move on it fast, eventually it would start to cost infamy / AE since the breakaway state would have gained legitimacy over time).
This goes for all Paradox games. The whole deal of rebels as a stateless army just doesn't work well.
2 months ago
Anonymous
This is basically what Vicky 3 does and it fricking sucks. It works for things like the American Civil War or Taiping Rebellion but having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic" is beyond moronic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic"
Rebellions should be a lot scarcer than they are in vanilla Vicky 2 (where they're basically constant). It should be something that takes quite a while to happen, with a lot of opportunities to avert it, rather than something that happens sporadically as you work through reforms - but when/if it DOES happen it should be catastrophic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>This is basically what Vicky 3 does and it fricking sucks. It works for things like the American Civil War or Taiping Rebellion but having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic" is beyond moronic.
It should depend on the pops tbh
Lower class pops joining a revolt should mostly contribute by adding loads of lower tier units to rebel stacks, while when enough of the upper class/ruling pops in an area join a revolt they should have a chance to form a rebel tag
2 months ago
Anonymous
Like in Imperator? It would certainly solve issues, like I often see 20K noble rebels occupy Corsica from Genoa and keep it occupied for 300 years, because Genoa doesn't have the troops to take them down, and the rebels can't enforce their demands. If was depicted as a war between two states, it would result in a white peace.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5? I think EU4 could definitely do with less abstraction but I also think people really have a hard on for "remove mana and remove all abstraction" it's a game at the end of the day and abstraction is going to be there especially in a gsg.
2 months ago
Anonymous
easy, remove manual teching up and idea groups
2 months ago
Anonymous
>easy, remove manual teching up and idea groups
So explain to me in gameplay terms what you would do simulate teching up and having a campaign focus (idea groups) if you want to remove them. You can't just say "this shit is bad and should be removed" if you offer no alternative.
>It doesn't, actually. It suffers from having nothing to do, except blob.
Actually it suffers from being far too abstracted, and the fact that there's nothing to do except blob comes in large part from that abstraction.
[...] >I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5?
Well, to start with, I'd derive technology from industries, because that's largely how it works in real life, instead of them being something the government does (lmao).
You mean like buying industry with money and then getting a tech boost from that?
2 months ago
Anonymous
> So explain to me in gameplay terms what you would do simulate teching up and having a campaign focus (idea groups) if you want to remove them. You can't just say "this shit is bad and should be removed" if you offer no alternative.
lol, there is no need to remove anything because it's an entirely new game with a new set of mechanics
techs are represented much better with institutions/CK2-like local systems, idea of idea groups is horrible, specialization of a nation should be represented by estates, laws and budget sliders/buttons, not by +5% discipline for 400 sword_mana points
2 months ago
Anonymous
>specialization of a nation should be represented by estates, laws and budget sliders/buttons
all of this is abstraction at the end of the day because all this does is apply modifiers.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Personally I think the way mana+tech+ideas work actually functions really well and makes EU4 fun. But it's an EU4 thing that should stay in EU4. Monarch points were its thing and that time has come and gone.
Institutions are on the right track but barely do anything in EU4 because they spread so fast and everyone gets them every game. Use a system like institutions to spread technology. Have it move through cities and centers of trade following trade routes, this rewards expanding your merchant empire and having good infrastructure.
Then just cut out the middleman of mana. Instead of having advisors generate mana you spend on tech, have the advisors help generate and spread the tech directly. Institution spread would now be an actually important factor instead of an afterthought.
Also have military tech spread through combat like some Vic2 inventions, that incentivizes fighting more wars (the point of the game) and makes for fun temporary advantage windows
as for ideas I don't know, ideas feel like something intrinsically based on the concept of mana. Honestly maybe just leave the concept of idea groups behind in EU4 too and create a new system of stacking modifiers to make "builds" for your country over the course of the game. Maybe buff their strength but make it like policies where you pay a cost to maintain them.
maybe unlock ideas by doing things in-game rather than just spending a currency. Army professionalism is a good example of how that could work actually. You gain and lose it based on how you actually play the game, not by spending points (spam recruiting generals aside).
maybe do it like dynasty shit in CK3 where each ruler has their own set of "ideas" you're building up but there's also the permanent dynasty bonuses in the background, in EU4 maybe that's for your nation.
Also, there are so many better and more fun ways to stack modifiers now that maybe the basic b***h idea groups just aren't needed. monuments, reforms, estates etc.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Really good reply mate and I agree with nearly all of it, institutions used to actually work as intended but with the insane power creep and being allowed to dev spam then the institutions spread way too much and there's never a situation where you massively out tech any serious player in the word. I like the thought of advisors spreading tech or imroving your tech research speed.
The ideas point is interesting, if they allowed you a specific policy because you held the Pentarchy as an orthodox nation so a policy unlocks giving you +5% missionary strength. I don't know if I agree with giving "ideas" to your ruler like ck3 does it can't say i'm a fan of that idea in EU, but I do feel like NI's in general give the game a lot of flavour and produce "personalities" for countries when you play the game a long time you know that france has giga morale, prussia with it's discipline, ottomans and russia with their insane force limits. I feel if you take that away then the game might feel the same no matter where you play, and that's kinda what CK3 feels like for me.
I disagree completely with monuments I hate the way they are implemented in EU4, there's wayy too many, they are so spread out so it's hard to learn them all, and the financial investment is rarely worth the cost unless it's an insane one like alhambra or stave church.
2 months ago
Anonymous
FWIW I meant the idea groups, not national ideas. National ideas should definitely stay, great way of making sure countries are unique. If you remove NIs you get the victoria 3 problem where everyone is the same blob in a different color.
I do like that idea groups are a way of "specializing" your country and creating a "build" over the course of the game to get more powerful or stack the right stuff to have fun and so on, but the generic idea groups have some problems.
Like I said the way you buy them is just wait > spend mana which is totally uninteresting. And because you buy them with mana the "get more mana" and "spend less mana" ideas will always be no-brainer picks.
Then also, besides aristocratic/plutocratic/etc every country can get every group all the time, meaning it's easy to just pick the same ones every time and it gets stale. And vice versa, you avoid the same ones every time too because they're not as good.
Ideas are also a one-and-done, once you pick a group you're done with that decision and there's no strategy left, you're just waiting for the sword points to tick up. Except in very rare cases like dipping into exploration or something.
some mods introduce interesting concepts to ideas. Like M&T has idea groups unlocked by other idea groups, idea groups unlocked by tech or institutions, and mutually exclusive idea groups. It's a little more interesting. but I think a totally new concept could do it better.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>And because you buy them with mana the "get more mana" and "spend less mana" ideas will always be no-brainer picks.
I personally don't think idea groups should be in the game that reduce mana point cost, feels like they're hard to balance for reasons you stated and I don't like the idea of spending mana to get a mana discount. >easy to just pick the same ones every time and it gets stale. And vice versa, you avoid the same ones every time too because they're not as good.
Agree with this completely and it's also a problem I have with missions in the game as you always going to play the mission tree it's stupid not to however it railroads countries but people say "just don't do the missions then" it's quite infuriating. >Like M&T has idea groups unlocked by other idea groups, idea groups unlocked by tech or institutions, and mutually exclusive idea groups.
They sound very interesting and definitely a better way to go about it however I can't speak about M&T since I only tried playing it like 5 years ago and it ran like ass and was too much of a tism simulator. I really like the idea of branching paths/mutually exclusive decisions you can take with your country they just need to be done right, have tons of flavour and not railroad the country too much.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>institutions used to actually work as intended but with the insane power creep and being allowed to dev spam then the institutions spread way too much and there's never a situation where you massively out tech any serious player in the word.
Institutions have always been awfully designed. The first 3 up to Printing Press do make tech spread slower but the later ones all spread absurdly fast meaning tech is almost completely equalized everywhere after 1600. It's been like this since institutions were added because they never once rebalanced their spawn or spread requirements.
It's the complete opposite of how they should be also. The early institutions should spread quickly and easily and the later ones should be very difficult to spread outside of Western Europe because the European tech advantage didn't actually take off until around the 1600s, up until that point China/India/the Muslim world were basically on par with Europe in terms of technology.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>up until that point China/India/the Muslim world were basically on par with Europe in terms of technology.
not in naval tech
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, naval tech is the one big exception and Europeans were vastly ahead of the rest of the world even at the start date. Otherwise though they shouldn't pull ahead until the 1600s.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Otherwise though they shouldn't pull ahead until the 1600s.
Europeans had better guns, more literacy and higher gdp per capita than most of the world.
Sure some places might have matched Western Europe in one or two of this criteria but that doesn't change the overall trend.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Europeans had better guns, more literacy and higher gdp per capita than most of the world.
By population? Not until the 19th century. By landmass? Sure, but that bar is sinking into the ground.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>y population? Not until the 19th century.
Wtf are you talking about?
https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/?lang=en
2 months ago
Anonymous
>1300s France >GDP/Capita of $1800 >1450s China >$1375
I've never trusted these guys, but thinking about it, I don't think non-eu4 players do, either.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't think non-eu4 players do, either.
What do you man? >I've never trusted these guys,
I mean, I guess a random invention in isolation you can bring up is better than scholars trying to crunch numbers, surely that's how science works.
2 months ago
Anonymous
EU4 Players are the only guys to take Maddison seriously as a source. No one else bothers because their data is often incomplete and based on "it's the best we have" assumptions.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>EU4 Players are the only guys to take Maddison seriously as a source. No one else bothers because their data is often incomplete and based on "it's the best we have" assumptions.
If it is the best we have... then why not use it? You are just excluding something in favor of... meme rockets invented in a place and immediately adopted by its enemy? Is that better?
Is your entire argument about seed drills and big chinese walls at this point?
2 months ago
Anonymous
They were ahead of Europe until then.
>up until that point China/India/the Muslim world were basically on par with Europe in terms of technology.
not in naval tech
Yeah, naval tech is the one big exception and Europeans were vastly ahead of the rest of the world even at the start date. Otherwise though they shouldn't pull ahead until the 1600s.
Navigational tech, yes. Actual naval architecture remained even until the invention of the steamboat, with Bengali developments bleeding into European designs at least until Plassey.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>naval architecture remained even
You are conpletely delusional if you believe that
2 months ago
Anonymous
You aren't familiar with Bengali shipbuilding practices, the East Javan maritime industry, or pre-Qing designs, are you?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the East Javan maritime industry
You mean the same region that was colonized early by both Dutch and Portuguese? Wow they must have had amazing ship technology to lose ground to both Islamized Malays and people coming from the other side of the world!
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You mean the same region that was colonized early by both Dutch and Portuguese?
Do you just not know where Java is?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Do you just not know where Java is?
So if every place around you is conquered by people on the other side of the world but you personally on the most populated island in the region aren't it signifies you matching them technology?
This is a non sequitur.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You made up an entire premise and argument. Why not just go ahead and make up a response?
And the Dutch consolidation of Java came in the 19th century. The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France, has no bearing on the shipbuilding capabilities of Eastern Javanese.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You made up an entire premise and argument. Why not just go ahead and make up a response?
I did respond, if you are unable to contest the naval powers around you then you have no proof of being a match to them. >And the Dutch consolidation of Java came in the 19th century. >The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France´
The Dutch were in Batavia in the early 17th century. >The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France´
You are right, it would be insane for a East Javan based state to project power in Malaya, that has never happened in history
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I did respond, if you are unable to contest the naval powers around you then you have no proof of being a match to them.
Am I talking to a chatbot? >Batavia
It was a glorified warehouse for most of its existence, attacked by a Central Javanese state whose soldiers revolted. >It would be insane for as East Javan based state to project power in Malaya
Seeing as that state was in decline due to internal troubles, and didn't stand to gain as much from the endeavor as a group operating under a monopolistic charter, trying to reach China, yes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Am I talking to a chatbot?
So you will just ignore what I say and insult me. >It was a glorified warehouse for most of its existence,
A glorified warehouse your pet East Javanese state failed to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Batavia >Seeing as that state was in decline due to internal troubles, and didn't stand to gain as much from the endeavor as a group operating under a monopolistic charter, trying to reach China, yes.
BTW the Mataram Sultanate itself was being conquered by the Dutch in the late 17th centurym, with most of the island being under them by 1760. But sure it only happened in the 19th century.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Navigational tech, yes. Actual naval architecture remained even until the invention of the steamboat, with Bengali developments bleeding into European designs at least until Plassey.
So how did Europeans manage to get concessions in naval warfare prior to then?
2 months ago
Anonymous
By fighting and winning wars. Conflicts aren't always won through technological advances. Malacca was a gamble, as was most of anything the Dutch and Portuguese did. We just hear about the times those gambles paid off.
>They were ahead of Europe until then
Based on what?
General technology. Han dynasty seed drills and ploughs gave them significantly higher ox and manpower efficiency in agriculture than was enjoyed in Europe until Jethro Tull created his own in the 18th century. The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
Compasses, water mills, escapement mechanisms, guns, and woven paper all come from China also. These spread westward. Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe, Marathas introduced the British to rocket artillery, the Chinese walls were damn near impossible to breach with cannon (even going into the 20th century), and many Asian states were very well able to fend off Europeans if sincere attempts to conquer them were made. Bengal in particular just set off a chain reaction.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>muh luck
This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans. >Han dynasty seed drills and ploughs gave them significantly higher ox and manpower efficiency in agriculture than was enjoyed in Europe until Jethro Tull created his own in the 18th century.
Did everyone else but the Chinese have that? >The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
Did they use it as much as Europeans did in 1500? Otherwise you could bring up random inventions made by Romans that fell in disuse. >Compasses, water mills, escapement mechanisms, guns, and woven paper all come from China also. These spread westward.
Again, notice how it's only China and Europeans had guns by 1400, so 1600 as a date is dumb. >Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe,
Source? >Marathas introduced the British to rocket artillery,
Meme invention >he Chinese walls were damn near impossible to breach with cannon
Not resource efficient >and many Asian states were very well able to fend off Europeans if sincere attempts to conquer them were made.
Why yes, of course winning when your enemy has to move troops over large stretches of land or water makes you superior, what a fricking moronic argument. >Bengal in particular just set off a chain reaction.
Again, "muh luck" is not an argument when you have to use for every single place Europeans conquered or surpassed. The Brits were evidently industrializing before Plassey, London was one of the top 5 cities in the world already in 1700.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Luck
No one said this. I said we just don't hear about the failures. >Odds stacked against the Europeans
Almost never the case. Allies just aren't included in the story because they lessen the glory, and the guy telling it often counts enemy irregulars as though they were real troops. >Did everyone else but the Chinese have that?
Everyone between Egypt and China, save Central Asians and SEA. >Did they use it as much as the Europeans in 1500?
By far, and long before then. Manuscripts were widespread throughout the country, and books of all types dotted China like nothing else by the Song dynasty. It was enough to warrant regular purges and censorship throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties. >Again, notice how it's only China
China is the origin of many of these inventions. They diffused throughout Asia, along the Silk Road centuries before reaching Europe. >Ottoman military organization source
Don't have it. Just remember reading about the impression made on Eastern European states during its wars with the Habsburgs. >Meme invention
The Brits didn't seem to think so, especially since they immediately adopted it for use in their own navy (Congreve), and it still survives today in the form of MIRV and rocket heli platforms. >Not resource-efficient
If it resists artillery and defends a massive city for millennia after its construction, it's a good investment. >Winning when your enemy has to move troops over large stretches of land or water
Not how Euros fought wars abroad. They worked with local allies in almost every case. >Muh luck
Bengal, the starting point for the Indian conquest, and the primary economic engine powering the UK, was won because a local monarch physically humiliated a major banker and threatened everyone in his court. Euro conquests weren't just "luck" so much as studied opportunism, like most conquests in the world, or will you tell me about how the Manchus conquered China with their innate superiority?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>No one said this. I said we just don't hear about the failures.
If you say they just won more gambles than they lost, you are invoking luck. Otherwise how do you explain the fact that they did end up staying in Indonesia and India for centuries? >Allies just aren't included in the story because they lessen the glory, and the guy telling it often counts enemy irregulars as though they were real troops.
Yes fighting thousands of kms away from your land is not a disadvantage. >Everyone between Egypt and China, save Central Asians and SEA.
Source? >By far, and long before then. Manuscripts were widespread throughout the country, and books of all types dotted China like nothing else by the Song dynasty. It was enough to warrant regular purges and censorship throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Source? Show me evidence that Chinese literacy was higher than European in 1500. >China is the origin of many of these inventions. They diffused throughout Asia, along the Silk Road centuries before reaching Europe.
And most were in Europe already by 1600, rendering your argument wrong. >The Brits didn't seem to think so, especially since they immediately adopted it for use in their own navy (Congreve), and it still survives today in the form of MIRV and rocket heli platforms.
Yes the Brits made it actually useful. >If it resists artillery and defends a massive city for millennia after its construction, it's a good investment.
Star forts were pretty good too and you could build them without having a gigantic population as a mere city. >Not how Euros fought wars abroad. They worked with local allies in almost every case.
Yeah magically there is just enough dick-suckers everywhee that Europeans can convince them to lose their independence to Europeans for their advantage, perfectly logical.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Also >Bengal, the starting point for the conquest, and the economic engine powering the UK,
No, Britain was evidently prosperous before then, this is not up to debate we can clearly see that the pattern of inventions and growth didn't change AT ALL.
Are you the type of person that gets made when people mention every historical figure likely had diarrhea at least once?[...] >This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans.
You need to use the continent as a whole exactly because the countries that got really lucky early were incapable of keeping those streaks in the long term. fortuna and very little virtù.
>You need to use the continent as a whole exactly because the countries that got really lucky early were incapable of keeping those streaks in the long term. fortuna and very little virtù.
If you unironically use luck as an argument you have no actual explanation and are merely coping.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Luck is a factor in strategy and victory. That is just how nature works.
The vast majority of nations and peoples would succeed were they on the shoes of the Spanish arriving in mesoamerica and the vast majority of nations and peoples would fail were they on the shoes of the Inca about to lose 90% of the population and their entire royal bloodline to eight thousands years worth of old world illnesses.
Idk why the term triggered you so much.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The vast majority of nations and peoples would succeed were they on the shoes of the Spanish arriving in mesoamerica and the vast majority of nations and peoples would fail were they on the shoes of the Inca about to lose 90% of the population and their entire royal bloodline to eight thousands years worth of old world illnesses.
This is not luck, this is unchangeable circumstances.
You are using luck in a dumb way, otherwise everything from geography to the result of everything that has to do with people is luck.
But geography is not luck. >about to lose 90% of the population
The Spanish conquered the Aztecs before most of the deaths happened, so that argument is as valid as saying the Ottomans conquered the Balkans because of the earthquake in 1354 and the Black death
2 months ago
Anonymous
It is completely valid to say Arab conquests wouldn't have happened was not for climate frick ups causing famines followed by successive massive plagues. Don't know much about the Ottoman context.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The late antique ice age wasn't a stochastic event AFAIK, so it's a given just like geography.
Geographical determinism =/= luck
2 months ago
Anonymous
>No, Britain was evidently prosperous before then
Yes, and then it got the world's single most potent economic booster strapped to it when it gained control of Bengal.
Why does every PDX argument have to be such a shitshow?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Funny how these technological and economic boosters only work when Europeans are in charge
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes, and then it got the world's single most potent economic booster strapped to it when it gained control of Bengal.
Surely there must be something you can show to make 1756 look like a watershed year/moment, but to me looking at the history of London's populaiton, usage of coal even before the steam engine, the invention of the steam engine itself, the agricultural revolution, the scientific revolution, the fact Britan was even able to project power in India to conquer large portions of it and so on tell me it was not a watershed moment for Britain itself, only for India.
2 months ago
Anonymous
why was the mughal empire such a shithole then despite having the riches of mighty bengal in its possesions?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If you say they just won more gambles than they lost
Didn't say that. >fighting thousands of kms away from your land is not a disadvantage
And fighting alongside your enemy's rivals must not be an advantage, then. >Source?
For the diffusion of a tool made in both Babylon and China throughout the Silk Road? Check the Wikipedia page's Cambridge link regarding India and have fun. >Source? Show me that Chinese literacy was higher than European in 1500 >Dig through a miscellaneous stat for some 40-odd states in a specific time period so I can dismiss it since it doesn't support my wank
Go frick yourself. >And most were in Europe already by 1600, proving your argument wrong
How does the 17th-century presence of a 5th century Chinese invention in Europe provide there was no diffusion in the meantime? >Yes the Brits actually made it useful
They just renamed the Maratha weapon. >Star forts were pretty good too
Very cool, but thousands of years late. >Yeah magically there is just enough dick-suckers everywhee that Europeans can convince them to lose their independence to Europeans for their advantage
Do you think everytime a European state won a battle in some area, that it became suzerain over every neighboring state? They got a port or two, and the other state got a ton of land and a new trading partner. You're confusing 19th-century expansion with prior meddling in distant conflicts for small benefits. Look at the Portuguese empire in Asia to see what that looked like.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>And fighting alongside your enemy's rivals must not be an advantage, then.
Having allies only alleviates the issue, it doesn't explain why Europeans had the ability to take over regions not as "allies" or "trading partners" but as colonial overlords. >For the diffusion of a tool made in both Babylon and China throughout the Silk Road? Check the Wikipedia page's Cambridge link regarding India and have fun.
