It's better than EU4. Yes, even if with Divine Wind. And with D&T it anally annihilates anything EU4 has with mods.
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
It's better than EU4. Yes, even if with Divine Wind.
It's better than EU4. Yes, even if with Divine Wind. And with D&T it anally annihilates anything EU4 has with mods.
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Post your recent hours in it anon
Get off steam homosexual.
Sliders are better than mana. Go back and play it. eu4 has especially bloated itself with all the mechanics parazog thought up to sell people dlcs.
Sounds like op never actually plays the game they say they play. Meanwhile i will have another fun night of playing eu4 with friends.
>Get off steam homosexual.
>this game is so much better!
>okay, post proof you play it
>no
Every. Time.
>Every single country plays the same
So much fun
Population was half baked but good direction tho
>Every single country plays the same
How the FRICK this is a problem?
>Population was half baked but good direction tho
How the FRICK does a BASIC GAME FEATURE "good direction", you dumb zoomershit?
>there isn't a single thing it does better than eu4
Trade
Colonization
Missions (used to be equal, then they've introduced trees in 4)
Agents
... and of course events
I will agree that EU3 does a lot better than EU4 but
>trade
is not one of them. Yes just click merchant mana that's a better system than trade nodes and flow.
You're Korea. You've discovered the Malacca Strait. You want to trade them, because it's one of the richest CoTs in the game
>Trade in EU3
You send there merchants. You make money off your sliders and NIs, which make your merchants better
>Trade in EU4
You can't profit at all from that CoT, unless you decide to make it your "main" node and then send your own trade TOWARD it, so you're in foreign land, with zero control on anything, for your main source of trade control is infrastructure you build in provinces. To make Malacca profitable to you, you should conquer 2/3 of it, and also have big outposts in China, to make sure the trade is "flowing" in that direction. All of this, because trade's "flow" is set in stone and can only go in pre-definied direction.
>Trade in 4 that works
Check MEIOU. The build that reworked trade fricked few other things entirely, but their trade system is fantastic.
Thus, all in all: trade in 3 is better, because you can actually access far-away CoTs, and unlike 2, you can also MAKE YOUR OWN
And I fail to see how this is a problem in any way
Oh, and before you go all about sending fleets there:
You would require a fleet of 50 ships or more to make this CoT in any way profitable, assuming the ships were free of any charge to build and maintain them, You would need another 50 for each CoT on the way there, just to make sure it is still flowing in the proper direction.
And I might be wrong on this one, but your trade would have to pass through Chinese collecting node, so they would siphon part of your own wealth in this example.
But we can make it about Lubeck, if you want, where in EU3 I can make Hansa spread out globally, while in EU4, all I've got is Baltic and everything else will be wiener-blocked by Brits, French and Netherlands, so my ONLY way to get any outside flow as Hansa would be to conquer all of Ireland/Scotland/half of Norway, and all I could access would be the frigid lands of top-north America. Trying to profit on Caribbeans? Frick me. Trying to get into Asian trade? Frick me. Trying to trade inland? Frick me too.
>trade would flow through Chinese collecting node
Nah if you're Korea you wouldn't push into Beijing but you'd have to push through Phillipines or Shanghai so it would be siphoned by transfer a bit
You realise that doesn't change at all the fundamental point he is making that the trade system is an utter nonsense... right?
>representing the flow of trade and making you operate like trade empires did is worse than send merchant achieve money
EU4's trade isn't perfect, it's rigidity is a problem.
But it's a way better system than EU3, EU3 wasn't even a real trade system.
I dunno why you seethe about conquering helping trade when trade drove a shit ton of conquests in EU4's period.
>You can't profit at all from that CoT, unless you decide to make it your "main" node and then send your own trade TOWARD it
This is so wrong it's hilarious. You have a main node which you automatically collect trade from, but you can use merchants to collect trade from additional nodes. You get merchants from ideas and from developing colonies and trade companies.
You also get steering and caravan bonuses to help push trade without owning the territory. To make a node profitable beyond that you only need to take the core provinces with estuaries or centers of trade, you can ignore everything else.
It's like EU4 trade has actual mechanics and strategy while EU3 is PRESS BUTON LMAO
Please explain to us all how you are going to get trade from Malacca (that's SEA) to Korea.