The only mention of seed drills in India is that they were in the Mughal Empire when they were independently invented in Europe already and as far as I know the seed drills invented in Europe in the 18th century were more advanced already. >How does the 17th-century presence of a 5th century Chinese invention in Europe provide there was no diffusion in the meantime?
You said "they were more advanced before then" referring the 1600 date, but you are using anachronistic examples to support that. >They just renamed the Maratha weapon.
Source? >Very cool, but thousands of years late.
Yes because the Chinese had those forts in the 6th century to... defend against catapults? What the frick are you talking about? >Do you think everytime a European state won a battle in some area, that it became suzerain over every neighboring state?
But it did become so within a few generations. >You're confusing 19th-century expansion
You are ignore the extent of European control as early as the 17th century. >Portuguese empire in Asia to see what that looked like.
They conquered most of Timor and surrounding islands in the same generation they arrived and declined mostly because of the Iberian union and the Dutch taking over.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>1700 comes before 1600
kys
This won't end, so I'll find something else to do. Paradrones are a pestilence all on their own.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>This won't end, so I'll find something else to do. Paradrones are a pestilence all on their own.
China having guns and cast iron before the Europeans means they were superior in 1500 as was India, this is literally YOUR argument
2 months ago
Anonymous
Learn to read. I said they were technologically ahead.
And no, Mataram wasn't East Javan. It took Surabaya between those sieges, but their second attempt was ruined by an organizational issue. Had it succeeded, we wouldn't be here, talking about Batavia.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I said they were technologically ahead.
Yes they were technologically ahead becuase of things the European adopted centuries prior, perfect logic.
You are a fricking hypocritie critizing others for stuff you did to begin with. >Had it succeeded
Yeah if >And no, Mataram wasn't East Javan.
Damn so you were talking about a miniscule irrelevant part of Java having good ships, damn this means all of Indonesia and the Malay Archipelago was on par!
2 months ago
Anonymous
>17 comes before 5
Again, kys >"Every mention of technological capacity in a discussion about technology must be uniformly distributed across multiple countries"
I can't wait to see the Polish First-rates and Irish Armada!
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes the Indians and Middle Easterners were more advanced than the Europeans before 1600 because China invented guns and paper and had big walls.
Your argument would have worked if you said "before 1400" but even that would have hardly been valid as most inventions that reached the middle east quickly spread to Europe.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes the Indians and Middle Easterners were more advanced than the Europeans before 1600 because China invented guns and paper and had big walls.
I mentioned the rocket technology of India and you couldn't decide whether they were a "meme weapon" or a viable mainstay of gunpowder-driven warfare. Flush decks were only adopted late in the period by Europeans, Rammed Earth walls did a better job of resisting cannonfire than Euro forts (even Star forts, yes), and multiple of Europe's period-defining inventions had many centuries of precedence and use by the time Europe got involved.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I mentioned the rocket technology of India and you couldn't decide whether they were a "meme weapon" or a viable mainstay of gunpowder-driven warfare.
You claimed the British just "renamed" the rockets with no proof when every source says they were designed by a British guy based on the pre-existing rockets, not "renamed" >Rammed Earth walls did a better job of resisting cannonfire than Euro forts
Rammed forts were not made to resist cannon fire because cannon fire didn't exist, so this is a stupid argument and why I mentioned they were not cost effective. >and multiple of Europe's period-defining inventions had many centuries of precedence and use by the time Europe got involved.
Such as?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Rammed forts
*Chinese-style walls >didn't exist
*when they were made
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You claimed the British just "renamed" the rockets with no proof when every source says they were designed by a British guy based on the pre-existing rockets, not "renamed"
Congreve just made large ones that traveled farther than contemporary European rockets, based on the Indian design. >Rammed forts were not made to resist cannon fire
Utterly irrelevant. When cannons were eventually invented, rammed earth defenses held up where traditional stoneworks didn't. Being invented to withstand a different kind of attack before the new threat existed has no bearing here. >Such as?
Stock-joint companies, paper currencies, the aforementioned seed drills, and movable type.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>than contemporary European rockets >When cannons were eventually invented, rammed earth defenses held up where traditional stoneworks didn't. Being invented to withstand a different kind of attack before the new threat existed has no bearing here.
Chinese walls being so thick went beyond usefulness against pre-gunpowder artillery, it was an accident that they resisted artillery and clearly didn't do the Chinese much good against the Manchus or Mongols.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Chinese walls being so thick went beyond usefulness against pre-gunpowder artillery,
It's a long-term defensive investment. Managing to future-proof to such a degree that even a revolution in weapons technology can't change its role or effectiveness is good. >Mongols
They exploited the logistical weakness of the structure, which just comes down to hunger. The walls served their purpose in making that the only viable approach. >Manchus
They were invited in, and became the only legitimate government before the effectiveness of the walls could come into play.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It's a long-term defensive investment. Managing to future-proof to such a degree that even a revolution in weapons technology can't change its role or effectiveness is good. >future-proof
This is an insane claim that I can't take seriously, the Chinese built X and X just happens to make artillery not a feasible means to breach it, that's it. There is no intentionality here. >They exploited the logistical weakness of the structure, which just comes down to hunger. The walls served their purpose in making that the only viable approach.
If this viable approach works even for a numerically and economically inferior enemy, then that's not a good thing. >before the effectiveness of the walls could come into play.
What an amazing investment
2 months ago
Anonymous
The intention is to make a wall that can protect a settlement. Cannons are ultimately siege engines in line with catapults or trebuchets, just with greater ability to concentrate force on a target. The intention is the same as before, and the means are the same as before. It's just a better tool. >If this viable approach works even for a numerically and economically inferior enemy, then that's not a good thing
True, but the walls exist to prevent attacks and buy time. They did that wonderfully. The people inside being unable to survive the siege because they ran out of food is a separate issue and proof that the walls did their job. >What an amazing investment
This just in: Walls won't protect your city from changes in throne politics and the rapid assimilation of the bureaucracy into the new government.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nevermind, your entire fricking point is moronic and wrong, quitoing "The world of the siege", page 244: >As a result, Chinese focused on making smaller guns until at least the midsixteenth century. Thereafter, however, practices on both sides of the Eurasian supercontinent began to converge. In the early 1500s, people in East Asia began adopting and adapting European guns of all types and sizes, and in China this process has been referred to as Sino-Western fusion or hybridization, reflecting the fact that new designs were nativized and melded with traditional Chinese guns.3 Chinese military adoption and innovation sped up still further in the 1600s, especially between 1620 and 1683, when massive wars convulsed continental East Asia. During this period, armies in China were increasingly equipped with siege artillery. These cannons, known in China as “red barbarian cannon” (紅夷炮), after the hair color of the Dutch and English who brought them to China’s shores, were unprecedentedly effective, even against the thick walls of China.4 Indeed, it is quite intriguing that the trace italienne walls that stimulated the development of seventeenth-century European siege artillery were in many ways quite similar to the traditional walls of China: thick, earthen-cored, sloped.
Muh invincible and unique thick walls
(more)
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yet the trace italienne was not just effective because of its thick walls. It was designed from the ground up as a gun fortress, with geometrical principles of defense that included the angled bastion and a variety of ingenious outworks. >It stimulated not just the development of powerful siege artillery, but also a series of innovations in siegecraft, including advances in siegeworks and counter-siegeworks, in trench warfare, in logistics, and in siege tactics and planning. >By the mid- to late-1600s, these practices were so refined and systematized that a well-planned and well-provisioned siege could quickly and straightforwardly reduce the most powerful trace italienne fortifications.5 Perhaps guns and fortresses are the most significant aspects of the military revolution, but siegecraft itself was far from trivial. >To what extent did East Asian warmakers import – or develop – Westernstyle fortification and siegecraft? Although research on this topic is in its infancy, it does seem that Europeans maintained an advantage. Recent work shows that although many Chinese did indeed adopt trace-italienne designs, those designs did not spread widely. Moreover, by examining seventeenth-century sieges in which the forces of China attacked Western artillery fortresses, we can infer that when it came to siegecraft, the armed forces of China werlless effective than those of Europe, at least when they had to grapple with trace italienne-style defenses.
What you can just build something monumental and have it be as effective as something that implements and uses the latest technology in its design? This is insane!
2 months ago
Anonymous
*you can't just build
2 months ago
Anonymous
Oh btw, despite the supposed amazingness of Chinese forts, you know that Chinese generals struggled to breach western forts even using western artillery such as the siege of Fort Zeelandia in 1661 or the Qing in 1685 Albazin?
Maybe things are not as simple as "thick walls = good"
2 months ago
Anonymous
A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months. That's really not saying much.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months. That's really not saying much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Albazin#Siege_of_1686
Also this is the siege I was referring to, when the actual fort was built in a year.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Stock-joint companies, paper currencies, the aforementioned seed drills, and movable type.
The difference is that the Europeans either independently invented or adopted these things and used them more extensively.
I also have no clue why people think 2nd century BCE Han seed drills were equivalent to what the Brits or even Italians invented in the early modern period, this seems like a simplicistic understanding to me. The Han Chinese didn't even invent THE seed drills but a version of them as seed drills existed prior in the middle East(which means the middle East was more advanced than China given apparently seed drills are sooo important) >paper currencies
BTW promissory notes existed in Europe not far after they appeared in China and apparently independently developed: >According to a travelogue of a visit to Prague in 960 by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub, small pieces of cloth were used as a means of trade, with these cloths having a set exchange rate versus silver.[24]
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The difference is that the Europeans either independently invented or adopted these things and used them more extensively
You don't get credit for "independently" inventing something you've seen people use, or for using someone else's design. This conversation is about technological limits. The Great Divergence didn't start in 1600.
And the Han seed drills operate using the same principle as the British ones. The difference came in the way the industrial revolution expanded their use. >Promissory notes
This seems more like a proof-of-concept that didn't work its way into the economic structures of many states until later.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The Great Divergence didn't start in 1600.
Yes, yes it did and it started even earlier by 1500 >And the Han seed drills operate using the same principle as the British ones. The difference came in the way the industrial revolution expanded their use.
I need a source for that, I don't take simplcisitic claims that lack any actual factual evidence at face value, especially not when used like this. >This seems more like a proof-of-concept that didn't work its way into the economic structures of many states until later.
Something people use is not a "proof of concept", also using this logic any technology oyu mention that didn't see provable widespread and continuous use for centuries wouldn't count either. That raises the standard of evdience which you fail to reach by just mentioning "this existed here in this year"
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm pretty sure you're not the other guy. Are you the dim one? >1500
Ah.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>inventing something you've seen people use, or for using someone else's design.
There is also no proof that Guthenberg new of movable types or the Czechs new of Tang paper money or that the Europeans knew of Tang and Song stock-companies.
Independently developed is the correct term for these inventions.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The term doesn't matter. The principle does. If the Asante empire independently invented spring-tension systems in 1820 AD, would it matter at all?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The term doesn't matter.
It clearly does to you, I only mentioned it for accuracy, it didn't factor in my argument at all. >A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months.
From what I read the Chinese had difficulties breaching both cities. >That's really not saying much.
The Brits breached walls of Canton during the 2nd Opium wars... it's not like we have tons of example of western artillery vs Chiense walls, your argument is rather wishy-washy and not based on empirical data.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It clearly does to you,
I said one won't get credit for it. >From what I read, the Chinese had difficulties sieging both cities. >The Brits breached the walls of Canton during the 2nd Opium wars...
They scaled the walls. They didn't breach them.
>Yet the trace italienne was not just effective because of its thick walls. It was designed from the ground up as a gun fortress, with geometrical principles of defense that included the angled bastion and a variety of ingenious outworks. >It stimulated not just the development of powerful siege artillery, but also a series of innovations in siegecraft, including advances in siegeworks and counter-siegeworks, in trench warfare, in logistics, and in siege tactics and planning. >By the mid- to late-1600s, these practices were so refined and systematized that a well-planned and well-provisioned siege could quickly and straightforwardly reduce the most powerful trace italienne fortifications.5 Perhaps guns and fortresses are the most significant aspects of the military revolution, but siegecraft itself was far from trivial. >To what extent did East Asian warmakers import – or develop – Westernstyle fortification and siegecraft? Although research on this topic is in its infancy, it does seem that Europeans maintained an advantage. Recent work shows that although many Chinese did indeed adopt trace-italienne designs, those designs did not spread widely. Moreover, by examining seventeenth-century sieges in which the forces of China attacked Western artillery fortresses, we can infer that when it came to siegecraft, the armed forces of China werlless effective than those of Europe, at least when they had to grapple with trace italienne-style defenses.
What you can just build something monumental and have it be as effective as something that implements and uses the latest technology in its design? This is insane!
This is the first I'm hearing of this, but I'll accept it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why can't third worldists avoid being disingenuous
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Again, notice how it's only China and Europeans had guns by 1400, so 1600 as a date is dumb.
Arabs and Turks had guns too.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know why I wrote that, my point was that Europeans already had guns by then
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe,
Source?
There's battle of mohac, where janissaries employed the battlefield tactic of volley fire, janissaries were also probably one of the first military units to employ standardized uniforms and military bands to boost morale. Ottoman sappers were also highly professional for its time
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
this is enough to not even bother with the rest of your posts
2 months ago
Anonymous
water wheel mills were in use by the Romans tho
2 months ago
Anonymous
First invented in China and transmitted to Greece as a result of Alexander's conquests. You can guess what followed.
2 months ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermill#Western_world
You mean this?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just above that section.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't say it was invented in China?
2 months ago
Anonymous
There's a separate "Water Wheel" page.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>They were ahead of Europe until then
Based on what?
2 months ago
Anonymous
well done derailing the thread
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5?
People who started playing PDS games after CK2 came out really should stop commenting on them
2 months ago
Anonymous
If mana was solely used for ideas it'd no longer be mana, it'd just be idea points. The problem is that you use the same resource for half the inputs in the game so hiring an admiral or converting cultures or annexing your vassal or developing a province or running too many alliance somehow all have an impact you being able to unlock a colonist.
Don't forget the context for this statement. He said "the game does not have mana" and said in that chart what he considers to be "mana" is the "Diegetic Purist" category. So presumably what he's saying is that he considers stuff like Monarch Power and Suppression Points to be mana, and is saying that he is not including those in this game.
I am assuming he is not including "Time" in that statement since its a joke answer.
So abstract local capacities, i.e. development and control like in ck3, and centralisation/autonomy,
unrest and suppression like in eu4
>17 comes before 5
Again, kys >"Every mention of technological capacity in a discussion about technology must be uniformly distributed across multiple countries"
I can't wait to see the Polish First-rates and Irish Armada!
Can't wait to see the Croatian Cavalry and Sicilian Longbowmen. I hope Techgroups wither and die, and You can get units based on climate and geography on local level instead of national one.
>Can't wait to see the Croatian Cavalry and Sicilian Longbowmen. I hope Techgroups wither and die, and You can get units based on climate and geography on local level instead of national one.
Tech trees would make sense IMO and the diffusion of technology should be geographical.
There would be a chance an invention appears anywhere, favouring places where incentivizes exist and then you can adopt it by deliberate action or passively
Why? Why should mountain fricking people have access to cavarly. Why should places where wood is scarce or there's little to no game have any good bowmen?
Why should Mameluks after being exiled to Australia still use the same weapons when they have no capability to produce them anymore?
>Why should Mameluks after being exiled to Australia still use the same weapons when they have no capability to produce them anymore?
I would hope this is simulated rather than arbitrarily decided, units should cost goods and if you don't have them you can't reinforce or produce them.
that map projection sucks, a solid 10% of the map is taken up by completely useless african wasteland provinces for no reason other than to appease gays that won't even play the game to begin with
>to appease gays that won't even play the game to begin with
HoI4, EU4, and CK3 are some of the most popular games on steam, map games expanded beyond the community of basement dwelling reactionaries years ago.
>blah blah blah equity, assets, capitalized development
Okay.
>Revenues amounted to MSEK 2,642.1 (MSEK 1.972.9), an increase by 34 % compared to the
same period last year. >Operating profit amounted to MSEK 657.9 (MSEK 887.1), a decrease by 26 %. Write-downs of MSEK
185.4 (MSEK 0.0) are included in the operating profit. >Profit after financial items amounted to MSEK 687.7 (MSEK 884.4), and profit after tax amounted to MSEK 530.6 (MSEK 708.7).
So revenues are up, costs are down, but somehow profit dropped compared to last year.
According to paradox forum historians supply was all about looting food from the countryside until the modern period
no serious campaign, such as a siege, could be sustainable with compromised supply lines
foraging would be supplemental and eventually the army would have consumed everything in the vicinity even if their enemy didn't employ scorched earth tactics
for short term expeditions maybe
in any gunpowder setting, you also need supply lines to ensure your gunners and artillery have ammunition because gunpowder and bullets cannot be foraged
paradox forums are full of morons who learn their history from paradox game mechanics and feel the need to lectures others on history thanks to their qualification
game has no naval warfare? akshually naval battles didn't happen back then
game supply system is just a value of the maximum number of troops you can station somewhere? akshually supply lines didn't exist back then
game allows you to teleport troops and walk over oceans? aksually this is an abstraction of levies travelling around and commissioning merchant fleets
etc
paradox enables this homosexualry with shilling operations like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GLg5H63_I
entire video is an advertisement for CK3 (and why the lack of navies is acceptable) disguised as a documentary on medieval navies
Are you the type of person that gets made when people mention every historical figure likely had diarrhea at least once?
>muh luck
This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans. >Han dynasty seed drills and ploughs gave them significantly higher ox and manpower efficiency in agriculture than was enjoyed in Europe until Jethro Tull created his own in the 18th century.
Did everyone else but the Chinese have that? >The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
Did they use it as much as Europeans did in 1500? Otherwise you could bring up random inventions made by Romans that fell in disuse. >Compasses, water mills, escapement mechanisms, guns, and woven paper all come from China also. These spread westward.
Again, notice how it's only China and Europeans had guns by 1400, so 1600 as a date is dumb. >Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe,
Source? >Marathas introduced the British to rocket artillery,
Meme invention >he Chinese walls were damn near impossible to breach with cannon
Not resource efficient >and many Asian states were very well able to fend off Europeans if sincere attempts to conquer them were made.
Why yes, of course winning when your enemy has to move troops over large stretches of land or water makes you superior, what a fricking moronic argument. >Bengal in particular just set off a chain reaction.
Again, "muh luck" is not an argument when you have to use for every single place Europeans conquered or surpassed. The Brits were evidently industrializing before Plassey, London was one of the top 5 cities in the world already in 1700.
>This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans.
You need to use the continent as a whole exactly because the countries that got really lucky early were incapable of keeping those streaks in the long term. fortuna and very little virtù.
>paradox enables this homosexualry with shilling operations
I didn't see the video you linked, but there was another video I've seen that was also a CK3 promo thinly veiled as a """history""" video that said there wasn't naval warfare. It's very easy to assume that that's just how things were done if your entire exposure to medieval history is Crusader Kings and watching poorly researched YouTube videos. Any amount of reading about naval warfare at that time yields "most nations didn't have dedicated navies... BUT", but somehow this translated into videos going "nations didn't have dedicated navies, be sure to check out the walking on water simulator CK3". Gamers need to understand that a video game based on history will usually forego some historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay because in most cases you just have to do that so that your game can actually ship at some point, but instead most gamers playing these GSG's are glue-eating morons that think everything in these games should be accepted at face value as historical fact.
We know its not Vic War, Mana, or something related to Start Dates. So its something else.
I'm betting its related to pops, the whole point of this "Tinto Talk" stuff is for people to discuss ideas about the game, so establishing whether something like PoPs is even included is probably important.
For what its worth Johan has not made any direct statements on PoPs being in so far, but he has defended criticisms against them. Mainly about dismissing performance concerns, basically stating that the reason Vic3's performance is shit is because of how the data is used, not the data itself. Which makes me think he's pro-pops in theory, but we'll see.
Could be something entirely unrelated.
>Project Caesar
Clearly Imperator 2
[...] >which is why we went with the Gall Stereographic projection
Usually I find the discussion over the mercator projection to be quite shallow and full of misconceptions, centered about >muh evil colonialism
But this time there's a practical concern about it: for a game that has a heavy focus on Europe, not using mercator is an dumb thing. Look at this fricking image, say you are playing in sweden, which *was* a relevant empire on EU's timespan, you look at your capital and it's fricking tiny and hard to differentiate among the other locations/provinces/whatever, while some place in Africa inhabited by an irrelevant tribe gets to be fricking huge
And, for having games centered around painting maps, Paradox still can't make a fricking globe
Johan dismissed globes as he said they're bad for not being able to get a full picture at once and not necessary in his eyes.
I would like minority cultures in EU5 but I don't particularly care about pops and always found the pop management or Stellaris and Imperator to be boring
Not true, you can have deep mechanics and exclusive mechanics to certain regions which facilitate different play styles. Also the region you are in and the way the game develops determines expansion paths you can take. What is the point in playing Hungary a second time when you completed their entire mission tree and achievements the first time round? All you will be doing is trying to execute the tree and snipe Naples and Burgundy in a more efficient manner.