Go on, Show us how it's done, champ.
put your merchant in malacca, then either take specific provinces or make them transfer trade power.
Although if I was playing as Korea my game would be to conquer China instead.
>How do I make profit out of far-away CoT?
>Dunno, just conquer them
Yeah, I love to play that Netherlands game, where instead of being 6 provinces punching way above their weight, I control third of the planet, just for the same end goal: getting gold to Amsterdam.
>Taking CoT's is a third of the planet
How do you even survive sleep every night? Someone with an IQ this low would surely suffocate in their sleep.
>The only way to take over CoT is via conquering 50+% of it and directly owning the land tied to it
Truly, the power of EU4 after a decade of continuous development
But he's right? You can't trade "historically" with any country except Castile/Spain and Portugal (since they kinda "blobbed" into their trade routes). And even then you need to take more provinces along the way, like the whole south Africa. Trade in EU4 is beyond moronic and only a complete mongoloid would defend it.
Ah yes, the Dutch Empire. A famous empire that controlled 0 territory outside of 6 swamps in Western Europe.
moron
What's moronic is expecting trade empires to not have to take any trade ports.
>To make Malacca profitable to you, you should conquer 2/3 of it, and also have big outposts in China, to make sure the trade is "flowing" in that direction. All of this, because trade's "flow" is set in stone and can only go in pre-definied direction.
And that's why trade in EU4 is better. It actually forces you to engage in geopolitical conflict instead of just sending merchants. Tallgays have a nice day.
>It actually forces you to engage in geopolitical conflict only if you're in the worst side of the trade flow
Imagine unironically defending this.
>inB4 "merely pretending"
>Painting third of the map in your colour
>Engaging in anything, but crayons
>BASIC GAME FEATURE
Yeah i get it you're autistic
>How the FRICK this is a problem?
Nonautistic people generally don't like doing the same exact thing over and over again
Yeah, I guess having your game locked in perpetual power creep, where each DLC introducing new mechanics make recipient OP as all frick is very enjoyable. and this is my supposed autism making me impossible to appreciate that
Just don't use the dlc lmao
Then everyone plays the exact same way.
So which one is it, after all: you hate everyone playing identical, or you hate DLCs?
Are you so moronic you took that to mean don't use any dlc?
LMAO you absolute moronic frick.
>WAAAH WHY IS THIS COUNTRY SO HARD TO BEAT!
good lord
If that is "le old guard" i am glad paracucks don't listen to you anymore
I sure enjoy seeing all provinces in Flanders being locked at 999,999 population by the mid game.
>How the FRICK this is a problem?
Never understood this complaint either.
Better question is why SHOULD THEY PLAY DIFFERENT?
This is exactly, what PDX wants you to think, so they can sell flavor pack to every major country, and give them unique mechanics like Prussian professionalism, British parliament, Ottoman polygamy, or Russian banners.
Even though none of those were set on stone, Russia actually had a quality army before 18th century when they began to prioritize quantity over quality. There is no reason, why Russia couldn't have developed a better army than Prussia
>SHOULD THEY PLAY DIFFERENT?
Oh noes! The hecking 5% discipline bonus (or not having it!) will destroy my larp!
Imperator does exactly what you want and nobody wants to play it(i wonder why!)
>games with better design are less popular than games with better marketing
shocking truth
A +5% is a frickload. Especially when stacked with another, "default" +5% that Prussia has. And few other "special" bonuses
The while NI idea was fricked, cause they are country-specific and completely arbitrary, enforcing from the start a quasi-historical path. Same as with the horrendous trade system that other anon already discussed. And yet the game lacks events, historical starts are few and far between (and the game rules instantly ruin them anyway) and everything is randomly generated. So why pretending it is "historical", when it actually happens at random.