I don't mind perma claims if they are within reason or missions that push you towards a certain goal, but mission trees which give you 5 PU's are absolutely ridiculous and destroy any variation for the first 100 years.
>To learn more about Chinese siegecraft and fortification, we must turn to other conflicts in and around China, particularly the warfare of the mid-1600s,
when the massive muzzle-loading guns that the Chinese knew as “red barbarian cannons” (紅夷炮) spread rapidly through China, first to Ming forces and then to their enemies, the Qing.61 Starting in the 1620s, these cannons allowed the systematic breaching of China’s thick walls. China’s historical sources are so rich that, as scholars explore them, we will likely have cause to reconsider our understanding of Chinese siegecraft during this pivotal period. Similarly, we also still know little about other seminal periods in Chinese military history, as for example the mid-1500s, when designs for powerful muzzle-loading artillery were adopted from the Portuguese (in contrast to the earlier Chinese adoption of the breach-loading folangji), and the 1670s, when the formative but understudied War of the Three Feudatories shook the newly-established Qing Dynasty to its foundation.6
In 1500 European guns couldn't breach Chinese walls(likely) but by the 17th century they were.
Europe became dominant because of Christianity, having a sort of mandate of heaven to conquer the world at a certain period. When will games simulate this?
> Christianity, having a sort of mandate of heaven to conquer the world at a certain period
Islam had and has that, but where are you getting the idea that Christianity does
Are you just looking to argue? You said something moronic, he BTFO’d you, then you just switched to a whole new topic without even acknowledging the original point. You ok big guy?
2 months ago
Anonymous
kek what a homosexual
being this mentally stunted is the bare minimum to be an imperatorbab
So, you have Rome, Carthage, and few Hellenic states, that's it. Everyone else is a generic tribe that is either completely made up or existing 500 ahead of them, based on tribes we know very little of.
These tribes exist just to be conquered and feel the same, they are not fun.
They should have just gone full liberties, nobody knows what political organization in British Isles was in 300 BC, but it's extremely unlikely it was the same as 70 AD when the Romans invaded, which is what the game depicts.
So, why not just go full fiction with it? Instead of British Isles having 1000 OPMS, just make 3-6 nations Britons, Gaels, and Goidelics, you can justify it by saying these are loose tribal confederations. That alone would allow players to LARP as pro-England, and add character to the game.
As in EU4 they would go full fiction with irrelevant nations with DLCs.
They just didn't have the time.
Or do you expect a paradox game with flavor for nations at release for free?
LOL!
It's not so much that there weren't interesting states in that period but rather we know almost nothing about them. There is very little written evidence for almost anything except Rome. Even in the Hellenic world we know very very little about most places, Egypt being the exception due to the climate being better for preserving stuff.
For example, we have no written works by Carhaginians. Our written sources are all Greeks or Romans writing about Carthage, sometimes centuries later. As I recall the only contemporary account by a person who actually visited Carthage in the Imperator Rome period is by Polybius,. And he didn't write a lot.
Contrast this to the vast sum of written evidence we have from the early modern period of EU4.
For me, this is why Imperator failed. It's hard to make a history themed game about a period for which we know almost no history. Most of the events and characters are little more than fantasy.
Not that it ahs to be historic, fantasy mods like Annebar have demonstrated that fantasy can be of interest. It's just with Imperator, they just refused to fill the holes left by lack of knowledge.
>Mercenaries being I win button?
I remember hiring literally 500K mercenaries final battles, it was fun.
Yup, they didn't lean into the historical-fantasy enough. It was actually TOO historical.
Even the marketing for the game was pretty drab and boring. They should've taken a page from Total War on the themes, lean into the screaming painted barbarians and legionnaires in testudos and elephants and chariots and other iconic stuff. Not unpainted statues standing still. In-game it's like this too, the UI on release was all marble-white and sterile, the characters all have neutral expressions, the map is a bunch of inscrutable multicolored blobs. There's no big bombastic events with music cues like CK3, no massive war to build up to like HoI/Vic2/EU4/CK, no grand ideological conflicts or religious crusades to create drama. It's just kinda boring.
Another issue with the time period is, none of the famous Roman characters are around at the start date, and after that it's all procedural slop. There's no Julius Caesar or any of his contemporaries, no Octavian or Marc Antony etc. Even much much earlier characters like Hannibal and Scipio, nope - you might get a "Hannibal Barcid" but it's not actually Hannibal Barca. You can't tell the story of Rome (the story, not necessarily the most accurate history, but the "traditional history") without its key players. It's like trying to make a RoTK game starting at the Red Eyebrows rebellion, or a Sengoku game starting at the nanboku-cho period. By the time anyone relevant shows up the entire situation is way off the rails.
>Imperator failed because the time period
What kind of cope is this?
The game was unfinished.
Leaks confirm this as they wanted to sustain it as a live service game.
Don't you remember the original UI?
The culture/religion conversion clusterfrick?
Mercenaries being I win button?
Many people wanted to play it due to the time period.
They wanted to play it because of the time period, but they used the time period the wrong way imo. The game being kinda shit is a separate issue, no matter how much they fixed it after launch it'd always be fundamentally flawed as a concept. it's a Rome game that ends before the Roman Empire. It's EU4 but the map is full of flavorless custom nations. It's a game that tracks characters, but you don't play as them and they barely serve any purpose.
I think the lack of real history from that period is still a problem. The pop history stuff you mention reveals the problem: there is Rome and Carthage and the Gauls sure, but what after that?
What it the Lubeck of the classical period, what did they wear and what did they do? Where is the Port Royale? Who are the Portuguese or the Ottomans or the Byzantines?
I think there are answers to all of these things (Tartessos, Cilicia, Massilia, any steppe nomad, Persians by my reckoning) but we don't have any of the historical fluff for these places that would make them fun to play - and unlike Rome or Greece or Gaul, Hollywood hasn't provided this for us yet.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yup, they didn't lean into the historical-fantasy enough. It was actually TOO historical.
Even the marketing for the game was pretty drab and boring. They should've taken a page from Total War on the themes, lean into the screaming painted barbarians and legionnaires in testudos and elephants and chariots and other iconic stuff. Not unpainted statues standing still. In-game it's like this too, the UI on release was all marble-white and sterile, the characters all have neutral expressions, the map is a bunch of inscrutable multicolored blobs. There's no big bombastic events with music cues like CK3, no massive war to build up to like HoI/Vic2/EU4/CK, no grand ideological conflicts or religious crusades to create drama. It's just kinda boring.
Another issue with the time period is, none of the famous Roman characters are around at the start date, and after that it's all procedural slop. There's no Julius Caesar or any of his contemporaries, no Octavian or Marc Antony etc. Even much much earlier characters like Hannibal and Scipio, nope - you might get a "Hannibal Barcid" but it's not actually Hannibal Barca. You can't tell the story of Rome (the story, not necessarily the most accurate history, but the "traditional history") without its key players. It's like trying to make a RoTK game starting at the Red Eyebrows rebellion, or a Sengoku game starting at the nanboku-cho period. By the time anyone relevant shows up the entire situation is way off the rails.
[...]
They wanted to play it because of the time period, but they used the time period the wrong way imo. The game being kinda shit is a separate issue, no matter how much they fixed it after launch it'd always be fundamentally flawed as a concept. it's a Rome game that ends before the Roman Empire. It's EU4 but the map is full of flavorless custom nations. It's a game that tracks characters, but you don't play as them and they barely serve any purpose.
By hollywood/pop culture argument, eu4 should be the least popular game because of its period.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Dont need that because most of the countries on the map in EU4 have modern day equivalents, and others like the native Americans are well known
Meanwhile most tags in IR are literal who made up tribes
The Rome time period is just much better suited to a total war type game
2 months ago
Anonymous
Huh? There's tons of hollywood shit in there. The pirate fantasy, the crusader fantasy (even if it's a bit anachronistic), colonial stuff, conquistador fantasy, samurai fantasy, oriental fantasy, "noble savage"-type native american fantasy, mesoamerican stuff ripped out of apocalypto...
Half of the flavor in that game is based on pop culture tropes. Like Scotland having a buff event based on Braveheart because one of the early devs was scottish. Or Afghanistan having a "graveyard of empires" theme when that originated from British embarrassment in the 19th century. Or the Russian ideas are centered around having a giant army when that only became a trope associated with Russia in the 19th century and later in the world wars. Honestly EU4 is more "hollywood" than any other Paradox game, drop a pin anywhere on the map and you'll probably find themes ripped from pop culture. Which is fun and something you can't do in Imperator because they made it too boring
because paradox wanted to kill off Imperator, if paradogs wanted you to think it's salvageable they would shill it just like how they're shilling even a bigger disaster that's a worse game than I:R like Victoria 3,
We need two types of rebellion systems I reckon. One that represents guerilla warfare or small local rebels. And the other representing full on state uprisings, revolutions and civil wars. Paradox has only focused on the latter and hasn't really developed local rebels beyond the eu4 system. It's been like this for decades.
>Imperator failed because the time period
What kind of cope is this?
The game was unfinished.
Leaks confirm this as they wanted to sustain it as a live service game.
Don't you remember the original UI?
The culture/religion conversion clusterfrick?
Mercenaries being I win button?
Many people wanted to play it due to the time period.
The revisionism surrounding Imperator: Rome is fricking weird, especially the people I've seen who insist that it was an amazing game that paradox dropped for no real reason. The discourse surrounding the game at the time it was dropped was much different.
The idea that every minor entity on the map has to be playable is a dumb meme. Imperator would've worked out better if they limited the playable tags to civilized states and allowed barbarian tribes to just act as NPCs with totally different rules
This for every pdx game as well, smaller irrelevant nations with generic focus tree and no game impact on hoi taking up resources and slowing the game down, small african tribes in vic2 doing the same, etc
This is already confirmed, not "word of mouth". No mana and no vic 3 warsystem.
Johan said that this upcoming dev diary would be "controversial" but did not say exactly why. He said it was not to do with anything related to start dates, and given its already confirmed to not be V3 war or Mana, my bet is on something PoP related(inclusion in the game or not.
It's probably just gonna be a big list of shit that's getting cut from EU4, EU3 dev diaries had the same kind of entry and EU4 has tons of redundancy and bloat
based on what Johan has said we know the game has >no mana (in the EU4 sense, he doesn't consider CK2 piety as mana for example) >war system where you move units on the map, no vic3 shit >naval units and combat (map has sea lanes) >no nu-paradox UI with the toaster and notification bubble >message settings (and therefore EU4 style popups) >some sort of POP system >provinces subdivided into locations, which all have names and are just tiny provinces (not Vic3 style state/split state clusterfrick system) >countries that don't make up an entire province, e.g. city-states existing in one location >something that "solves bordergore" resulting from so many locations >fixed map that doesn't shift the americas north
we can reasonably guess it has >still 400+ year time period >army automation like imperator >no tactics system like from imperator >something that makes each tag unique but isn't a whole mechanic, like EU4 national ideas >"more granular" progression, more difficult to snowball, supposed to be more challenging than EU4 >losing troops in combat doesn't directly destroy pops like in vic2 >tons of features will be slashed from EU4 which is piled with bloat
big things we don't know yet >2D portrait art or 3D character slop? >how the frick does tech work? >shitty one-way arrow based trade, imperator trade, or something brand-new?
They will never do this, but personally, they should replace missions with ruler-based missions.
Historically, rulers had a habit of undoing their predecessor's policies, famously Russia and Austria were winning Seven Years War, then the Empress of Russia died, her successor Paul III was a gay German lover who changed sides.
Because EU4 is all about graduality and long-term planning, players would never do this sort of stuff.
That wouldn't be a half-bad idea actually, if all the rulers were historical. Without the monarch point mechanic, there really isn't a need for random-rolled rulers anymore. But it still wouldn't work because of personal union mechanics, republics rolling random leaders, massive gaps in the historical record, tribes, etc. So making handmade mission trees would be impractical.
Maybe a better form of that would look kind of like estate agendas do now, but they're ruler agendas. Sort of like the old mission system, but geared toward whatever "agenda" your ruler would have based on their traits etc.
I didn't meant to them to fixed or historical, but random and more like Jade Dragon.
Imagine every ruler has "fixation".
Fixations can be stuff like interest in other cultures, or having 50K army or limiting army 20K, if you don't follow his fixation you don't get monarch points.
Yeah, that sounds kind of like agendas. The ruler wants X because they have traits Y/Z and if you complete their agenda you get some bonus that expires on ruler death.
2 months ago
Anonymous
yeah but agendas are minor boost, this would be more forceful
>no tactics system like from imperator
Did people not like this in Imperator? I still need to play it myself, but when I heard about the whole tactics thing it sounded neat, like how generals deserting sounds neat for larp purposes. I imagine both mechanics were detrimental to gameplay though (many different tactics but only two were found to ever be viable, generals deserting being more annoying than interesting, etc.).
They will never do this, but personally, they should replace missions with ruler-based missions.
Historically, rulers had a habit of undoing their predecessor's policies, famously Russia and Austria were winning Seven Years War, then the Empress of Russia died, her successor Paul III was a gay German lover who changed sides.
Because EU4 is all about graduality and long-term planning, players would never do this sort of stuff.
That wouldn't be a half-bad idea actually, if all the rulers were historical. Without the monarch point mechanic, there really isn't a need for random-rolled rulers anymore. But it still wouldn't work because of personal union mechanics, republics rolling random leaders, massive gaps in the historical record, tribes, etc. So making handmade mission trees would be impractical.
Maybe a better form of that would look kind of like estate agendas do now, but they're ruler agendas. Sort of like the old mission system, but geared toward whatever "agenda" your ruler would have based on their traits etc.
Yeah, that sounds kind of like agendas. The ruler wants X because they have traits Y/Z and if you complete their agenda you get some bonus that expires on ruler death.
This actually sounds really fun, reminds me of the missions in EU3 where you could do them if you needed something to do, or ignore them if you had your own plans and miss out on bonuses. Basically a way for you to make strategies if you don't know what you want to do, or ignore them if you already have a plan, I think it really works out in strategy games in general when they have this approach.
>start off as happy CK2 let's player with hot Mexican wife and kids >quit your day job as car dealer >become full time EU4 let's player >reach 200K subs and make collabs with Northern Lion and Quill >become tired of EU4 and try moving into Factory >nobody watches Factory vids >be forced to return to EU4 >become depressed >our wife thinks you are pathetic and cheats on you >divorce >abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Biopic when?
>abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Many such cases!
The tactics thing sounds neat but iirc in reality it was basically just sending in scouts to see the enemy's tactic then switching yours to counter it. The AI probably couldn't handle it either. Johan said it was a gameplay failure even after they redesigned it twice
I think HOI4 has a similar tactics mechanic (picrelated), but like everything else in that game it was also automated so if you go into battle with the wrong tactic it gets switched out after a few in-game hours (if not after the first) without the player having to do anything, to the point where I don't really see them get mentioned since they're so out-of-the-way. So I guess it's another example of launch Imperator having a mechanic that was already perfected or automated in a prior game being re-implemented and turned into a chore.
It's just that for every army composition there was one ideal one, so no need to use others.
People shit on CK2's tactic system because it had a lot of randomness, but personally think it was the best battle system they designed.
Multi-flank system meat, having a single god-tier general wasn't enough to win a battle and the fact the tactic were determined my general's personality and flank composition meant unexpected stuff could happen.
Not saying it was the best, I'd take that over other system they have designed.
>People shit on CK2's tactic system because it had a lot of randomness, but personally think it was the best battle system they designed.
This is obvious to anybody with a triple digit IQ. Unfortunately that excludes most of reddit and the pdx forums where paradox gets their genius design ideas from.
2 months ago
Anonymous
People here shit on it too. It's always the same: >I like the CK2's battle system >Oh, then explain how it works? >Well, it has many factors and— >No, that isn't how works. That makes it a bad mechanic.
FYI most people don't even know how battles or sieges in EU4 work despite those being rather simple.
Point is that CK2's tactics system was never designed to min-maxed, and the fact the game itself provides to insight is evident of it.
Imperator tactics system had so much potential, first time I saw combat being a little more than dice rolls, they should definetely bring it back with improvments
Johan is the one that designed EU4 without pops, also yes EU5 should have its toy soldiers that move around the map since you will only handle one or two stacks of troops at best, for Victoria 3 or HOI 5 (hopefully) the new system is perfect since by that time frontline wars were common and moving toy soldiers around doesn't make much sense and only makes for a shitty, highly exploitable game.
And even when stacks of troops were still moving around they had to secure territory to move supplies around safely, something that none of the previous Paradox titles even tries to simulate. And no attrition just happening as soon as you enter a specific province isn't a good system, the AI can't really comprehend it, that's why in games like EU4 navies handled by the AI suffer no attrition.
Not even the Franco-Prussian had frontline warfare.
Read a book. And kys for defending Victoria 3 warfare system.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The only moron here is the person that can't understand abstractions which is you.
The american civil war happened earlier than that and certainly had something that resembled a modern frontline. And i will defend V3 combat since its better than anything before it, you can go back to HOI4 or whatever garbage war focused game where the AI can't handle anything of what is going on.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>defending teleporting armies
2 months ago
Anonymous
And forgot that the Crimean War was a full blown frontline war and it happened like 10 years earlier than both, 17 years after the start of Victoria's timeline, any war that was actually relevant was fought with something resembling or actually being a frontline
>defending teleporting armies
They don't teleport anymore, you should actually try the games you criticize
2 months ago
Anonymous
they did originally, why would I buy or try a game that the developers thought it was acceptable to ship like that. They themselves thought it was a good system otherwise it would not have been released in such a state.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'll just say that it feels like a different game than what was there at release, i always said the new mechanics had lots of potential and just right now they seem to be coming together into something resembling a pretty decent game, can't even sya that the game lacks stuff like flavor since there are some pretty good mods out there, i'd say the modding scene is even better than CK3.
2 months ago
Anonymous
When they first mentioned the system I liked the theory of it but the execution of it and not being able to control how your armies acted on the front or them teleporting from front to front was terrible. I'm glad to hear it's doing better and I might try it sometime. >can't even sya that the game lacks stuff like flavor since there are some pretty good mods out there
Content mods is not the game, yes mods might be fun but you cannot say "the game doesn't lack flavour" and then cite mods, they are community created.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Paradox idea of flavor is "let's railroad the frick out of this game" since it makes free money (HOI4 is pretty much a choose your adventure game at this point and every mod for it revolves around that), that's the biggest threat to Victoria 3's future. I'm seeing way more "honest" flavor from modders since their way to implement it its not as railroady as Paradox's content, when you put a "transform France into a monarchy" button you are basically admitting you are a failed game designer.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Completely agree, but mods are not the game. They are community content.
>the new system is perfect
Thankfully the customer base and Paradox does not agree with you since they are changing this for V3. Go find a new game to play these are not for you.
The frontline system is still basically the same they only made it more complex and fleshed out, nothing that would create issues to the AI aside from when they have to naval invade but that has always been an issue in every single Paradox game. Will they keep adding more stuff to the military system? Sure. Will they rework the system completely? No, i'd bet HOI5 will use a similiar system, at least that's what they should implement if they have a brain and want to make that series something more than just whack-a-mole: toy soldiers edition, its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode, they won't cry if they made the game's economy and diplomacy system deeper in exchange for simplified but way more balanced military mechanics
I can only guess this is bait, since nothing you said made any sense. I'll reply seriously anyway on the off chance you're just deeply confused
Johan designed Imperator which has pops, and said himself he wants pops in his next game, that's why I put it under "known" section, he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right (AKA "vic3 is badly designed")
you don't just control one or two stacks of troops in EU4, unless you're quitting at 1550 I guess which isn't that far-fetched, but Johan's already said he likes the army automation in imperator and I have no doubt shit like that will appear. (EU4 already got some rudimentary auto-siege/auto-rebel hunt buttons, army templates, naval missions, etc, there's plenty of automation people take for granted) >for Victoria 3 or HOI 5 (hopefully) the new system is perfect since by that time frontline wars were common
For HoI yeah obviously, for Vicky eehhh, that game is more about the transition from EU4 set-piece armies to HOI frontline wars, which is what made it really interesting. Now every single conflict is centered around an advancing frontline. not to mention the complete lack of units, which forces the system to do a bunch of completely moronic things. Unlike HoI where the frontline is simply a form of automation that makes the game more accessible, in V3 it arguably makes the game more complicated and harder to play and introduces more edge cases.
>he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right
Like in Stellaris, another game that he designed?
And the problem is the whack-a-mole system not partial automation, to remove the whack-a-mole system you NEED full automation, its not needed in games like CK or EU since you only control few stacks but for modern timelines it is a requirement, anything else is outdated, broken and hard to fix game design.
>simplified but way more balanced military mechanics
You people always say this like it was a trade-off. No they reinvented the wheel and spent time developing a system that is more complicated, more broken, more confusing
If they wanted to focus on economy and diplomacy, which are both poorly designed, they should have kept the warfare system as it was
2 months ago
Anonymous
>more broken
Explain how Vicky 3 military mechanics are more unbalanced than the ones in HOI4 and Vicky 2
>its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode
The player numbers argue against this. V3 has high launch numbers and the worst drop of any Paradox game that has never, ever recovered. It's pretty much a given that if the next expansion does not correct this, V3 will become an unsupported game. To this end Paradox have promised they will overhaul and redo the combat system, admitting that they realise now that it was a mistake.
As I said, it's good that you like it but Paradox disagrees with you therefore these games are not for you and you should find another.
Vicky 3 player numbers have been increasing recently and they will only go up after the next DLC, mmm its like the game biggest flaw was that it was released in an alpha state
[...]
bait post or are you this stupid? nobody except some subhumans from reddit wanted downgraded combat or whatever they call their 2 button war
Its upgraded combat in pretty much every way, you still have control on what matters, the battles output realistic results and the AI is finally competent enough militarily, even from a simulation standpoint it is much superior to anything before it
2 months ago
Anonymous
And also high player counts/retention certainly aren't a mark of quality, the worst Paradox game is by far the most popular one, even Crusader Kings 3 pales in comparison and it just got a new DLC
It's not even having fewer stacks, lategame EU4 has shitloads of stacks running around especially in MP. The way to remove the "whack-a-mole" thing in pre-HOI games is forts, EU4 solved this already. Forts their own "frontlines" by restricting movement, and since capturing forts grants the lion's share of warscore for many CBs, it forces engagements to either defend or capture them.
If your issue is "nooo I want to take a fight but the AI is avoiding", that's not even an issue. That's the AI making a smart play to not get stackwiped by your bigger stronger army, it's exactly what you would do in that position too. Just siege their land and win. If you're mad that they're now going around to your lines to attack your reinforcements, again that's just a good play. They're going where you aren't and striking where you're weaker, that's good AI. The game isn't designed such that you always have to battle the enemy army to win a war.
If the issue is "i can't hope to control all these stacks", I don't really get that. People play actual RTS with way more units doing more complex tasks without a pause button. in these games you can pause whenever you want. That is simply a skill issue, or maybe a genre issue where you're just playing a type of game you don't actually like. Directing the units yourself is part of the fun.
that goes for vicky and HoI as well. I think forming a frontline manually is fun, even with HoI4's partial system issuing special orders to units I held in reserve or making adjustments on the fly is really fun. With full automation, well there are no orders to make or things to adjust, it's just a civ-tier diceroll simulator. I might as well play Risk. the only purpose I can see for V3 style "full automation" is if you don't want to look at wars at all. Which is boring.
>its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode
The player numbers argue against this. V3 has high launch numbers and the worst drop of any Paradox game that has never, ever recovered. It's pretty much a given that if the next expansion does not correct this, V3 will become an unsupported game. To this end Paradox have promised they will overhaul and redo the combat system, admitting that they realise now that it was a mistake.
As I said, it's good that you like it but Paradox disagrees with you therefore these games are not for you and you should find another.
I can only guess this is bait, since nothing you said made any sense. I'll reply seriously anyway on the off chance you're just deeply confused
Johan designed Imperator which has pops, and said himself he wants pops in his next game, that's why I put it under "known" section, he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right (AKA "vic3 is badly designed")
you don't just control one or two stacks of troops in EU4, unless you're quitting at 1550 I guess which isn't that far-fetched, but Johan's already said he likes the army automation in imperator and I have no doubt shit like that will appear. (EU4 already got some rudimentary auto-siege/auto-rebel hunt buttons, army templates, naval missions, etc, there's plenty of automation people take for granted) >for Victoria 3 or HOI 5 (hopefully) the new system is perfect since by that time frontline wars were common
For HoI yeah obviously, for Vicky eehhh, that game is more about the transition from EU4 set-piece armies to HOI frontline wars, which is what made it really interesting. Now every single conflict is centered around an advancing frontline. not to mention the complete lack of units, which forces the system to do a bunch of completely moronic things. Unlike HoI where the frontline is simply a form of automation that makes the game more accessible, in V3 it arguably makes the game more complicated and harder to play and introduces more edge cases.
The frontline system is still basically the same they only made it more complex and fleshed out, nothing that would create issues to the AI aside from when they have to naval invade but that has always been an issue in every single Paradox game. Will they keep adding more stuff to the military system? Sure. Will they rework the system completely? No, i'd bet HOI5 will use a similiar system, at least that's what they should implement if they have a brain and want to make that series something more than just whack-a-mole: toy soldiers edition, its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode, they won't cry if they made the game's economy and diplomacy system deeper in exchange for simplified but way more balanced military mechanics
[...] >he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right
Like in Stellaris, another game that he designed?
And the problem is the whack-a-mole system not partial automation, to remove the whack-a-mole system you NEED full automation, its not needed in games like CK or EU since you only control few stacks but for modern timelines it is a requirement, anything else is outdated, broken and hard to fix game design.
bait post or are you this stupid? nobody except some subhumans from reddit wanted downgraded combat or whatever they call their 2 button war
There's also the dynasty and monarchy mechanics that are still unknown, I would like a mix of CK3's traits, personalities and events with Imperators families system where you still have some difficulty in maintaining stability instead of it being a stable primogeniture sucession.
This could also make pretender rebels and civil wars more in depth than some random event from estates or stability.
Imperator tactics system had so much potential, first time I saw combat being a little more than dice rolls, they should definetely bring it back with improvments
I feel like it would run into trouble with later line infantry military tech where most tactics would become obsolete unless your fighting some other unit type across the world. Imperators military tradition tree with the mix of hoi4's tactics tree would probably be best for mitigating this issue.
Yeah my bad
So his last game is Imperator Rome, which i think the foundation is pretty solid but they rushed development with bad decisions
So i wont expect a total turd like vic3 or a blander version like ck3
I hate the soft plasticy tile borders in newer Paradox games and I feel like it's getting worse with every new release.
their UI designers probably worked on mobile games previously
it just feels sterile
imperator did it right-ish at least, ck3 literally has no overall direction in terms of its feel
ck2 feels gritty at least
CK3 direction is to milk itself being a The Sims game, milking cosmetics dlcs and nothing of worth mechanics
we are getting landless play
Which will be nothing more than being bombarded with the same few events over and over whilst watching your marker move around the map.
Personally I think Imperator is the best map they're ever done and CK3 and Vicky 3 are pretty nice too. EU4 and HOI4 are hideously ugly, the map is in a weird spot between being hyper detailed like the later games and being completely flat like the earlier ones so all the terrain has this play-doh look to it.
I just hate everything paradox is doing after 2016 so I pirate everything but the new shit isn't even worth that
>he doesn't mod the game to give you options to rape and violate captured female generals
>just sits and complains about it on his malaysian smoke signals forum
Grim
I just hope they dont frick up the UI like in vic3.
You know damn well the WILL frick it up. Why pretend otherwise?
oh FRICK i'm hype. eu4 is my most played gsg.
funnily enough v3 is my second most played even though i don't think it's very good.
v3's UI is atrocious. disgusting amounts of white space, scrolling, menus within menu, etc.
Victoria 3 UI was done this way, to prepare it for console release later on.
since 2016, and Paradox has been researching and working into porting their successful titles to consoles
Maybe they'll outsource the UI to someone competent like they did with HOI4. As much as I don't like HOI4, I consider it to have the best UI out of any Paradox game. Maybe not the best-looking, but definitely the cleanest, or at least it was closer to launch before they TNO'd it.
I dropped EUIV way back during Conquest of Paradise because the mana system took all the challenge out of the game. My biggest hope is that in EU5 they don't let the player fix their country's stability by spamming mana. Beyond that I want a tighter system for everything, maybe one that's not as deep as EUIV that's been DLCmaxxed but I think EU5 would benefit from losing some of EUIV's mechanics considering how bloated they are compared to CK3 losing mechanics from CK2. Also no mission trees because they take the sandbox aspect out of the game.
I want to believe, but what little they've revealed of the map makes me think it will be another clickfest like Victoria 3. Also there's no way in hell they'll be removing mission trees like I mentioned earlier, so it might be DOA as far as I'm concerned.
I have never seen anyone use LL mods in CK3, as far as I know they don't exist.
>Hitomi's booba were real
I read a very long time ago that she did some specific surgery where instead of using silicone they inject fat from other parts of your body for the enhanced tiddies to look natural or something like that. But this information seems to have been scrubbed from the internet and now everyone's saying she's natural and her breasts just get bigger naturally. But there's no mention of macromastia whenever people say she's natural, so I'm not sure how she magically has O cups now.
I'm so so sorry EU bros, you'll go from receiving content for a good game to some new fresh paracuck slop
t. ck2chad
At least I have the EU boardgame to tide me over until this shit becomes playable
I'll be honest, since the introduction of Development click game EUIV for me is garbage
>I'm so so sorry EU bros, you'll go from receiving content for a good game to some new fresh paracuck slop
That's been the status of the EU series since DW
EU IV is a bad game though. It's just a board game bloated with useless buttons and very abstract systems.
Also CK 3 is a better CK 2 now.
>Also CK 3 is a better CK 2 now.
when the hell did that happen. i feel like up to the past half year/year people said the opposite
It's now starting to get real DLCs. Well hopefully if they can pull it off.
It isn't, wait 5 years more. Assuming they don't go broke.
European vidya companies seem to generally be in better shape than current US vidya companies are. Americans tech and entertainment really went special kind of moronic with bloat and diversity waste in recent years and are now paying for it.
How are they paying for it? I don’t really pay attention to AAA consoleslop.
It never happened, he is just moronic
CK3 is finally starting to pick up pace with good content.
EU4 was the game that made me decide to never give paradox money again. How could you possibly find EU4 to be good?
>How could you possibly find EU4 to be good?
Streamers and influencers.
EU4 had streamers and/or influencers?
>today, I will remind them
>start off as happy CK2 let's player with hot Mexican wife and kids
>quit your day job as car dealer
>become full time EU4 let's player
>reach 200K subs and make collabs with Northern Lion and Quill
>become tired of EU4 and try moving into Factory
>nobody watches Factory vids
>be forced to return to EU4
>become depressed
>our wife thinks you are pathetic and cheats on you
>divorce
>abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Biopic when?
All I remember is when he started crying on stream because he hit his kid or something.
The worst part is, is that when he was young and had hair he was a legit 9/10 chad, then he went bald and you can’t even tell he was ever good looking now.
He also used to be one of Paradox's most trusted inside men. He's a good guy I feel sorry for him in a way. If he's doing a European country and I have nothing better to do I'll watch his streams at work.
Poor Arumba, I hope he is staying sober
I thought his ex was colombian or venezuelan?
>I thought his ex was colombian or venezuelan?
all latinos are the same
Anyhow, I find interesting how seems to be ghosted by Northern Lion, Quill, and Paradox
If I remember correctly, paradox cut all contact with him because Groogy is a whiny homosexual and got offended by something Arumba said or did during one of the first grandest lan things. It is possible the other content creators just fell in line in order to not lose their privileges
>EU4 was released in 2013
>you're still posting in 2024
Yes, I remember making gsg threads on Ganker before /vg/ existed
What's your point?
I try not to participate in cringe culture, but you are a certified obsessed loser. I'm glad that Paradox's detractors are human garbage.
nta, go back paradrone
>newbies
>on my Ganker
>r
>e
>e
Nah, its probably a new game altogether, fantasy slop most likely
Tinto's whole focus is doing EU content
they've done an absolutely horrible fricking job on EU, they're without a doubt paradox's most incompetent studio, so i would be surprised if they actually got to develop a new entry from scratch.
i think someone said tinto had an A team/B team situation where they used eu4 updates to try to get experience for the newest tinto members. now maybe they've converged on working on eu5.
There is no "A-team" at Tinto. Tinto itself is the "B-team" of paradox, although they're actually more of a "Z-team". Tinto is little more than a prison for the worst of Paradox to work on their most bog standard map painters to keep them sequestered away from the games they think will actually make them money.
isn't the europa universalis series their most profitable besides hoi4? i guess maybe ck beats them.
Tinto is st helena for johan after what he did with Imperator, it exists solely because the death penalty is not a thing in europe
>Tinto is st helena
No, Tinto is Elba for mon empereur Johan and EUV will be his glorious hundred days.
I swear, I will shitpost so fricking hard, if it isn't EU5.
Hopefuly after the inevitable failure he will troon out and disapear as well
>after what he did with Imperator
he was still lead until vic3
And look how that turned out, johan should be in the proscription list
>Tinto is little more than a prison for the worst of Paradox
Unironically that always ends with kino.
Shrek was a prison for animators that done frick ups , Danganronpa and 999 was a prison for the craziest chunsoft devs , SaGa Frontier was a prison for people who refused to work on FF7, CoD WaW was made while IW was working on their MW
Whew, got me worried for a second there.
My lord Johan. He will fix everything. Hopefully he has learned his lessons!
There will be two! or three! mana systems governing the entire game.
I can appreciate this sort of humility.
Honestly, as much as Johan was really belligerent back in the day, these days he seems to have become much more mellowed out and humble. Maybe it's from living in Spain instead of Sweden. I disliked him in the past, but while I still don't agree with his design decisions, I can't hate the man now. And hey, maybe his new attitude will lead to better games since he'll be more willing to reflect and reconsider stuff while making them.
He was humiliated in Imperator, his name was spread all over the fanbase as a sign of failure and bag game design, if that didn't humble him then it would be a lost cause
nah you are just forgetful
in hoi3 release he claimed he was on the verge of suicide (he is probably bipolar) because of the bad reviews and his coworkers helped him calm down
he has compared people with pedophiles for pirating paradox games
in eu4 he said the famous "i don't give a frick about the AI"
he is mentally unstable and NEVER learns throughout the years
that was over a decade ago you moron and he mentioned multiple times since then how he fricked up
we are anal moose, never forgive, never forget
all swedes will hang
>in eu4 he said the famous "i don't give a frick about the AI"
actually based, there are no gsgs with good AI, the technology simply isn't there and multiplayer will continue to be the only entertaining way to play these games
another negative IQ take by paradrones
>says the troony that thinks deeper AI mechanics are possible when most people already have issues running these games past mid-game on their toasters
You are completely clueless, there is no point in arguing with your kind.
yes, advanced deeplearning AI that requires nasacomputers being beyond us is why paradox games are shit, not because of their 0 effort jeetcode that makes countries declare war on you without even checking if they can reach you, or ship their entire army into tiny islands without having naval superiority to ship them out
>tech illiterate moron is also an MPgay
figures
there are no grand strategy games with competent AI
Don't have high hopes, but EU4 is already a shit game beyond saving already, so they might as well roll the dice with a new one.
GoI but in Renaissance.
What’s the best game that has gameplay and a setting like EU4?
>gameplay like EU4
territorial.io unironically
EU 4 with meiou mod
What do you guys want? most important thing for me is that they either cut the game untill the start of the 17th century and make a new one completely for 18th-19th or find a way to make this shit last, cause most games end up just before the 1600's
Not that I'm expecting this from paradox, but I'd love more internal management so the core game isn't just blobbing which leads to the issue of every game being over by the 1600's.
I also really want them to fix colonization so it's still fun and useful but doesn't happen 300 years too early.
Imperator mechanics lol
Yeah imperator almost nails it but it makes expansion too easy with mission trees that give out full state cores.
I'd kind of like to see a return to the infamy system with legitimate claims being much more rare. Also no more click to core.
some of Vic 3 is an improvement on imperator mechanics but yeah
Make it actually challenging to create and maintain large empires. Not through the use of some static modifiers, but through actual game mechanics you can engage with and overcome if you are skilled enough. This would require the modelling of internal politics with various regional factions, internal administration, economy, logistics, population etc. Basically make it as realistic as possible.
Not that paradox would ever do this, so the best I can hope for is a modable game where something like meiou can be implemented with a decent performance.
even if they did, their lust after DLCs makes the basic systems obsolete by the bazillion of autistic mechanics that add meaningless micromanaging, and you end up with a Frankenstein of empire gameplay system that is either too boring to continue to play or too unstable to keep your country together (hello estates autism in EU4)
One thing I want to add that would put a significant limit on snowballing is simply to implement an actually good AI. One that can think on a long term perspective, tries to maintain the balance of power, recognizes rapidly expansionist empires as a threat and doesn't just forget about them x years later as the AE has run out. In fact just having a large, powerful empire on your border should be a top priority concern for any country even if they didn't expand in your direction lately and the AI should be proactive in trying to contain that threat through various means.
>implement an actually good AI.
make me israelite
>either cut the game untill the start of the 17th century and make a new one completely for 18th-19th
See I think they should do a later start date of either 1492 or even 1517 and make the beginning period of the game the actual rise of colonialism or the reformation. As it is EU mechanics have apiss poor tale end of the medieval era, and the early start date just ends up leading to a batshit 15th century with Spain, Portugal and England usually balls deep in the New World by its end and most player campaigns about 75% done by the time you get to era that you'd think would be the games main focus. Granted this would piss off romaboos. So not ever happening
Made culture and religions more interesting. Country can change depending the main religión or ethnic group
Rework arabs as diverse tribes.
Made things like Oran ,Gibraltar, malta ,Ceute and Melilla that are cores that a external country can conquest and forms his own colony
Any other anons actually feeling hopeful?
There’s no reason to given their recent sequels.
🙁
If they manage to pull it off you’ll be pleasantly surprised
Yes.
EU4's DLCs are different than CK2's, a lot of them don't add meaningful mechanics, just more buttons to click. The few mechanics that ended up being significant were folded into the base game, like Estates with Cossacks. My point is, missing DLC stuff, which is CK3's biggest flaw, won't be a big deal with EU5; playing EU4 without them obviously sucks but only because you're used to them and their advantages, it won't matter in a brand new game where lots of other things have changed.
Also, it's Johan, he might be moronic at times but he still genuinely cares about the games, EU specially. So you bet I'm hopeful.
In the end its core systems that will matter. EU5 will have to have significant advancements instead of just being a more polished EU4.
The Sims is sort of the golden metric for how to do different generations of a game with similar sets of DLC.
TS2 and TS3 all had core systems that made their new versions of the DLCs feel different. The obligatory tropical island DLC felt different when you can use TS3's open world to take a boat into the middle of the ocean to fish and dive.
TS4 meanwhile lacked significant systems and just died in the shores.
It's been 11 years since paradox put out a good game. The numbers are against you.
Yeah
a lot of eu3 cucks seething about eu4 itt but it is actually my favourite(amongst other mappainting simulators) and last updates have been great with hispanics finally understanding how to code
But for some people it's never enough
I'm feeling hopeful because of what Johan has "said" and how btfo'd he got in the past surely has humbled him. I also think this is paradox's last chance to keep the dedicated fans of their games or it will be 4 sub par games in a row. I also think EU4 isn't as bad of a game as what people like to say, yes it has it's issues however it is an extremely deep Risk simulator and a lot of anons here forget how deep the game is because of how many hours they have spent in the game.
My wishlist:
>Supply chain to army mechanics (more attrition with no port or cut off from your land)
>Dynamic trade flow, or some way to model being the number 1 economic power in the world, why would trade not flow to Beijing if they were in control of the whole world.
>Some way to make the game less tedious and micro intensive late game
>Occupying a castle should occupy nearby areas the way a defensive castle already works.
>Colonise further inland after unlocking specific technologies
>No super natives on NA east coast.
There's plenty more but that is just off the top of my head. I also really dislike mission creep, and I think it removes the sandbox feel from the game and railroads it but people love them so they wont be removed as they sell DLC. But just using Hungary mission tree as an example you get like 5 PU's very early if you know what you are doing, the game is over by that point the rest is just a formality.
no, not at all
in fact i am 99% sure that paradox has unleashed their shill army here
if they need 3rdworlders to spam us about how great it's going to be and why we shouldn't be skeptical at all (even though we have literally 0 information so far), you know something is off
Talking about "dark lord" in the end, looks like a fantasy game
Yeah, Johan already tweeted he's hiring for working on a fantasy gsg.
So is Europa Universalis just going to go dark for however long this fantasy gsg receives support? Tinto is obviously the team that will be making EU5 and this upcoming EU4 dlc looks like a wrap-up dlc.
>EU5
>fantasy gsg
Bruh. It means the development of EU4 is ogre. And why would the jeopardize EU4 DLC by releasing EU5?
>It means the development of EU4 is ogre.
Obviously, I'm not arguing otherwise.
>And why would the jeopardize EU4 DLC by releasing EU5?
The same reason they "jeopardized" CK2 DLC by releasing CK3.
What guarantee do they have EU5 will sell better than EU4? CK2 was butt-ugly. EU4 isn't.
>CK2 was butt-ugly
you take that back
Frick your "feel" and frick you. Sales go up just by having graphics that aren't an eye sore. I literally installed and launched Darkest Hour for five minutes, before determining that those that praised it are bullshitters, because my retinas burned.
Frick you, CK2 graphics are immersive SOVL and much prettier than Darkest Hour. HIP's UI and map especially are even sexier than EU4.
>muh SOVL
A non-argument used by foxes that didn't get the CK3 grapes.
I've played CK3 and unironically I prefer the static portraits and hand drawn event pictures to CK3's 3D abominations and goofy poses that replace event pictures.
>too low test to appreciate huge titty eugenics mechanics
Loverslab mods are not the base game.
Huge titty eugenics mechanics exist in vanilla CK3. Not even kidding, you can breed your women to have giant breasts. It's part of the genetics the model system takes into account.
kys you brainrot coomer
Keep myself safe? I will, thank you.