And more importantly, why would you want to be forced into (quasi) historical outcomes, when playing a series where main selling point is ability to NOT end with historical outcomes
First thing you do in 2 and 3 as Poland is fighting against nobility, with the most crucial, historical event popped in first 5 years, asking you if you bend to their demands, or to make centralised state. 4? You are given the theme park version of the "noble republic", with super-duper meme cavalry and bunch of shit that were the reason for the downfall of PLC as their fricking unique bonuses
Playing as Lubeck? Oh hey, enjoy the "historical" outcome as ever-weaker city-state with no trade capability. Wanting to change that? Nu-uh, tough shit friendo, you are stuck where you are, and you aren't going to get the riches of global trade, even if you establish a global trade empire. Unless, of course, you also conquer the Netherlands and England for a good measure. All just so the trade can flow to you
How about Ming then? The super-duper mandate mechanics means you literally are too big to fall, aka the very opposite of historical outcome (where the cause of fall was being too big to the capacity of governing and defending it), and even without trying, you are going to stay on top of the game. 200% historical, as designed by underpaid Swedish intern
And that was BEFORE they even introduced the railroading mission trees
Severe autism
Just play your boring old game and don't bother people who want to have fun instead
>Discussion about EU3
>People discuss EU3
>HURR AUTISM DURR GET OUT
Also, let me ask you the most obvious question:
Why a country gets a specialty in something that didn't happen yet?
Let's take that Prussia example. You are given, as Brandenburg, the same set of bonuses. A country that was your standard, mid-sized Germanic kingdom of the era, with nobody even THINKING about heavy militarism or propping the ruling house into executive power. In fact, that's all the ideas of the actual Prussia Duchy, a country that doesn't exist in the game, and only implemented (in very limited form) in mid-17th century, as a result of the 30 years war and just getting their freedom from PLC vassalage. The meme Prussia? That country didn't emerge until early 18th century, as result of bunch of events even more complicated than that.
But in 4, that country is from the get go not just predestined to become a military powerhouse, despite small size, because... reasons, I guess. Oh, wanted to see how would Brandenburg work out when focusing German affairs, rather than pushing East? Too bad, can't do. How about seeing the secular Teutonic Order becoming Couronia-like place, with colonies and Atlantic trade? Too bad, you suck in that, and the game openly prevents you from even trying.
But I guess who needs ability to change their country, when they can have theme park history version instead, and play the exact same shit each and every game as specific country, while in the process being brain-damaged to the point where lack of those railroads to follow is treated as a detriment, rather than freedom.
>Imperator does exactly what you want and nobody wants to play it(i wonder why!)
Because it's a fricking dogshit game. Shit graphics, shit UI, shit mechanics, no fricking flavour, not of the good kind or the neu-paradogs kind of ""flavour"". It's a shit game that was made even shitter by being dropped almost immediately after release, which wasn't too shocking since the entire dev team post-release consisted of a single programmer.
I remember playing the piece of shit a week after release, it would always crash within the first month for like 10% of players, including me, and they didn't bother fixing that in the initial hotfixes. Just to play the fricking game I had to scour the entire internet and find a longass console command that just magically makes it werk, I uninstalled it shortly afterwards because the game was shit.
>I-It just didn't get enough marketing!
Frick off. It had at least as much as CK3 an Vic3, lots of players in the first few weeks, and then it died anyway because it was so shit that less than 5% of the initial players kept playing it. Are you going to tell me that the percentage of initial players would have been higher if they had spent even MORE in marketing?
Fun fact by the way, like 90% of Paradog employees are in HR/PR and they literally control the entire company.
>Shit graphics
What? You can't be serious. The only good thing Imperator has for it is the gorgeous map
>The only good thing Imperator has for it is the gorgeous map
And then you zoom in.
>Never understood this complaint either.
>Better question is why SHOULD THEY PLAY DIFFERENT?
it's like it's not even human. A human doesn't reason or think this way.
>A human doesn't question, a human consooms
This is your brain on PDX marketing hype train
It's a false statement anyway. In reality its
>Every single country CAN play the same
The difference is time, and effort required to get the setting(s) of sliders to your desired values (and how it might not be feasible in the first place) and get your country to what you want it to be.
And EU4 openly forbids you that choice. You have ideas of your own country, that railroad you
>b-but you can ignore them
Yeah, except you are facing countries that don't ignore them, that's the thing. They are blatantly better in specific fields, JUST BECAUSE, and you have nothing to compensate if you ignore your pre-defined ideas, as there are no sliders and things are locked. Picking NIs isn't going to cut it, because you are just applying them to default values. It's like in EU3 you remove sliders (or set them all in the middle), and leave behind just the NIs. It's not going to cut it, no matter what.
Same goes with mission trees. The system went from elastic missions affecting things you are doing to quasi-historical larp sessions, and one-time bonuses from fulfilling often counter-productive actions.
Somehow, this is supposed to be better. How? Why? How am I being forced to play time and again the same shit with the same country is better? How being given just a box of hammers to deal with multitude of problems to face better than an actual toolbox?
>Every single country plays the same
EU4 is like that too though
>EU4 is like that too though
And every country with a mission tree railroads you to play the same way every time. Way worse than EU3.
Anon is too autistic to ignore the mission tree the exact same way the game was played for years
It would be such a shame if AI was railroaded by the tree, as if this was GoY$
there isn't a single thing it does better than eu4 and you know it. You just wanted a bunch of (you)s out of bored autists such as myself. I enjoyed my time with it, and went on to enjoy eu4 much more.
This. OP is now jerking off to all the attention he’s gotten.
>hehe aren’t I so different for liking an outdated piece of shit
fr fr no cap
Mmm no
And I say this as someone who started with EU3
>Bohemia to the Urals every game
>every country an incoherent schizo splatter with multiple exclaves and enclaves
>Ottomans, Spain and Russia never really "rise", let alone form in the latter cases
>England owning bits of France until 1821 or vice versa
>Spain owning Portugal or vice versa, no chance for them to coexist
>AI can't even play the game properly, no sense of "goals" or "objectives", very little theory of mind or rational acting
>cascading alliances
Cadscading alliances AND uncapped attrition should come back.
Both were fun, even if sometimes in the form of a giant frick you finger, it's better than the "coalitions" we have today
you can enjoy a game without shitting on another game anon
eu3 and 4 scratch different itches for me and i play them both from time to time
I bet you also like civ 2 you dumb homosexual
... what's wrong with Civ 2 now, other than it being older than you?
It's useful to point out who is a fricking moron
Old game bad.
Your nostalgia doesn't change shit
The "nostalgia" I've developed by playing it for the first time in 2017?
Seriously, what the frick are you even trying to achieve here
>old good, new bad: the thread
wow how original
not an argument
I used to b***h about cascading alliances in this game, but an anon in a prior thread told me they're less of an issue if you just rush the alliance leader's capital. I still need to try that out to see if it works.
>D&T
I recall 10 years ago people getting laughed out of /gsg/ for playing with Deaf In Texas lol
The actual solution is to never use DW. DW didn't add ANYTHING useful to the game, and actively butt-fricked EU3, all for the sake of playtesting mechanics for CK2. DW is pretty much the herald of everything wrong with new business model by the company: pointless, gimmicky, thematic "expansions" (soon to be just DLCs) that exist not to improve the game or expand it in any way, but to sell you a product in form of 2 new buttons to press and reshuffle the whole game in the process just for the sake of it
>Naval combat got completely broken and randomised
>Horde mechanics are big ass exploit
>Cascading alliances don't work, but created a test bed for religious alliances of CK2 and coalitions of EU4
>Construction got fricked over, just to test new model for CK2 (same with Sengoku)
>Colonisation got fricked over, just to test how it would play out in EU4
>None of this was ever addressed, since the game was on the end of its support
tl;dr HTTT is the final expansion. And as far as I remember, no major mod uses DW elements anyway.
Any place to find Whole World Mod? It got dumped off the fileshare it was on a while back.
The problem is focusing on alt-his outcomes. Make the game less sandboxy and more rigidly historical, and focus less on expansion and more on narratives, political reform and administration of the state and the economy
We tried that with EU2 already, especially with For the Glory.
It kinda doesn't work, since it makes it just a tedious railroad for countries that got provided, and barren wasteland for when you overcome your historical crisises.
Ever tried playing as Mughals in 2 and surviving your zenith? It's a pretty boring stuff to do, especially since you are locked with shit-tier situation despite overcoming the challenges.
Or just play with M&T you gigantic gaylord
thanks now my eyes have cancer
>Eu3 V2 HoI3
The holy trinity. Each well defined within their niche, focusing on what they do best. No shitty 3D map, no new DLC model of patchworking so much shit on that the games turn into barely functional trash heaps. It's a shame they never made a CK in that generation, an argument could be made that CK2 would fit if DLC hadn't ruined it. Modern paradox games blend together, every game is Europa Universalis now, albeit with a pastiche of its time period painted on.