I don't even use LL mods.
The 3D portraits are way too low quality, and THE official big breasts mod has compatibility issues with every single mod that adds new clothing.
Yeah, but the biggest breasts possible on vanilla are still far too small for me. Also, how do you even manage to actually breed until your dynasty gets big breasts? Never works out for me.
clothing?
I'm talking about character body overhaul. It's only compatible with vanilla outfits, and right now nobody cares enough to release compatibility patches with mods that add more, stuff like Shogunate, Asia expansions, fantasy shit etc.
Money, of course. Their primary audience of people who actually buy the games and dlc, which congregates on their forums and leddit, have been shouting from the rooftops that they want Paradox to quit releasing DLC for EU4 and make EU5. This will be yet another opportunity to release a bare-bones new entry with the promise of adding back features in upcoming DLC, a model which has sadly worked out nicely for them with CK3. I believe it was Johan who already stated that EU4's engine is basically at its practical limit when it comes to adding meaningful new mechanics or features, which is why this last stretch of DLC has been focusing on adding flavour to fan-favourite areas of the map or just areas fans have said was lacking in it.
My guess, DLC release will be 6 months prior to new game release, like CK2 and holy fury
Warhammer moving from total war to paradox lol, I could see it happening
I wish death for all paracucks
You don't realize how mentally ill people are on vst until a thread like this hits
I worked for Tinto from 2022-2024. The project is in fact a remaster of Imperator Rome. AMA btw
Will big breasted Japanese women be in the base game or do I yet again need to wait for mods just to have basic functionality
big breasted Japanese women don't even exist in real life, those breasts on JAV actresses are faker than a troony's neo-vegana
No shit you moron, I wouldn't be looking for them in vidya if they were real.
There is no point since Meiou and Taxes exists and that's the best Europa Universalis is ever gonna get
Hitomi's booba were real albeithough
okay but what if meiou but it isn't on a horribly poorly optimised engine and can run without 20 minute pauses every year
Meiou is too bloated and yet also lacks flavour. How they did it I do not know
meiou runs like shit and doesn't stop the worst problem in eu4, that is brainless snowballing, it only makes it happen slower
it's better than vanilla but still not great
Can we also talk about the building and investment systems?
but snowballing is fun cuz you feel accomplished and OP by the end
Open up the world map in Paint and color it any way you want. Congratulations, now you are the most OP map painter in the world, nobody can oppose you. Sound like fun?
no cuz there's no challenge. but i like starting as a weak nation, then playing tall in a strategy game and then becoming OP
Let's not pretend that blobbing in EU4 is challenging in any way. You just gobble up smaller countries until eventually you are the biggest one.
Better yet, stop being a loser who jerks it to video game women, make your father proud for once in your life and find a girlfriend your age who you don't have to pay for sex with.
Johan redemption arc.
i like johan. i hope he makes eu5 good.
Hope they take the pop and ressource system from vic3.
i'd only want that if they fixed v3's awful late game performance.
which maybe is possible, because apparently what causes v3's lag is the different building types + different pop types. it's one of the reasons v3 has buildings that can produce two different goods depending on production method, to reduce lag.
>different pop types
shouldnt really be an issue in eu5 since most pops will just be peasants and workers
also the total amount even during the endgame should be lower than vic3 starts with
what's the point when it's barely going to run
They can't optimize their shit to save their life.
what? you don't own a $5000 threadripper? how about you get a job
>V3 is such a frick up they've already got Johan working on V4
We're going home bros...
As they say, one tinto a day keeps the johann away
Praise our lawd and savoir israelitehan
>Caligula was V3
lol
should have been Elagabalus
>Buckle up homosexual, we're saving Paradox
Why do people take pictures of themselves?
>be me
>on a beach
>take picture of myself
>
>???
Can they drop the whole 3d model thing
Ck3 and vc3 looked so hideous I didn't even pirate them
No. You didn't even buy any of the 2d games. Still using your laptop, poorgay?
>ai portraits
And we're talking about current year nuparadox.
By the time these morons make a working product generative AI will already be able to create custom video games better than any of the slop they produce.
>Johan with the power of AI at his fingertips
Can't wait!
>average paradox fan every time a new dlc is announced
robin hanson is a high IQ physicist who dipped into social science and he says the projections for first world fertility are not good, and the projections for AI advancements don't look good enough to compensate for the lower fertility, so technological innovation will slow to a crawl for the next couple centuries until fertility among high IQ people rebounds.
Surely the EU V devs have 11 years of notes on what worked and what didn't work with EU IV right? Think of just how much insight a literal decade of work on the previous game could be brought to bear on the next.
Not only that, but what didn't work in Imperator, too. Johan has had some kind of soul-searching journey and admitted he was wrong about everything, will never make another game with mana, and wants pop mechanics
eu4 was so successful that surely eu5 will also feature the bird points and scroll points and shit
>said he will never make a game with mana
>said he will never make a game without message settings
>said he will never make a game where you don't move armies on the map
yep, it's gonna be pure ludo
it was a relief seeing him talk about the message settings and armies after the v3 fricking disaster. i was about to say that despite his critiquing mana he'd surely include it in eu5. but technically eu3 wasn't that way, so johan seems open to new paradigms which is cool.
>said
>said
>said
dyrbi
I was one of the gays who criticized Johan for board game design, and I hated mana then and now, but many of the design choices of CK3 and V3 are maybe worse for having departed from that, maybe. Him being obstinate and sparring with fans meant he has balls too and dressing in a toga was very kawaii also. #believeinjohan
>Tfw I lived enough to see johan redemption arc
Johan's been shit talking V3 and talking about how good V2 was, maybe he'll make "Victoria 2, EU timeline edition"
Yea its funny seeing him in the Vic3 forum threads The redemption arc is coming!
The frick is that pic? Spain has been doing good for him
>gets exiled out of Sweden
>mental and physical health improves, starts smiling more, the bud of virtue has been planted into his soul
Makes you think a lot.
What kind of things does he posts on V3 forums?
pop mechanics are highly successful in stellaris so it's not hard to see why somebody would prefer them over shitty mana
The only thing they ever take note is the constant DLC model
I believe in Johan, but corporates will ruin his vision and force him to make slop. Let's face it, dumbed down paraslop sells like candy so from a business perspective it would be a terrible step to go back to making actually complex games which filter morons.
They haven't dumb down anything, only made things less convolutated and gave more access to information with the in game tooltips, since you know, they never did ONE good tutorial. the mechanics are pretty much the same in all sequels
>They haven't dumb down anything
They made it so only 1 AI character can scheme against the player at a time in ck3. And countries can only be attacked by 3 AIs at a time. It's fricking dumbed down.
They will continue with their candy-esque graphics, won't they? Frick, Imperator:Rome looked good, but ck3/vic3 are such eye cancer. It ruins the immersion. Also, so far there is no reason to play vic3 over vic2. I've never got into ck2, got about 100 hours in ck3 and i'd rather learn to play ck2 than put any more hours into 3
>got about 100 hours in ck3 and i'd rather learn to play ck2 than put any more hours into 3
If 3 hasn't grabbed you then 2 certainly won't
the series is essentially for two types of people: literal austistic hardcore roleplayers who will intentionally make stupid harmful decisions if their leader has personality traits which dictate doing so, and plebbitors who use it as a maymay generator
>literal austistic hardcore roleplayers who will intentionally make stupid harmful decisions if their leader has personality traits which dictate doing so
Game is unplayable after, at best if you are incompetent, like 2 generations and you already bloobed half the world, role playing is literally the only way to have any fun in it
Exactly, it's been like that since CK2 at least, not sure about the first entry as I've never played it. CK2 and 3 are awful as actual strategy games.
Now that's the thing, CK3 is a better rpg than CK2
it has more dumb, gamey skill trees than ck2 if that's your criteria for an rpg
however that's actually detrimental to roleplaying since it ruins immersion
the upcoming unlanded gameplay is going to render CK2 obsolete
unlanded gameplay WAS FRICKING DONE IN A MOD FROM FRICKING 3 YEARS AGO, AN FOR 0$
jesus christ paradrones are really something
The mod is buggy as shit plus has poor interaction with other mods. When Paradox makes it part of the game then the other mods will have to adapt.
Plus, the DLC will come out at 0$ too, like every other DLC I have installed.
Every single time someone pulls the "it was already done in a mod!" line they conveniently neglect to mention that said mod was poorly implemented/buggy/left unfinished. Modders have done just about every idea people would want out of CK3, so I don't know what people want Paradox to do in terms of DLC that hasn't been covered already by some janky mod.
>every single mod is janky reeee
>said mod was poorly implemented/buggy/left unfinished
just like the average paradox dlc
I wish for a better economy/trade/research systems. Pop needs from vic2 would be great, but there is no way they will add it sadly.
>7 sentences is too wordy
you have to understand that amerisharts loathe reading
>>7 sentences is too wordy
>
>you have to understand that amerisharts loathe reading
can't wait for it to be shit in the end
>You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic.
Oh no no no mana bros how do we cope
I can't fricking take it, I spent quite a few hours trying to solve this issue but I can't, I made a compilation mod for the americas and tried to import the Europa Expanded Inca mission tree but only mission slots 1 and 2 appear, 3 to 5 are empty or are replaced by generic mission trees. Can someone help troubleshoot for me?
https://files.catbox.moe/ro7z4w.7z
Tinto Brass talks?
Also, what for do they ANOTHER EU game?
They "trained" on EU game DLCs.
If I were to guess, I'd shoot they will be making something inbetween Tropico and SM's:Pirates!
>If I were to guess, I'd shoot they will be making something inbetween Tropico and SM's:Pirates!
Tropico 2? Honestly I could get hyped for that
Does this mean they are finally done bloating EU IV with shitty DLCs and I can finally play it?
Do NOT count on it. Don't ask me why, but I just have a feeling that things just won't be that simple. Seriously, wait, save and then see. Wait up to a year after the release of whatever this is if you have too you'll probably need that time to save enough money for half the proper expansion packs anyways
Wait Ganker keeps usernames? I thought they were just one-off things you could put in to mess with people!
If only there was a way to get games for free.
Money?
Buying?
>Believable World
Bravo Johan
you are memeing but this is unironically big, because the other studios prefer ebin sandboxes over historical accuracy
Do you perhaps not know of their track record?
thats what im saying, the other pdx studios try to please the reddit crowd
Unlike the believable colonizing Abos who out-tech the western Europeans?
vicky 3 also promised to be super realistic and we all know how that turned out
I have more faith in johan than in wiz, but I'll believe it when I see
They promise "believable worlds" literally every single time they announce a game.
no they dont the ck3 team outright says they only care about "roleplay" instead of worldbuilding mechanics
In CK3 you literally do not have access to any difficulty above normal, feel free to check the wikipage to confirm it yourself(I did the same in my bafflement last time I played the game and found that I could not raise the difficulty, only lower it). I think that says a lot about CK3 and modern Paradox in general.
>Migas con aceite
Yep, it's EU V
well they moved an old eu5 speculation thread into the new forum so yeah pretty much confirmed
>good-bye 500 dollaridoos of DLC sales
Uhhh?
the picture is not a teaser morons, it's just spanish aesthethics to go with the tinto talks format
To be honest, EU5 might just be wishful thinking on everyone's part. This might be the restart of Imperator development they wanted to do before.
>a picture of olives and an olive farm
>a clay vase
>roman tile house in the background
>clearly this is EU5!
I'd say it's obviously Victoria 3, the olive oil is clearly a trade good for upper strata.
Look at the OP picture
this is not roman architecture, is late middle ages iberian architecture, including the catholic church
Some people say that EU is the best Paradox game series.
Some people are utter morons.
Like people who got filtered by eu4
>le filtered meme
I don't think you know what the word filtered means
I think vic2 is the most interesting game from the bunch, yet I have the least amount of hours in it. I wish they scrapped vic3 and started over, fricking braindead Black personcattle ruined the series
I've been reading Johan's replies on the new forums and I have to say this game is looking pretty based. He is casually shitting on eu4, ck3 and vic3.
Holy based, consider me officially interested in this game.
lmao Johan humiliating Paradox corporate shills unironically gives me some hope.
Will this truly be his redemption arc, or will we have another Imperator/Victoria3?
I hate to say that I agree with Johan in this case. If they were doing autistic simulationism there'd be a reason for discerning between tradition and professionalism but EU4 is anything but.
Army proffesionalism was supposed to be more fickle, something that could be deliberately achieved and within a generation, and easily ruined within a decade, compared to army tradidion which you worked generations to build. In the end both became currencies (dreaded mana) that you could instatly gain or spend in different ways, and the real short term value was relegated to "army drill"
>move to spain
>get some sun and drink some tinto
>reborn based (on actually good development)
We're so back EUbros!
WTF, Praise the mediterranean sun! Sol Invictus took Johan's degenerated brain and brought his light upon it
Frick Johan, if game will be as based as he, i may actually buy it, just as show of respect to his position.
there is no reason for us to have disjointed autonomy, vassal and gov cap systems
They are supposed to release a new one today
I thought dlc bloat wasn't that bad of a thing until I actually played it.
Uhh, I've noticed that a lot of known paradox shills on youtube like opb have released Imperator videos in the last month or so completely out of the blue. Sounds like they got a heads up (which has been known to happen) and this might not be EU5 but some sort of an Imerator sequel or spinoff. Maybe a Dark Ages game using similar mechanics.
Well, looks like it's a whole world map, so maybe not.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-2-march-6th-2024.1626415/
>Project Caesar
Clearly Imperator 2
>which is why we went with the Gall Stereographic projection
Usually I find the discussion over the mercator projection to be quite shallow and full of misconceptions, centered about
>muh evil colonialism
But this time there's a practical concern about it: for a game that has a heavy focus on Europe, not using mercator is an dumb thing. Look at this fricking image, say you are playing in sweden, which *was* a relevant empire on EU's timespan, you look at your capital and it's fricking tiny and hard to differentiate among the other locations/provinces/whatever, while some place in Africa inhabited by an irrelevant tribe gets to be fricking huge
And, for having games centered around painting maps, Paradox still can't make a fricking globe
>Clearly Imperator 2
Why would Imperator 2 need a map of the whole world?
I hope this image means there will be a nice 2d map and no forced 3d terrain mode when you zoom in.
> Finally, we have what we currently call “passages.” These are land locations that can not be settled by anyone, but can still be traversed by an army, with some insanely heavy attrition, or allow trade to pass through. Think of passages across the Saharan desert.
Holy mother of based.
looks good
yep, eu5
with fricking johan in charge
we're fricked
more like saved, he is clearly the only competent guy at paradox besides the hoi team
>competent guy
maybe over a decade ago, he has long since hit the wall and is nothing but a liability for paradox
he has been behind some of the worst decisions and worst releases (both games and dlc) we have ever seen from this company
other way around, he was shit a decade ago but he realized his mistakes and is about to deliver his magnum opus
just read some of his comments in the forum
>besides the hoi team
They are competent at making a game for MPgays, a bad game but still
I dont like the game either but it sells, if they can get 80k concurrent players on a 7 year old niche game they must do something right.
They gamefied the sea lanes, look like shit
If anything sea lanes are the complete opposite of gamification. In real life you can't just sail a ship wherever you want because you will literally hit dead zones with no steady wind, intercontinental sailing is constricted by the routes where there is reliable wind and currents to actually move your ship. In comparison EU4 where you can just sail your fleet around anywhere in the open ocean with no concern is very gamey.
The map should have a few more lanes though, there should at least be another route from the Azores to the Caribbean in between the two routes there currently are.
Obviously vic2.5
wastelands
god please no turn that shit off
There are sea tiles in the Caspian and looks like maybe the Great Lakes too, interesting.
I hope that ‘impassible wastelands’ only affect troop movement, and that they are still tiles that can be clicked on, conquered, and have people and resources on them. Its not like no-one lives or nothing is grown in the Alps or Appalachians or the Congo basin.
Plus it just looks ugly, real life maps didnt have massive holes between countries whenever there was a desert or mountain range.
I get that it might be good for performance reasons to not simulate sparsely populated regions, but it is annoying seeing the Alps or the Pyranees being unclaimed by anyone on the map when there were always people living there and there was always a state that owned them and exercised control over them.
I'm fine with sacrificing some shit land for improved strategic movement.
You don't need to sacrifice anything. You can have land that is both impassible for troops, and can be clicked on, owned and has properties like dominant religion and culture.
>Next week we’ll be back talking about something that could be rather controversial…
Judging by how those sea provinces look (especially when compared to Victoria 3), my guess is next week's article will discuss how shoving troops around is obsolete and we should all eat the Vic3-style three button slop.
He said we will be moving armies on the map. Johan isn't a deviant.
Hopefully these sea tiles will dynamically move trade. Fixed trade is one of the shittiest part of EU4.
hoi4 is normie tier
even mods like kaisercuck are
based "you will probably not like our games from now on" johan
truly reformed, he surely learned from his mistakes after a lifetime of never improving and always reacting emotionally to critics
HELP HELP MY LEGS ARE KNEELING ON THEIR OWN
hmmm
So probably prestige and a more granular stability system
>piety is not mana
I don't think I understand how piety is not mana. I mean, don't get me wrong its absolutely not as egregious as monarch points were by a longshot, but still its very mana-like.
Gold I agree is not mana but if I were to be a dickhead I could probably quibble about it and come up with arguments for why it is an abstract resource.
Gold is absolutely mana, and economy is abstracted. There is nothing wrong with mana or abstraction.
It's abstract idea by itself therefore it being abstract does not make it mana?
>I don't think I understand how piety is not mana.
It's not innately mana because it's obvious what it's supposed to be an abstraction of, and because it should make sense in that context and should have a function beyond being spent for instant effects
Of course when the devs are moronic enough they can forget those shoulds and start treating it like mana
I haven't played any CK games and I don't play EU4 very much, but basically, mana is where a resource is decoupled from what it's meant to represent.
Diplomacy points in EU4 are bird mana. They are bird mana because they don't concretely represent anything. You can spend them on naval technology... but also on cultural assimilation... and also on your diplomatic corps. What do they represent? Nothing, they're just there for a thematic bundle of things that are related to diplomacy, trade, culture, and the navy in general. They're mana. Diplomacy points in Victoria 2 aren't mana. You spend them on diplomatic actions with other countries. They represent your government's capacity to undertake a specific subset of closely related actions. Victoria 2 even represents other diplomatic actions, the SoI mechanics, with a different point system (influence points), underlining the fact that distinctly different branches of your government are not using the same resources.
So if piety is only representing one specific thing in whichever game it's from (say, your character's adherence to their religion - the degree to which they are adhering to its teachings and values), then it's fair to say it's not mana. If it's representing multiple unrelated things (say, both your character's adherence to their religion, AND your church's resources being spent on converting local populations to that religion), then it would be mana.
mana is not the same as an abstract resource moron
this is what Johan thinks
he is completely right though, you need abstractions in a video game and the only bad ones are the ones that directly create nonsensical dilemma like developing the economy of a province or teching up
>country advancement choice
>nonsensical
???
There is no world where a monarch had to decide between magically spawning industry instanteneously in a region and adopting a new ship design
Have you ever played the hit game Age of Empires 2?
Yeah, the famous gsg AoE 2
I didn't ask if you liked how abstraction was implemented, I asked if you were familiar with the concept of spending resources to advance.
How is that relevant? AoE2 is a highly abstracted RTS.
And so is EU4. Trade routes were a valiant attempt, but it's all abstraction all the time.
And EU4 suffers for being too abstracted. It should be less abstracted. Unlike AoE2, which is basically a PvP game with historical window dressing, EU4 is a GSG, a simulation. So what's your point?
It doesn't, actually. It suffers from having nothing to do, except blob.
>It doesn't, actually. It suffers from having nothing to do, except blob.
Actually it suffers from being far too abstracted, and the fact that there's nothing to do except blob comes in large part from that abstraction.
>I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5?
Well, to start with, I'd derive technology from industries, because that's largely how it works in real life, instead of them being something the government does (lmao).
>comes in large part from that abstraction
No, it comes from every internal threat management mechanic being absolutely gutted.
Corruption? Just pay it to go away.
Hostile cultures or religions? Just spend some resources to change it.
Powerful factions? Just... wait them out.
Overextension? Turmoil? Autonomy? Worthless, worthless and worthless.
This is why I like Victoria 3. This is why I will ask it be made even harder.
>Actually it suffers from being far too abstracted, and the fact that there's nothing to do except blob comes in large part from that abstraction.
Think rebels being a joke is a big part of it.
Conquering and occupying a province are two different things.
EU4's rebel system is a predictable whack-a-mole approach. You know 10 years in advance where and how many rebels will show up. So, you use all your armies in every war, just remember to bring them back a few months before the rebels show up.
Revolts don't take into account opportunity at all, some 20K pretenders rebels think they can win against your army of 100K while you are at peace.
Even EU3's revolt risk was a better system, the fact every province had an independent random rebel chance meat, you (at least in theory) were forced to station large number of your troops in your provinces, unable to use them for war.
Ideally rebels would be more opportunistic and wait for a moment of weakness, like if you are in peace and have full force limit, there is no point rebelling, but they should wait for time when you lose half your army, and then all rebel groups should attack.
>Think rebels being a joke is a big part of it.
Rebels would make more sense as actual breakaway states (with fast construction of forces to represent paramilitaries / guerrillas / sympathetic breakaway forces so they don't just get instantly stomped) which the player can annex at, initially, no infamy / AE cost (but if they don't move on it fast, eventually it would start to cost infamy / AE since the breakaway state would have gained legitimacy over time).
This goes for all Paradox games. The whole deal of rebels as a stateless army just doesn't work well.
This is basically what Vicky 3 does and it fricking sucks. It works for things like the American Civil War or Taiping Rebellion but having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic" is beyond moronic.
>having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic"
Rebellions should be a lot scarcer than they are in vanilla Vicky 2 (where they're basically constant). It should be something that takes quite a while to happen, with a lot of opportunities to avert it, rather than something that happens sporadically as you work through reforms - but when/if it DOES happen it should be catastrophic.
>This is basically what Vicky 3 does and it fricking sucks. It works for things like the American Civil War or Taiping Rebellion but having every random jacobin revolt form Vicky 2 be represented as a full-scale civil war between Prussia and the "Prussian Liberal Republic" is beyond moronic.
It should depend on the pops tbh
Lower class pops joining a revolt should mostly contribute by adding loads of lower tier units to rebel stacks, while when enough of the upper class/ruling pops in an area join a revolt they should have a chance to form a rebel tag
Like in Imperator? It would certainly solve issues, like I often see 20K noble rebels occupy Corsica from Genoa and keep it occupied for 300 years, because Genoa doesn't have the troops to take them down, and the rebels can't enforce their demands. If was depicted as a war between two states, it would result in a white peace.
I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5? I think EU4 could definitely do with less abstraction but I also think people really have a hard on for "remove mana and remove all abstraction" it's a game at the end of the day and abstraction is going to be there especially in a gsg.
easy, remove manual teching up and idea groups
>easy, remove manual teching up and idea groups
So explain to me in gameplay terms what you would do simulate teching up and having a campaign focus (idea groups) if you want to remove them. You can't just say "this shit is bad and should be removed" if you offer no alternative.
You mean like buying industry with money and then getting a tech boost from that?
> So explain to me in gameplay terms what you would do simulate teching up and having a campaign focus (idea groups) if you want to remove them. You can't just say "this shit is bad and should be removed" if you offer no alternative.
lol, there is no need to remove anything because it's an entirely new game with a new set of mechanics
techs are represented much better with institutions/CK2-like local systems, idea of idea groups is horrible, specialization of a nation should be represented by estates, laws and budget sliders/buttons, not by +5% discipline for 400 sword_mana points
>specialization of a nation should be represented by estates, laws and budget sliders/buttons
all of this is abstraction at the end of the day because all this does is apply modifiers.
Personally I think the way mana+tech+ideas work actually functions really well and makes EU4 fun. But it's an EU4 thing that should stay in EU4. Monarch points were its thing and that time has come and gone.
Institutions are on the right track but barely do anything in EU4 because they spread so fast and everyone gets them every game. Use a system like institutions to spread technology. Have it move through cities and centers of trade following trade routes, this rewards expanding your merchant empire and having good infrastructure.
Then just cut out the middleman of mana. Instead of having advisors generate mana you spend on tech, have the advisors help generate and spread the tech directly. Institution spread would now be an actually important factor instead of an afterthought.
Also have military tech spread through combat like some Vic2 inventions, that incentivizes fighting more wars (the point of the game) and makes for fun temporary advantage windows
as for ideas I don't know, ideas feel like something intrinsically based on the concept of mana. Honestly maybe just leave the concept of idea groups behind in EU4 too and create a new system of stacking modifiers to make "builds" for your country over the course of the game. Maybe buff their strength but make it like policies where you pay a cost to maintain them.
maybe unlock ideas by doing things in-game rather than just spending a currency. Army professionalism is a good example of how that could work actually. You gain and lose it based on how you actually play the game, not by spending points (spam recruiting generals aside).
maybe do it like dynasty shit in CK3 where each ruler has their own set of "ideas" you're building up but there's also the permanent dynasty bonuses in the background, in EU4 maybe that's for your nation.
Also, there are so many better and more fun ways to stack modifiers now that maybe the basic b***h idea groups just aren't needed. monuments, reforms, estates etc.
Really good reply mate and I agree with nearly all of it, institutions used to actually work as intended but with the insane power creep and being allowed to dev spam then the institutions spread way too much and there's never a situation where you massively out tech any serious player in the word. I like the thought of advisors spreading tech or imroving your tech research speed.
The ideas point is interesting, if they allowed you a specific policy because you held the Pentarchy as an orthodox nation so a policy unlocks giving you +5% missionary strength. I don't know if I agree with giving "ideas" to your ruler like ck3 does it can't say i'm a fan of that idea in EU, but I do feel like NI's in general give the game a lot of flavour and produce "personalities" for countries when you play the game a long time you know that france has giga morale, prussia with it's discipline, ottomans and russia with their insane force limits. I feel if you take that away then the game might feel the same no matter where you play, and that's kinda what CK3 feels like for me.
I disagree completely with monuments I hate the way they are implemented in EU4, there's wayy too many, they are so spread out so it's hard to learn them all, and the financial investment is rarely worth the cost unless it's an insane one like alhambra or stave church.
FWIW I meant the idea groups, not national ideas. National ideas should definitely stay, great way of making sure countries are unique. If you remove NIs you get the victoria 3 problem where everyone is the same blob in a different color.
I do like that idea groups are a way of "specializing" your country and creating a "build" over the course of the game to get more powerful or stack the right stuff to have fun and so on, but the generic idea groups have some problems.
Like I said the way you buy them is just wait > spend mana which is totally uninteresting. And because you buy them with mana the "get more mana" and "spend less mana" ideas will always be no-brainer picks.
Then also, besides aristocratic/plutocratic/etc every country can get every group all the time, meaning it's easy to just pick the same ones every time and it gets stale. And vice versa, you avoid the same ones every time too because they're not as good.
Ideas are also a one-and-done, once you pick a group you're done with that decision and there's no strategy left, you're just waiting for the sword points to tick up. Except in very rare cases like dipping into exploration or something.
some mods introduce interesting concepts to ideas. Like M&T has idea groups unlocked by other idea groups, idea groups unlocked by tech or institutions, and mutually exclusive idea groups. It's a little more interesting. but I think a totally new concept could do it better.
>And because you buy them with mana the "get more mana" and "spend less mana" ideas will always be no-brainer picks.
I personally don't think idea groups should be in the game that reduce mana point cost, feels like they're hard to balance for reasons you stated and I don't like the idea of spending mana to get a mana discount.
>easy to just pick the same ones every time and it gets stale. And vice versa, you avoid the same ones every time too because they're not as good.
Agree with this completely and it's also a problem I have with missions in the game as you always going to play the mission tree it's stupid not to however it railroads countries but people say "just don't do the missions then" it's quite infuriating.
>Like M&T has idea groups unlocked by other idea groups, idea groups unlocked by tech or institutions, and mutually exclusive idea groups.
They sound very interesting and definitely a better way to go about it however I can't speak about M&T since I only tried playing it like 5 years ago and it ran like ass and was too much of a tism simulator. I really like the idea of branching paths/mutually exclusive decisions you can take with your country they just need to be done right, have tons of flavour and not railroad the country too much.
>institutions used to actually work as intended but with the insane power creep and being allowed to dev spam then the institutions spread way too much and there's never a situation where you massively out tech any serious player in the word.
Institutions have always been awfully designed. The first 3 up to Printing Press do make tech spread slower but the later ones all spread absurdly fast meaning tech is almost completely equalized everywhere after 1600. It's been like this since institutions were added because they never once rebalanced their spawn or spread requirements.
It's the complete opposite of how they should be also. The early institutions should spread quickly and easily and the later ones should be very difficult to spread outside of Western Europe because the European tech advantage didn't actually take off until around the 1600s, up until that point China/India/the Muslim world were basically on par with Europe in terms of technology.
>up until that point China/India/the Muslim world were basically on par with Europe in terms of technology.
not in naval tech
Yeah, naval tech is the one big exception and Europeans were vastly ahead of the rest of the world even at the start date. Otherwise though they shouldn't pull ahead until the 1600s.
>Otherwise though they shouldn't pull ahead until the 1600s.
Europeans had better guns, more literacy and higher gdp per capita than most of the world.
Sure some places might have matched Western Europe in one or two of this criteria but that doesn't change the overall trend.
>Europeans had better guns, more literacy and higher gdp per capita than most of the world.
By population? Not until the 19th century. By landmass? Sure, but that bar is sinking into the ground.
>y population? Not until the 19th century.
Wtf are you talking about?
https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/?lang=en
>1300s France
>GDP/Capita of $1800
>1450s China
>$1375
I've never trusted these guys, but thinking about it, I don't think non-eu4 players do, either.
>I don't think non-eu4 players do, either.
What do you man?
>I've never trusted these guys,
I mean, I guess a random invention in isolation you can bring up is better than scholars trying to crunch numbers, surely that's how science works.
EU4 Players are the only guys to take Maddison seriously as a source. No one else bothers because their data is often incomplete and based on "it's the best we have" assumptions.
>EU4 Players are the only guys to take Maddison seriously as a source. No one else bothers because their data is often incomplete and based on "it's the best we have" assumptions.
If it is the best we have... then why not use it? You are just excluding something in favor of... meme rockets invented in a place and immediately adopted by its enemy? Is that better?
Is your entire argument about seed drills and big chinese walls at this point?
They were ahead of Europe until then.
Navigational tech, yes. Actual naval architecture remained even until the invention of the steamboat, with Bengali developments bleeding into European designs at least until Plassey.
>naval architecture remained even
You are conpletely delusional if you believe that
You aren't familiar with Bengali shipbuilding practices, the East Javan maritime industry, or pre-Qing designs, are you?
>the East Javan maritime industry
You mean the same region that was colonized early by both Dutch and Portuguese? Wow they must have had amazing ship technology to lose ground to both Islamized Malays and people coming from the other side of the world!
>You mean the same region that was colonized early by both Dutch and Portuguese?
Do you just not know where Java is?
>Do you just not know where Java is?
So if every place around you is conquered by people on the other side of the world but you personally on the most populated island in the region aren't it signifies you matching them technology?
This is a non sequitur.
You made up an entire premise and argument. Why not just go ahead and make up a response?
And the Dutch consolidation of Java came in the 19th century. The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France, has no bearing on the shipbuilding capabilities of Eastern Javanese.
>You made up an entire premise and argument. Why not just go ahead and make up a response?
I did respond, if you are unable to contest the naval powers around you then you have no proof of being a match to them.
>And the Dutch consolidation of Java came in the 19th century.
>The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France´
The Dutch were in Batavia in the early 17th century.
>The siege of Malacca, a city about as far from Surabaya as Lviv is from France´
You are right, it would be insane for a East Javan based state to project power in Malaya, that has never happened in history
>I did respond, if you are unable to contest the naval powers around you then you have no proof of being a match to them.
Am I talking to a chatbot?
>Batavia
It was a glorified warehouse for most of its existence, attacked by a Central Javanese state whose soldiers revolted.
>It would be insane for as East Javan based state to project power in Malaya
Seeing as that state was in decline due to internal troubles, and didn't stand to gain as much from the endeavor as a group operating under a monopolistic charter, trying to reach China, yes.
>Am I talking to a chatbot?
So you will just ignore what I say and insult me.
>It was a glorified warehouse for most of its existence,
A glorified warehouse your pet East Javanese state failed to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Batavia
>Seeing as that state was in decline due to internal troubles, and didn't stand to gain as much from the endeavor as a group operating under a monopolistic charter, trying to reach China, yes.
BTW the Mataram Sultanate itself was being conquered by the Dutch in the late 17th centurym, with most of the island being under them by 1760. But sure it only happened in the 19th century.
>Navigational tech, yes. Actual naval architecture remained even until the invention of the steamboat, with Bengali developments bleeding into European designs at least until Plassey.
So how did Europeans manage to get concessions in naval warfare prior to then?
By fighting and winning wars. Conflicts aren't always won through technological advances. Malacca was a gamble, as was most of anything the Dutch and Portuguese did. We just hear about the times those gambles paid off.
General technology. Han dynasty seed drills and ploughs gave them significantly higher ox and manpower efficiency in agriculture than was enjoyed in Europe until Jethro Tull created his own in the 18th century. The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
Compasses, water mills, escapement mechanisms, guns, and woven paper all come from China also. These spread westward. Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe, Marathas introduced the British to rocket artillery, the Chinese walls were damn near impossible to breach with cannon (even going into the 20th century), and many Asian states were very well able to fend off Europeans if sincere attempts to conquer them were made. Bengal in particular just set off a chain reaction.
>muh luck
This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans.
>Han dynasty seed drills and ploughs gave them significantly higher ox and manpower efficiency in agriculture than was enjoyed in Europe until Jethro Tull created his own in the 18th century.
Did everyone else but the Chinese have that?
>The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
Did they use it as much as Europeans did in 1500? Otherwise you could bring up random inventions made by Romans that fell in disuse.
>Compasses, water mills, escapement mechanisms, guns, and woven paper all come from China also. These spread westward.
Again, notice how it's only China and Europeans had guns by 1400, so 1600 as a date is dumb.
>Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe,
Source?
>Marathas introduced the British to rocket artillery,
Meme invention
>he Chinese walls were damn near impossible to breach with cannon
Not resource efficient
>and many Asian states were very well able to fend off Europeans if sincere attempts to conquer them were made.
Why yes, of course winning when your enemy has to move troops over large stretches of land or water makes you superior, what a fricking moronic argument.
>Bengal in particular just set off a chain reaction.
Again, "muh luck" is not an argument when you have to use for every single place Europeans conquered or surpassed. The Brits were evidently industrializing before Plassey, London was one of the top 5 cities in the world already in 1700.
>Luck
No one said this. I said we just don't hear about the failures.
>Odds stacked against the Europeans
Almost never the case. Allies just aren't included in the story because they lessen the glory, and the guy telling it often counts enemy irregulars as though they were real troops.
>Did everyone else but the Chinese have that?
Everyone between Egypt and China, save Central Asians and SEA.
>Did they use it as much as the Europeans in 1500?
By far, and long before then. Manuscripts were widespread throughout the country, and books of all types dotted China like nothing else by the Song dynasty. It was enough to warrant regular purges and censorship throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties.
>Again, notice how it's only China
China is the origin of many of these inventions. They diffused throughout Asia, along the Silk Road centuries before reaching Europe.
>Ottoman military organization source
Don't have it. Just remember reading about the impression made on Eastern European states during its wars with the Habsburgs.
>Meme invention
The Brits didn't seem to think so, especially since they immediately adopted it for use in their own navy (Congreve), and it still survives today in the form of MIRV and rocket heli platforms.
>Not resource-efficient
If it resists artillery and defends a massive city for millennia after its construction, it's a good investment.
>Winning when your enemy has to move troops over large stretches of land or water
Not how Euros fought wars abroad. They worked with local allies in almost every case.
>Muh luck
Bengal, the starting point for the Indian conquest, and the primary economic engine powering the UK, was won because a local monarch physically humiliated a major banker and threatened everyone in his court. Euro conquests weren't just "luck" so much as studied opportunism, like most conquests in the world, or will you tell me about how the Manchus conquered China with their innate superiority?
>No one said this. I said we just don't hear about the failures.
If you say they just won more gambles than they lost, you are invoking luck. Otherwise how do you explain the fact that they did end up staying in Indonesia and India for centuries?
>Allies just aren't included in the story because they lessen the glory, and the guy telling it often counts enemy irregulars as though they were real troops.
Yes fighting thousands of kms away from your land is not a disadvantage.
>Everyone between Egypt and China, save Central Asians and SEA.
Source?
>By far, and long before then. Manuscripts were widespread throughout the country, and books of all types dotted China like nothing else by the Song dynasty. It was enough to warrant regular purges and censorship throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Source? Show me evidence that Chinese literacy was higher than European in 1500.
>China is the origin of many of these inventions. They diffused throughout Asia, along the Silk Road centuries before reaching Europe.
And most were in Europe already by 1600, rendering your argument wrong.
>The Brits didn't seem to think so, especially since they immediately adopted it for use in their own navy (Congreve), and it still survives today in the form of MIRV and rocket heli platforms.
Yes the Brits made it actually useful.
>If it resists artillery and defends a massive city for millennia after its construction, it's a good investment.
Star forts were pretty good too and you could build them without having a gigantic population as a mere city.
>Not how Euros fought wars abroad. They worked with local allies in almost every case.
Yeah magically there is just enough dick-suckers everywhee that Europeans can convince them to lose their independence to Europeans for their advantage, perfectly logical.
Also
>Bengal, the starting point for the conquest, and the economic engine powering the UK,
No, Britain was evidently prosperous before then, this is not up to debate we can clearly see that the pattern of inventions and growth didn't change AT ALL.
>You need to use the continent as a whole exactly because the countries that got really lucky early were incapable of keeping those streaks in the long term. fortuna and very little virtù.
If you unironically use luck as an argument you have no actual explanation and are merely coping.
Luck is a factor in strategy and victory. That is just how nature works.
The vast majority of nations and peoples would succeed were they on the shoes of the Spanish arriving in mesoamerica and the vast majority of nations and peoples would fail were they on the shoes of the Inca about to lose 90% of the population and their entire royal bloodline to eight thousands years worth of old world illnesses.
Idk why the term triggered you so much.
>The vast majority of nations and peoples would succeed were they on the shoes of the Spanish arriving in mesoamerica and the vast majority of nations and peoples would fail were they on the shoes of the Inca about to lose 90% of the population and their entire royal bloodline to eight thousands years worth of old world illnesses.
This is not luck, this is unchangeable circumstances.
You are using luck in a dumb way, otherwise everything from geography to the result of everything that has to do with people is luck.
But geography is not luck.
>about to lose 90% of the population
The Spanish conquered the Aztecs before most of the deaths happened, so that argument is as valid as saying the Ottomans conquered the Balkans because of the earthquake in 1354 and the Black death
It is completely valid to say Arab conquests wouldn't have happened was not for climate frick ups causing famines followed by successive massive plagues. Don't know much about the Ottoman context.
The late antique ice age wasn't a stochastic event AFAIK, so it's a given just like geography.
Geographical determinism =/= luck
>No, Britain was evidently prosperous before then
Yes, and then it got the world's single most potent economic booster strapped to it when it gained control of Bengal.
Why does every PDX argument have to be such a shitshow?
Funny how these technological and economic boosters only work when Europeans are in charge
>Yes, and then it got the world's single most potent economic booster strapped to it when it gained control of Bengal.
Surely there must be something you can show to make 1756 look like a watershed year/moment, but to me looking at the history of London's populaiton, usage of coal even before the steam engine, the invention of the steam engine itself, the agricultural revolution, the scientific revolution, the fact Britan was even able to project power in India to conquer large portions of it and so on tell me it was not a watershed moment for Britain itself, only for India.
why was the mughal empire such a shithole then despite having the riches of mighty bengal in its possesions?
>If you say they just won more gambles than they lost
Didn't say that.
>fighting thousands of kms away from your land is not a disadvantage
And fighting alongside your enemy's rivals must not be an advantage, then.
>Source?
For the diffusion of a tool made in both Babylon and China throughout the Silk Road? Check the Wikipedia page's Cambridge link regarding India and have fun.
>Source? Show me that Chinese literacy was higher than European in 1500
>Dig through a miscellaneous stat for some 40-odd states in a specific time period so I can dismiss it since it doesn't support my wank
Go frick yourself.
>And most were in Europe already by 1600, proving your argument wrong
How does the 17th-century presence of a 5th century Chinese invention in Europe provide there was no diffusion in the meantime?
>Yes the Brits actually made it useful
They just renamed the Maratha weapon.
>Star forts were pretty good too
Very cool, but thousands of years late.
>Yeah magically there is just enough dick-suckers everywhee that Europeans can convince them to lose their independence to Europeans for their advantage
Do you think everytime a European state won a battle in some area, that it became suzerain over every neighboring state? They got a port or two, and the other state got a ton of land and a new trading partner. You're confusing 19th-century expansion with prior meddling in distant conflicts for small benefits. Look at the Portuguese empire in Asia to see what that looked like.
>And fighting alongside your enemy's rivals must not be an advantage, then.
Having allies only alleviates the issue, it doesn't explain why Europeans had the ability to take over regions not as "allies" or "trading partners" but as colonial overlords.
>For the diffusion of a tool made in both Babylon and China throughout the Silk Road? Check the Wikipedia page's Cambridge link regarding India and have fun.
The only mention of seed drills in India is that they were in the Mughal Empire when they were independently invented in Europe already and as far as I know the seed drills invented in Europe in the 18th century were more advanced already.
>How does the 17th-century presence of a 5th century Chinese invention in Europe provide there was no diffusion in the meantime?
You said "they were more advanced before then" referring the 1600 date, but you are using anachronistic examples to support that.
>They just renamed the Maratha weapon.
Source?
>Very cool, but thousands of years late.
Yes because the Chinese had those forts in the 6th century to... defend against catapults? What the frick are you talking about?
>Do you think everytime a European state won a battle in some area, that it became suzerain over every neighboring state?
But it did become so within a few generations.
>You're confusing 19th-century expansion
You are ignore the extent of European control as early as the 17th century.
>Portuguese empire in Asia to see what that looked like.
They conquered most of Timor and surrounding islands in the same generation they arrived and declined mostly because of the Iberian union and the Dutch taking over.
>1700 comes before 1600
kys
This won't end, so I'll find something else to do. Paradrones are a pestilence all on their own.
>This won't end, so I'll find something else to do. Paradrones are a pestilence all on their own.
China having guns and cast iron before the Europeans means they were superior in 1500 as was India, this is literally YOUR argument
Learn to read. I said they were technologically ahead.
And no, Mataram wasn't East Javan. It took Surabaya between those sieges, but their second attempt was ruined by an organizational issue. Had it succeeded, we wouldn't be here, talking about Batavia.
>I said they were technologically ahead.
Yes they were technologically ahead becuase of things the European adopted centuries prior, perfect logic.
You are a fricking hypocritie critizing others for stuff you did to begin with.
>Had it succeeded
Yeah if
>And no, Mataram wasn't East Javan.
Damn so you were talking about a miniscule irrelevant part of Java having good ships, damn this means all of Indonesia and the Malay Archipelago was on par!
>17 comes before 5
Again, kys
>"Every mention of technological capacity in a discussion about technology must be uniformly distributed across multiple countries"
I can't wait to see the Polish First-rates and Irish Armada!
Yes the Indians and Middle Easterners were more advanced than the Europeans before 1600 because China invented guns and paper and had big walls.
Your argument would have worked if you said "before 1400" but even that would have hardly been valid as most inventions that reached the middle east quickly spread to Europe.
>Yes the Indians and Middle Easterners were more advanced than the Europeans before 1600 because China invented guns and paper and had big walls.
I mentioned the rocket technology of India and you couldn't decide whether they were a "meme weapon" or a viable mainstay of gunpowder-driven warfare. Flush decks were only adopted late in the period by Europeans, Rammed Earth walls did a better job of resisting cannonfire than Euro forts (even Star forts, yes), and multiple of Europe's period-defining inventions had many centuries of precedence and use by the time Europe got involved.
>I mentioned the rocket technology of India and you couldn't decide whether they were a "meme weapon" or a viable mainstay of gunpowder-driven warfare.
You claimed the British just "renamed" the rockets with no proof when every source says they were designed by a British guy based on the pre-existing rockets, not "renamed"
>Rammed Earth walls did a better job of resisting cannonfire than Euro forts
Rammed forts were not made to resist cannon fire because cannon fire didn't exist, so this is a stupid argument and why I mentioned they were not cost effective.
>and multiple of Europe's period-defining inventions had many centuries of precedence and use by the time Europe got involved.
Such as?
>Rammed forts
*Chinese-style walls
>didn't exist
*when they were made
>You claimed the British just "renamed" the rockets with no proof when every source says they were designed by a British guy based on the pre-existing rockets, not "renamed"
Congreve just made large ones that traveled farther than contemporary European rockets, based on the Indian design.
>Rammed forts were not made to resist cannon fire
Utterly irrelevant. When cannons were eventually invented, rammed earth defenses held up where traditional stoneworks didn't. Being invented to withstand a different kind of attack before the new threat existed has no bearing here.
>Such as?
Stock-joint companies, paper currencies, the aforementioned seed drills, and movable type.
>than contemporary European rockets
>When cannons were eventually invented, rammed earth defenses held up where traditional stoneworks didn't. Being invented to withstand a different kind of attack before the new threat existed has no bearing here.
Chinese walls being so thick went beyond usefulness against pre-gunpowder artillery, it was an accident that they resisted artillery and clearly didn't do the Chinese much good against the Manchus or Mongols.
>Chinese walls being so thick went beyond usefulness against pre-gunpowder artillery,
It's a long-term defensive investment. Managing to future-proof to such a degree that even a revolution in weapons technology can't change its role or effectiveness is good.
>Mongols
They exploited the logistical weakness of the structure, which just comes down to hunger. The walls served their purpose in making that the only viable approach.
>Manchus
They were invited in, and became the only legitimate government before the effectiveness of the walls could come into play.
>It's a long-term defensive investment. Managing to future-proof to such a degree that even a revolution in weapons technology can't change its role or effectiveness is good.
>future-proof
This is an insane claim that I can't take seriously, the Chinese built X and X just happens to make artillery not a feasible means to breach it, that's it. There is no intentionality here.
>They exploited the logistical weakness of the structure, which just comes down to hunger. The walls served their purpose in making that the only viable approach.
If this viable approach works even for a numerically and economically inferior enemy, then that's not a good thing.
>before the effectiveness of the walls could come into play.
What an amazing investment
The intention is to make a wall that can protect a settlement. Cannons are ultimately siege engines in line with catapults or trebuchets, just with greater ability to concentrate force on a target. The intention is the same as before, and the means are the same as before. It's just a better tool.
>If this viable approach works even for a numerically and economically inferior enemy, then that's not a good thing
True, but the walls exist to prevent attacks and buy time. They did that wonderfully. The people inside being unable to survive the siege because they ran out of food is a separate issue and proof that the walls did their job.
>What an amazing investment
This just in: Walls won't protect your city from changes in throne politics and the rapid assimilation of the bureaucracy into the new government.
Nevermind, your entire fricking point is moronic and wrong, quitoing "The world of the siege", page 244:
>As a result, Chinese focused on making smaller guns until at least the midsixteenth century. Thereafter, however, practices on both sides of the Eurasian supercontinent began to converge. In the early 1500s, people in East Asia began adopting and adapting European guns of all types and sizes, and in China this process has been referred to as Sino-Western fusion or hybridization, reflecting the fact that new designs were nativized and melded with traditional Chinese guns.3 Chinese military adoption and innovation sped up still further in the 1600s, especially between 1620 and 1683, when massive wars convulsed continental East Asia. During this period, armies in China were increasingly equipped with siege artillery. These cannons, known in China as “red barbarian cannon” (紅夷炮), after the hair color of the Dutch and English who brought them to China’s shores, were unprecedentedly effective, even against the thick walls of China.4 Indeed, it is quite intriguing that the trace italienne walls that stimulated the development of seventeenth-century European siege artillery were in many ways quite similar to the traditional walls of China: thick, earthen-cored, sloped.
Muh invincible and unique thick walls
(more)
>Yet the trace italienne was not just effective because of its thick walls. It was designed from the ground up as a gun fortress, with geometrical principles of defense that included the angled bastion and a variety of ingenious outworks.
>It stimulated not just the development of powerful siege artillery, but also a series of innovations in siegecraft, including advances in siegeworks and counter-siegeworks, in trench warfare, in logistics, and in siege tactics and planning.
>By the mid- to late-1600s, these practices were so refined and systematized that a well-planned and well-provisioned siege could quickly and straightforwardly reduce the most powerful trace italienne fortifications.5 Perhaps guns and fortresses are the most significant aspects of the military revolution, but siegecraft itself was far from trivial.
>To what extent did East Asian warmakers import – or develop – Westernstyle fortification and siegecraft? Although research on this topic is in its infancy, it does seem that Europeans maintained an advantage. Recent work shows that although many Chinese did indeed adopt trace-italienne designs, those designs did not spread widely. Moreover, by examining seventeenth-century sieges in which the forces of China attacked Western artillery fortresses, we can infer that when it came to siegecraft, the armed forces of China werlless effective than those of Europe, at least when they had to grapple with trace italienne-style defenses.
What you can just build something monumental and have it be as effective as something that implements and uses the latest technology in its design? This is insane!
*you can't just build
Oh btw, despite the supposed amazingness of Chinese forts, you know that Chinese generals struggled to breach western forts even using western artillery such as the siege of Fort Zeelandia in 1661 or the Qing in 1685 Albazin?
Maybe things are not as simple as "thick walls = good"
A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months. That's really not saying much.
>A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months. That's really not saying much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Albazin#Siege_of_1686
Also this is the siege I was referring to, when the actual fort was built in a year.
>Stock-joint companies, paper currencies, the aforementioned seed drills, and movable type.
The difference is that the Europeans either independently invented or adopted these things and used them more extensively.
I also have no clue why people think 2nd century BCE Han seed drills were equivalent to what the Brits or even Italians invented in the early modern period, this seems like a simplicistic understanding to me. The Han Chinese didn't even invent THE seed drills but a version of them as seed drills existed prior in the middle East(which means the middle East was more advanced than China given apparently seed drills are sooo important)
>paper currencies
BTW promissory notes existed in Europe not far after they appeared in China and apparently independently developed:
>According to a travelogue of a visit to Prague in 960 by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub, small pieces of cloth were used as a means of trade, with these cloths having a set exchange rate versus silver.[24]
>The difference is that the Europeans either independently invented or adopted these things and used them more extensively
You don't get credit for "independently" inventing something you've seen people use, or for using someone else's design. This conversation is about technological limits. The Great Divergence didn't start in 1600.
And the Han seed drills operate using the same principle as the British ones. The difference came in the way the industrial revolution expanded their use.
>Promissory notes
This seems more like a proof-of-concept that didn't work its way into the economic structures of many states until later.
>The Great Divergence didn't start in 1600.
Yes, yes it did and it started even earlier by 1500
>And the Han seed drills operate using the same principle as the British ones. The difference came in the way the industrial revolution expanded their use.
I need a source for that, I don't take simplcisitic claims that lack any actual factual evidence at face value, especially not when used like this.
>This seems more like a proof-of-concept that didn't work its way into the economic structures of many states until later.
Something people use is not a "proof of concept", also using this logic any technology oyu mention that didn't see provable widespread and continuous use for centuries wouldn't count either. That raises the standard of evdience which you fail to reach by just mentioning "this existed here in this year"
I'm pretty sure you're not the other guy. Are you the dim one?
>1500
Ah.
>inventing something you've seen people use, or for using someone else's design.
There is also no proof that Guthenberg new of movable types or the Czechs new of Tang paper money or that the Europeans knew of Tang and Song stock-companies.
Independently developed is the correct term for these inventions.
The term doesn't matter. The principle does. If the Asante empire independently invented spring-tension systems in 1820 AD, would it matter at all?
>The term doesn't matter.
It clearly does to you, I only mentioned it for accuracy, it didn't factor in my argument at all.
>A southern Ming general took one fort in 2 days, and the other in 8 months.
From what I read the Chinese had difficulties breaching both cities.
>That's really not saying much.
The Brits breached walls of Canton during the 2nd Opium wars... it's not like we have tons of example of western artillery vs Chiense walls, your argument is rather wishy-washy and not based on empirical data.
>It clearly does to you,
I said one won't get credit for it.
>From what I read, the Chinese had difficulties sieging both cities.
>The Brits breached the walls of Canton during the 2nd Opium wars...
They scaled the walls. They didn't breach them.
This is the first I'm hearing of this, but I'll accept it.
Why can't third worldists avoid being disingenuous
>Again, notice how it's only China and Europeans had guns by 1400, so 1600 as a date is dumb.
Arabs and Turks had guns too.
I don't know why I wrote that, my point was that Europeans already had guns by then
>Ottomans inspired the early modern military organization of Western Europe,
Source?
There's battle of mohac, where janissaries employed the battlefield tactic of volley fire, janissaries were also probably one of the first military units to employ standardized uniforms and military bands to boost morale. Ottoman sappers were also highly professional for its time
>The Printing Press was invented by a charlatan in Tang dynasty China, and the movable type was derived from it shortly after (mostly unused outside of Korea).
this is enough to not even bother with the rest of your posts
water wheel mills were in use by the Romans tho
First invented in China and transmitted to Greece as a result of Alexander's conquests. You can guess what followed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermill#Western_world
You mean this?
Just above that section.
It doesn't say it was invented in China?
There's a separate "Water Wheel" page.
>They were ahead of Europe until then
Based on what?
well done derailing the thread
>I'm NTA but how would you handle teching up and unlocking idea groups in your ideal EU5?
People who started playing PDS games after CK2 came out really should stop commenting on them
If mana was solely used for ideas it'd no longer be mana, it'd just be idea points. The problem is that you use the same resource for half the inputs in the game so hiring an admiral or converting cultures or annexing your vassal or developing a province or running too many alliance somehow all have an impact you being able to unlock a colonist.
WE ARE SO BACK
IT'S OVER, well it was fun while it lasted for the last two weeks, now I already know is gonna be another trash slop
Don't forget the context for this statement. He said "the game does not have mana" and said in that chart what he considers to be "mana" is the "Diegetic Purist" category. So presumably what he's saying is that he considers stuff like Monarch Power and Suppression Points to be mana, and is saying that he is not including those in this game.
I am assuming he is not including "Time" in that statement since its a joke answer.
If we cut adm/dip/mil points thats good enough for me
So abstract local capacities, i.e. development and control like in ck3, and centralisation/autonomy,
unrest and suppression like in eu4
Can't wait to see the Croatian Cavalry and Sicilian Longbowmen. I hope Techgroups wither and die, and You can get units based on climate and geography on local level instead of national one.
>Can't wait to see the Croatian Cavalry and Sicilian Longbowmen. I hope Techgroups wither and die, and You can get units based on climate and geography on local level instead of national one.
Tech trees would make sense IMO and the diffusion of technology should be geographical.
There would be a chance an invention appears anywhere, favouring places where incentivizes exist and then you can adopt it by deliberate action or passively
>units based on climate and geography on local level instead of national one.
That is so fricking utterly moronic
Why? Why should mountain fricking people have access to cavarly. Why should places where wood is scarce or there's little to no game have any good bowmen?
Why should Mameluks after being exiled to Australia still use the same weapons when they have no capability to produce them anymore?
>Why should Mameluks after being exiled to Australia still use the same weapons when they have no capability to produce them anymore?
I would hope this is simulated rather than arbitrarily decided, units should cost goods and if you don't have them you can't reinforce or produce them.
that map projection sucks, a solid 10% of the map is taken up by completely useless african wasteland provinces for no reason other than to appease gays that won't even play the game to begin with
>to appease gays that won't even play the game to begin with
HoI4, EU4, and CK3 are some of the most popular games on steam, map games expanded beyond the community of basement dwelling reactionaries years ago.
Let me check.
>blah blah blah equity, assets, capitalized development
Okay.
>Revenues amounted to MSEK 2,642.1 (MSEK 1.972.9), an increase by 34 % compared to the
same period last year.
>Operating profit amounted to MSEK 657.9 (MSEK 887.1), a decrease by 26 %. Write-downs of MSEK
185.4 (MSEK 0.0) are included in the operating profit.
>Profit after financial items amounted to MSEK 687.7 (MSEK 884.4), and profit after tax amounted to MSEK 530.6 (MSEK 708.7).
So revenues are up, costs are down, but somehow profit dropped compared to last year.
Oh wait, "operating profit" is left over profit after operating costs, whoops. So costs are way up.
Inflation and war in Ukraine, pls understand
What does any of this have to do with what I said?
You used the word "popular". An empty, meaningless word by itself, unless you study the material reality behind it.
Schizophrenia
what a moronic post, you have to be american
According to paradox forum historians supply was all about looting food from the countryside until the modern period
one of the things sun tzu tries to drive home in art of war is that you can't actually sustain an army off foraging
I hope this means he's interested in supply line mechanics for notEUV
Was it not? I thought thays how medieval armies got their food
no serious campaign, such as a siege, could be sustainable with compromised supply lines
foraging would be supplemental and eventually the army would have consumed everything in the vicinity even if their enemy didn't employ scorched earth tactics
for short term expeditions maybe
in any gunpowder setting, you also need supply lines to ensure your gunners and artillery have ammunition because gunpowder and bullets cannot be foraged
paradox forums are full of morons who learn their history from paradox game mechanics and feel the need to lectures others on history thanks to their qualification
game has no naval warfare? akshually naval battles didn't happen back then
game supply system is just a value of the maximum number of troops you can station somewhere? akshually supply lines didn't exist back then
game allows you to teleport troops and walk over oceans? aksually this is an abstraction of levies travelling around and commissioning merchant fleets
etc
paradox enables this homosexualry with shilling operations like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GLg5H63_I
entire video is an advertisement for CK3 (and why the lack of navies is acceptable) disguised as a documentary on medieval navies
Are you the type of person that gets made when people mention every historical figure likely had diarrhea at least once?
>This argument only exists when you fail to give an actual explanation to a entire pattern of victories stretching multiple generations with odds stacked against the Europeans.
You need to use the continent as a whole exactly because the countries that got really lucky early were incapable of keeping those streaks in the long term. fortuna and very little virtù.
>paradox enables this homosexualry with shilling operations
I didn't see the video you linked, but there was another video I've seen that was also a CK3 promo thinly veiled as a """history""" video that said there wasn't naval warfare. It's very easy to assume that that's just how things were done if your entire exposure to medieval history is Crusader Kings and watching poorly researched YouTube videos. Any amount of reading about naval warfare at that time yields "most nations didn't have dedicated navies... BUT", but somehow this translated into videos going "nations didn't have dedicated navies, be sure to check out the walking on water simulator CK3". Gamers need to understand that a video game based on history will usually forego some historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay because in most cases you just have to do that so that your game can actually ship at some point, but instead most gamers playing these GSG's are glue-eating morons that think everything in these games should be accepted at face value as historical fact.
EU5 is going to be kino bros trust in johan
can't wait for the "shitting diarrhea" dude on release
he might just switch it up and make it about vomiting
>eu5? more like *eugh*
Johan said something is going to be controversial in the next dd. Hmmmm. I wonder what this could be
We know its not Vic War, Mana, or something related to Start Dates. So its something else.
I'm betting its related to pops, the whole point of this "Tinto Talk" stuff is for people to discuss ideas about the game, so establishing whether something like PoPs is even included is probably important.
For what its worth Johan has not made any direct statements on PoPs being in so far, but he has defended criticisms against them. Mainly about dismissing performance concerns, basically stating that the reason Vic3's performance is shit is because of how the data is used, not the data itself. Which makes me think he's pro-pops in theory, but we'll see.
Could be something entirely unrelated.
Johan dismissed globes as he said they're bad for not being able to get a full picture at once and not necessary in his eyes.
I would like minority cultures in EU5 but I don't particularly care about pops and always found the pop management or Stellaris and Imperator to be boring
We are back
>We are already discussing mana
ITS OGRE
Omg, they're finally making Vic4?
Everyone's wrong. It's not EU5, it's March of the Eagles 2
I'd unironically like that
With the way CK3 turned out, don't get your hopes high. It's gonna be dumbed down, no coalitions, no mana so even a shitter can hit WC in 20 years.
Railroading is necessary otherwise every country plays the same like in ck3 and vic3.
Not true, you can have deep mechanics and exclusive mechanics to certain regions which facilitate different play styles. Also the region you are in and the way the game develops determines expansion paths you can take. What is the point in playing Hungary a second time when you completed their entire mission tree and achievements the first time round? All you will be doing is trying to execute the tree and snipe Naples and Burgundy in a more efficient manner.
I don't mind perma claims if they are within reason or missions that push you towards a certain goal, but mission trees which give you 5 PU's are absolutely ridiculous and destroy any variation for the first 100 years.
Stellaris 3?
holy frickkkkk just IMAGINE the HRE when locations are that small
>X place is not conquered by Europeans or has a single invention Europeans don't
>this means they were superior
Amazing logic
Knowledge is worthless without use.
>To learn more about Chinese siegecraft and fortification, we must turn to other conflicts in and around China, particularly the warfare of the mid-1600s,
when the massive muzzle-loading guns that the Chinese knew as “red barbarian cannons” (紅夷炮) spread rapidly through China, first to Ming forces and then to their enemies, the Qing.61 Starting in the 1620s, these cannons allowed the systematic breaching of China’s thick walls. China’s historical sources are so rich that, as scholars explore them, we will likely have cause to reconsider our understanding of Chinese siegecraft during this pivotal period. Similarly, we also still know little about other seminal periods in Chinese military history, as for example the mid-1500s, when designs for powerful muzzle-loading artillery were adopted from the Portuguese (in contrast to the earlier Chinese adoption of the breach-loading folangji), and the 1670s, when the formative but understudied War of the Three Feudatories shook the newly-established Qing Dynasty to its foundation.6
In 1500 European guns couldn't breach Chinese walls(likely) but by the 17th century they were.
Europe became dominant because of Christianity, having a sort of mandate of heaven to conquer the world at a certain period. When will games simulate this?
> Christianity, having a sort of mandate of heaven to conquer the world at a certain period
Islam had and has that, but where are you getting the idea that Christianity does
>Islam had and has that
nuh uh
>Everyone hates I:A
>Discussions about what people want to see in EUV
>"It should have I:A mechanics!"
It's as if the first statement is false.
Why did it flop, then?
Development ceased before it could recover and have more content added. That's why players were upset. Nobody cares about bad games.
"games as service" enabling homosexual
You're twenty years late to this fight, because it was lost the moment World of Warcraft launched.
Are you just looking to argue? You said something moronic, he BTFO’d you, then you just switched to a whole new topic without even acknowledging the original point. You ok big guy?
kek what a homosexual
being this mentally stunted is the bare minimum to be an imperatorbab
Have sex, weirdo virgin
I think the major factor was the time period.
So, you have Rome, Carthage, and few Hellenic states, that's it. Everyone else is a generic tribe that is either completely made up or existing 500 ahead of them, based on tribes we know very little of.
These tribes exist just to be conquered and feel the same, they are not fun.
They should have just gone full liberties, nobody knows what political organization in British Isles was in 300 BC, but it's extremely unlikely it was the same as 70 AD when the Romans invaded, which is what the game depicts.
So, why not just go full fiction with it? Instead of British Isles having 1000 OPMS, just make 3-6 nations Britons, Gaels, and Goidelics, you can justify it by saying these are loose tribal confederations. That alone would allow players to LARP as pro-England, and add character to the game.
As in EU4 they would go full fiction with irrelevant nations with DLCs.
They just didn't have the time.
Or do you expect a paradox game with flavor for nations at release for free?
LOL!
I agree with this.
It's not so much that there weren't interesting states in that period but rather we know almost nothing about them. There is very little written evidence for almost anything except Rome. Even in the Hellenic world we know very very little about most places, Egypt being the exception due to the climate being better for preserving stuff.
For example, we have no written works by Carhaginians. Our written sources are all Greeks or Romans writing about Carthage, sometimes centuries later. As I recall the only contemporary account by a person who actually visited Carthage in the Imperator Rome period is by Polybius,. And he didn't write a lot.
Contrast this to the vast sum of written evidence we have from the early modern period of EU4.
For me, this is why Imperator failed. It's hard to make a history themed game about a period for which we know almost no history. Most of the events and characters are little more than fantasy.
Not that it ahs to be historic, fantasy mods like Annebar have demonstrated that fantasy can be of interest. It's just with Imperator, they just refused to fill the holes left by lack of knowledge.
>Mercenaries being I win button?
I remember hiring literally 500K mercenaries final battles, it was fun.
Yup, they didn't lean into the historical-fantasy enough. It was actually TOO historical.
Even the marketing for the game was pretty drab and boring. They should've taken a page from Total War on the themes, lean into the screaming painted barbarians and legionnaires in testudos and elephants and chariots and other iconic stuff. Not unpainted statues standing still. In-game it's like this too, the UI on release was all marble-white and sterile, the characters all have neutral expressions, the map is a bunch of inscrutable multicolored blobs. There's no big bombastic events with music cues like CK3, no massive war to build up to like HoI/Vic2/EU4/CK, no grand ideological conflicts or religious crusades to create drama. It's just kinda boring.
Another issue with the time period is, none of the famous Roman characters are around at the start date, and after that it's all procedural slop. There's no Julius Caesar or any of his contemporaries, no Octavian or Marc Antony etc. Even much much earlier characters like Hannibal and Scipio, nope - you might get a "Hannibal Barcid" but it's not actually Hannibal Barca. You can't tell the story of Rome (the story, not necessarily the most accurate history, but the "traditional history") without its key players. It's like trying to make a RoTK game starting at the Red Eyebrows rebellion, or a Sengoku game starting at the nanboku-cho period. By the time anyone relevant shows up the entire situation is way off the rails.
They wanted to play it because of the time period, but they used the time period the wrong way imo. The game being kinda shit is a separate issue, no matter how much they fixed it after launch it'd always be fundamentally flawed as a concept. it's a Rome game that ends before the Roman Empire. It's EU4 but the map is full of flavorless custom nations. It's a game that tracks characters, but you don't play as them and they barely serve any purpose.
I think the lack of real history from that period is still a problem. The pop history stuff you mention reveals the problem: there is Rome and Carthage and the Gauls sure, but what after that?
What it the Lubeck of the classical period, what did they wear and what did they do? Where is the Port Royale? Who are the Portuguese or the Ottomans or the Byzantines?
I think there are answers to all of these things (Tartessos, Cilicia, Massilia, any steppe nomad, Persians by my reckoning) but we don't have any of the historical fluff for these places that would make them fun to play - and unlike Rome or Greece or Gaul, Hollywood hasn't provided this for us yet.
By hollywood/pop culture argument, eu4 should be the least popular game because of its period.
Dont need that because most of the countries on the map in EU4 have modern day equivalents, and others like the native Americans are well known
Meanwhile most tags in IR are literal who made up tribes
The Rome time period is just much better suited to a total war type game
Huh? There's tons of hollywood shit in there. The pirate fantasy, the crusader fantasy (even if it's a bit anachronistic), colonial stuff, conquistador fantasy, samurai fantasy, oriental fantasy, "noble savage"-type native american fantasy, mesoamerican stuff ripped out of apocalypto...
Half of the flavor in that game is based on pop culture tropes. Like Scotland having a buff event based on Braveheart because one of the early devs was scottish. Or Afghanistan having a "graveyard of empires" theme when that originated from British embarrassment in the 19th century. Or the Russian ideas are centered around having a giant army when that only became a trope associated with Russia in the 19th century and later in the world wars. Honestly EU4 is more "hollywood" than any other Paradox game, drop a pin anywhere on the map and you'll probably find themes ripped from pop culture. Which is fun and something you can't do in Imperator because they made it too boring
Worst blobbing problem in any pdx game. The map already looks completely disgusting in 50 years and it ruins all immersion.
because paradox wanted to kill off Imperator, if paradogs wanted you to think it's salvageable they would shill it just like how they're shilling even a bigger disaster that's a worse game than I:R like Victoria 3,
i:R has potentials but it simply isnt a good investment
We need two types of rebellion systems I reckon. One that represents guerilla warfare or small local rebels. And the other representing full on state uprisings, revolutions and civil wars. Paradox has only focused on the latter and hasn't really developed local rebels beyond the eu4 system. It's been like this for decades.
>probably over a year till release
>Imperator failed because the time period
What kind of cope is this?
The game was unfinished.
Leaks confirm this as they wanted to sustain it as a live service game.
Don't you remember the original UI?
The culture/religion conversion clusterfrick?
Mercenaries being I win button?
Many people wanted to play it due to the time period.
this
the game is so rough and unbalanced and AI is so underdeveloped that it is not fun to actually play, everything else just doesn't matter at all
>the game is so rough and unbalanced and AI is so underdeveloped that it is not fun to actually play
But enough about HOI4
The revisionism surrounding Imperator: Rome is fricking weird, especially the people I've seen who insist that it was an amazing game that paradox dropped for no real reason. The discourse surrounding the game at the time it was dropped was much different.
The idea that every minor entity on the map has to be playable is a dumb meme. Imperator would've worked out better if they limited the playable tags to civilized states and allowed barbarian tribes to just act as NPCs with totally different rules
True. They could have added playable barbarians in some DLC if they really wanted.
This for every pdx game as well, smaller irrelevant nations with generic focus tree and no game impact on hoi taking up resources and slowing the game down, small african tribes in vic2 doing the same, etc
Those Australian stone-age tribes in EU4, they just had to be added.
TNO needs its own KRX.
Word of mouth is that mana is getting removed. It may be announced as early as nect week, but this is just speculation
This is already confirmed, not "word of mouth". No mana and no vic 3 warsystem.
Johan said that this upcoming dev diary would be "controversial" but did not say exactly why. He said it was not to do with anything related to start dates, and given its already confirmed to not be V3 war or Mana, my bet is on something PoP related(inclusion in the game or not.
I don't think pops are controversial either, basically everybody wants them in some form. My bet is on missions
It's probably just gonna be a big list of shit that's getting cut from EU4, EU3 dev diaries had the same kind of entry and EU4 has tons of redundancy and bloat
based on what Johan has said we know the game has
>no mana (in the EU4 sense, he doesn't consider CK2 piety as mana for example)
>war system where you move units on the map, no vic3 shit
>naval units and combat (map has sea lanes)
>no nu-paradox UI with the toaster and notification bubble
>message settings (and therefore EU4 style popups)
>some sort of POP system
>provinces subdivided into locations, which all have names and are just tiny provinces (not Vic3 style state/split state clusterfrick system)
>countries that don't make up an entire province, e.g. city-states existing in one location
>something that "solves bordergore" resulting from so many locations
>fixed map that doesn't shift the americas north
we can reasonably guess it has
>still 400+ year time period
>army automation like imperator
>no tactics system like from imperator
>something that makes each tag unique but isn't a whole mechanic, like EU4 national ideas
>"more granular" progression, more difficult to snowball, supposed to be more challenging than EU4
>losing troops in combat doesn't directly destroy pops like in vic2
>tons of features will be slashed from EU4 which is piled with bloat
big things we don't know yet
>2D portrait art or 3D character slop?
>how the frick does tech work?
>shitty one-way arrow based trade, imperator trade, or something brand-new?
They will never do this, but personally, they should replace missions with ruler-based missions.
Historically, rulers had a habit of undoing their predecessor's policies, famously Russia and Austria were winning Seven Years War, then the Empress of Russia died, her successor Paul III was a gay German lover who changed sides.
Because EU4 is all about graduality and long-term planning, players would never do this sort of stuff.
That wouldn't be a half-bad idea actually, if all the rulers were historical. Without the monarch point mechanic, there really isn't a need for random-rolled rulers anymore. But it still wouldn't work because of personal union mechanics, republics rolling random leaders, massive gaps in the historical record, tribes, etc. So making handmade mission trees would be impractical.
Maybe a better form of that would look kind of like estate agendas do now, but they're ruler agendas. Sort of like the old mission system, but geared toward whatever "agenda" your ruler would have based on their traits etc.
I didn't meant to them to fixed or historical, but random and more like Jade Dragon.
Imagine every ruler has "fixation".
Fixations can be stuff like interest in other cultures, or having 50K army or limiting army 20K, if you don't follow his fixation you don't get monarch points.
Yeah, that sounds kind of like agendas. The ruler wants X because they have traits Y/Z and if you complete their agenda you get some bonus that expires on ruler death.
yeah but agendas are minor boost, this would be more forceful
dumb idea
you just know paradox wont be able to properly balance this and the ai would just go full schizo every game
>no tactics system like from imperator
Did people not like this in Imperator? I still need to play it myself, but when I heard about the whole tactics thing it sounded neat, like how generals deserting sounds neat for larp purposes. I imagine both mechanics were detrimental to gameplay though (many different tactics but only two were found to ever be viable, generals deserting being more annoying than interesting, etc.).
This actually sounds really fun, reminds me of the missions in EU3 where you could do them if you needed something to do, or ignore them if you had your own plans and miss out on bonuses. Basically a way for you to make strategies if you don't know what you want to do, or ignore them if you already have a plan, I think it really works out in strategy games in general when they have this approach.
>abandon youtube and become twitch streamer
Many such cases!
The tactics thing sounds neat but iirc in reality it was basically just sending in scouts to see the enemy's tactic then switching yours to counter it. The AI probably couldn't handle it either. Johan said it was a gameplay failure even after they redesigned it twice
I think HOI4 has a similar tactics mechanic (picrelated), but like everything else in that game it was also automated so if you go into battle with the wrong tactic it gets switched out after a few in-game hours (if not after the first) without the player having to do anything, to the point where I don't really see them get mentioned since they're so out-of-the-way. So I guess it's another example of launch Imperator having a mechanic that was already perfected or automated in a prior game being re-implemented and turned into a chore.
It's just that for every army composition there was one ideal one, so no need to use others.
People shit on CK2's tactic system because it had a lot of randomness, but personally think it was the best battle system they designed.
Multi-flank system meat, having a single god-tier general wasn't enough to win a battle and the fact the tactic were determined my general's personality and flank composition meant unexpected stuff could happen.
Not saying it was the best, I'd take that over other system they have designed.
>People shit on CK2's tactic system because it had a lot of randomness, but personally think it was the best battle system they designed.
This is obvious to anybody with a triple digit IQ. Unfortunately that excludes most of reddit and the pdx forums where paradox gets their genius design ideas from.
People here shit on it too. It's always the same:
>I like the CK2's battle system
>Oh, then explain how it works?
>Well, it has many factors and—
>No, that isn't how works. That makes it a bad mechanic.
FYI most people don't even know how battles or sieges in EU4 work despite those being rather simple.
Point is that CK2's tactics system was never designed to min-maxed, and the fact the game itself provides to insight is evident of it.
Imperator tactics system had so much potential, first time I saw combat being a little more than dice rolls, they should definetely bring it back with improvments
Johan is the one that designed EU4 without pops, also yes EU5 should have its toy soldiers that move around the map since you will only handle one or two stacks of troops at best, for Victoria 3 or HOI 5 (hopefully) the new system is perfect since by that time frontline wars were common and moving toy soldiers around doesn't make much sense and only makes for a shitty, highly exploitable game.
you're moronic and never played a single paradox title, please have a nice day
Back to /gsg/
>were common
And even when stacks of troops were still moving around they had to secure territory to move supplies around safely, something that none of the previous Paradox titles even tries to simulate. And no attrition just happening as soon as you enter a specific province isn't a good system, the AI can't really comprehend it, that's why in games like EU4 navies handled by the AI suffer no attrition.
Not even the Franco-Prussian had frontline warfare.
Read a book. And kys for defending Victoria 3 warfare system.
The only moron here is the person that can't understand abstractions which is you.
The american civil war happened earlier than that and certainly had something that resembled a modern frontline. And i will defend V3 combat since its better than anything before it, you can go back to HOI4 or whatever garbage war focused game where the AI can't handle anything of what is going on.
>defending teleporting armies
And forgot that the Crimean War was a full blown frontline war and it happened like 10 years earlier than both, 17 years after the start of Victoria's timeline, any war that was actually relevant was fought with something resembling or actually being a frontline
They don't teleport anymore, you should actually try the games you criticize
they did originally, why would I buy or try a game that the developers thought it was acceptable to ship like that. They themselves thought it was a good system otherwise it would not have been released in such a state.
I'll just say that it feels like a different game than what was there at release, i always said the new mechanics had lots of potential and just right now they seem to be coming together into something resembling a pretty decent game, can't even sya that the game lacks stuff like flavor since there are some pretty good mods out there, i'd say the modding scene is even better than CK3.
When they first mentioned the system I liked the theory of it but the execution of it and not being able to control how your armies acted on the front or them teleporting from front to front was terrible. I'm glad to hear it's doing better and I might try it sometime.
>can't even sya that the game lacks stuff like flavor since there are some pretty good mods out there
Content mods is not the game, yes mods might be fun but you cannot say "the game doesn't lack flavour" and then cite mods, they are community created.
Paradox idea of flavor is "let's railroad the frick out of this game" since it makes free money (HOI4 is pretty much a choose your adventure game at this point and every mod for it revolves around that), that's the biggest threat to Victoria 3's future. I'm seeing way more "honest" flavor from modders since their way to implement it its not as railroady as Paradox's content, when you put a "transform France into a monarchy" button you are basically admitting you are a failed game designer.
Completely agree, but mods are not the game. They are community content.
>1836
>Frontline wars
>the new system is perfect
Thankfully the customer base and Paradox does not agree with you since they are changing this for V3. Go find a new game to play these are not for you.
The frontline system is still basically the same they only made it more complex and fleshed out, nothing that would create issues to the AI aside from when they have to naval invade but that has always been an issue in every single Paradox game. Will they keep adding more stuff to the military system? Sure. Will they rework the system completely? No, i'd bet HOI5 will use a similiar system, at least that's what they should implement if they have a brain and want to make that series something more than just whack-a-mole: toy soldiers edition, its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode, they won't cry if they made the game's economy and diplomacy system deeper in exchange for simplified but way more balanced military mechanics
>he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right
Like in Stellaris, another game that he designed?
And the problem is the whack-a-mole system not partial automation, to remove the whack-a-mole system you NEED full automation, its not needed in games like CK or EU since you only control few stacks but for modern timelines it is a requirement, anything else is outdated, broken and hard to fix game design.
>simplified but way more balanced military mechanics
You people always say this like it was a trade-off. No they reinvented the wheel and spent time developing a system that is more complicated, more broken, more confusing
If they wanted to focus on economy and diplomacy, which are both poorly designed, they should have kept the warfare system as it was
>more broken
Explain how Vicky 3 military mechanics are more unbalanced than the ones in HOI4 and Vicky 2
Vicky 3 player numbers have been increasing recently and they will only go up after the next DLC, mmm its like the game biggest flaw was that it was released in an alpha state
Its upgraded combat in pretty much every way, you still have control on what matters, the battles output realistic results and the AI is finally competent enough militarily, even from a simulation standpoint it is much superior to anything before it
And also high player counts/retention certainly aren't a mark of quality, the worst Paradox game is by far the most popular one, even Crusader Kings 3 pales in comparison and it just got a new DLC
It's not even having fewer stacks, lategame EU4 has shitloads of stacks running around especially in MP. The way to remove the "whack-a-mole" thing in pre-HOI games is forts, EU4 solved this already. Forts their own "frontlines" by restricting movement, and since capturing forts grants the lion's share of warscore for many CBs, it forces engagements to either defend or capture them.
If your issue is "nooo I want to take a fight but the AI is avoiding", that's not even an issue. That's the AI making a smart play to not get stackwiped by your bigger stronger army, it's exactly what you would do in that position too. Just siege their land and win. If you're mad that they're now going around to your lines to attack your reinforcements, again that's just a good play. They're going where you aren't and striking where you're weaker, that's good AI. The game isn't designed such that you always have to battle the enemy army to win a war.
If the issue is "i can't hope to control all these stacks", I don't really get that. People play actual RTS with way more units doing more complex tasks without a pause button. in these games you can pause whenever you want. That is simply a skill issue, or maybe a genre issue where you're just playing a type of game you don't actually like. Directing the units yourself is part of the fun.
that goes for vicky and HoI as well. I think forming a frontline manually is fun, even with HoI4's partial system issuing special orders to units I held in reserve or making adjustments on the fly is really fun. With full automation, well there are no orders to make or things to adjust, it's just a civ-tier diceroll simulator. I might as well play Risk. the only purpose I can see for V3 style "full automation" is if you don't want to look at wars at all. Which is boring.
>its obvious most of that series audience wants a choose your adventure type of game and a lot of the players already play in easy or very easy mode
The player numbers argue against this. V3 has high launch numbers and the worst drop of any Paradox game that has never, ever recovered. It's pretty much a given that if the next expansion does not correct this, V3 will become an unsupported game. To this end Paradox have promised they will overhaul and redo the combat system, admitting that they realise now that it was a mistake.
As I said, it's good that you like it but Paradox disagrees with you therefore these games are not for you and you should find another.
I can only guess this is bait, since nothing you said made any sense. I'll reply seriously anyway on the off chance you're just deeply confused
Johan designed Imperator which has pops, and said himself he wants pops in his next game, that's why I put it under "known" section, he's also in the comments of a thread about pops causing bad performance saying they don't, you just have to design them right (AKA "vic3 is badly designed")
you don't just control one or two stacks of troops in EU4, unless you're quitting at 1550 I guess which isn't that far-fetched, but Johan's already said he likes the army automation in imperator and I have no doubt shit like that will appear. (EU4 already got some rudimentary auto-siege/auto-rebel hunt buttons, army templates, naval missions, etc, there's plenty of automation people take for granted)
>for Victoria 3 or HOI 5 (hopefully) the new system is perfect since by that time frontline wars were common
For HoI yeah obviously, for Vicky eehhh, that game is more about the transition from EU4 set-piece armies to HOI frontline wars, which is what made it really interesting. Now every single conflict is centered around an advancing frontline. not to mention the complete lack of units, which forces the system to do a bunch of completely moronic things. Unlike HoI where the frontline is simply a form of automation that makes the game more accessible, in V3 it arguably makes the game more complicated and harder to play and introduces more edge cases.
bait post or are you this stupid? nobody except some subhumans from reddit wanted downgraded combat or whatever they call their 2 button war
There's also the dynasty and monarchy mechanics that are still unknown, I would like a mix of CK3's traits, personalities and events with Imperators families system where you still have some difficulty in maintaining stability instead of it being a stable primogeniture sucession.
This could also make pretender rebels and civil wars more in depth than some random event from estates or stability.
I feel like it would run into trouble with later line infantry military tech where most tactics would become obsolete unless your fighting some other unit type across the world. Imperators military tradition tree with the mix of hoi4's tactics tree would probably be best for mitigating this issue.
can tell by the artstyle the artist(you) have no idea what a man is
don't lose your hair over it
Women on right is more attractive on that picture.
Damn, I made this thread when I saw a video, never had a thread I made reach bump limit, that's so cool
congrats, newbie-bro
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qw2HFEo4SB4
was aroomba always like this or getting rekt did that to him
He always had a great sense of humor
vic3 btfo
He has been btfoing vic3 for a while now.
Isnt he the lead behind vic3 though?
I remembered being hype for a few DDs
no thats wiz
Yeah my bad
So his last game is Imperator Rome, which i think the foundation is pretty solid but they rushed development with bad decisions
So i wont expect a total turd like vic3 or a blander version like ck3
What kind of moron doesn't want pie charts to display the numbers like what
I would be happy if it's EU4 without monarch mana and with pops. Could be Vic2 or Imperator style pops I would be okay with either.
I hope so
Seem like afte Johan went all out with mana in Imperator he learned his lesson
Well it's official. EU5 has pops now.
I guess that EU5 to V3 convertor is going to have some teeth to it.