V3 is better than V2 thoughever
If I had to pick, I'd rather play VIP or just vanilla Ricky than Vicky 2.
And it's always battle between playing DH or HPP (but never vanilla of either HoI)
Even in case of 3, I would ditch it without a second thought if 2 was simply more stable engine and had an option to manually start a CoT, even if it required harsh conditions (because frick a new CoT forming to fricking Greenland)
Vicky 2 still makes you pay extra to have 20 poly Great War unit models for the Great War game
>EU2 VIC1 DH
only patricians will get this LUDO combination, you're clearly still a pleb
This list, except unironically and without the whole "no, my games better" posturing.
Literally the only thing EU2 needed for perfection was greater stability and option to guide the game where to set the 20th CoT. Vicky 1 and DH are perfect
i don't know why For the Glory mod didn't create a new more detailed map while keeping the EU2 mechanics, similar to how Darkest Hour did with Hearts of Iron II, what a missed opportunity
>i don't know why For the Glory mod didn't create a new more detailed map while keeping the EU2 mechanics
Because it would require writing the game from the scratch. Despite it being still on Europa engine, they are vastly different versions of it, and EU2 is stuck in its form for better or worse. The big problem with FtG is that it made stability issues ten times worse due to pushing the limit of what the engine can handle.
how come the DH developers made a more detailed and good looking map? HoI2's map is atrocious
You don't get it, do you?
HoI2 mechanical capacities allow to recreate the map, and map only, in any form you wish. On top of that, they've used someone's else map mod, which was created specifically for having more provinces and detail to the map (like the "tiny" provinces in style of Guantanamo base).
Meanwhile, EU2 is simply incapable of handling a truly new map without rewriting the game anew - because the extend of work needed means you might as well just make your own to keep it stable.
>EU2 is simply incapable of handling a truly new map without rewriting the game anew
Picrelated, stop lying
Can0mer... I kneel...
>Eu3
>No shitty 3D map
For meits EU3 V2 HoI 2(AoD)
Funnily enough the game i enjoyed the most since the release of V2 is Imperator (after Updates)
>musketeers fighting in versailles
what is this cover trying to interpret?
Alt-history where France is invaded by the Papal States
as a gay who never played eu3 which version should I play?
Eu3:HTTT
Divine Wind made the provinces too uniform.
HTTT
Anyone saying IN is a Magna Mundi gay
Anyone saying DW is trolling
I played the ever loving frick out of EU3.I liked playing France and just going on a non stop bloody world conquest right from the start. Made for an exciting game. Frick peace.
I soon realized that the game was totally borked from a realism perspective but that didn't stop me enjoying it and just treating it as a min max war game management sim.
My only house rule was no save scumming.
My goal was to paint the map blue in record time, annexing every last country, saving the Papal state for last.
Iirc my best time was total global victory by 1598. Something like that, definitely before 1600, which was the holy grail dead line to beat.
I had something like just over a million troops in the field by that time, most of who were just scattered around the globe putting down rebels. Pretty funny but that was with an excellent start admittedly. I tried a few times to improve on that record but never managed it.
Was pretty excited when I heard they were bringing out EU4, hoping it would be an even more complex and challenging sim ( and hopefully more realistic ) But the garish and childish graphics made me hesitate to buy it, it sort of looked dumbed down and designed to appeal to morons.
>Yes, even if with Divine Wind.
oh god no, that's the worst version.
If you're playing with Divine Wind then you might as well just play eu4 anyway, it's just eu4-lite at that point without the joys of eu3.
HTTT or bust.
Frick you btw.
Where do you find Eu3 with only HTTT?
Internet.
No, seriously, if you can't find it with just HTTT, you might have room temperature IQ. I even checked, finding the right, still seeded torrents on every major site took less than two minutes in total, and I've found 7 different sources of it, with 4 different files in total
bullshit, post it, invite me to your private tracker or frick off you coal skinned gay
>Zooomer is so incompetent, he can't even into TPB
alternatively
>moron paralegal intern can't even properly scout files for CDMA
You still haven't posted a magnet mr "oldgay" pirate
Consult
and cry me a river, 85
I remember you said this last thread and I don't get why you brag about hoarding a torrent. Besides it is genuinely easier, for some reason, to torrent In Nomine than HTTT.
>I remember you said this last thread
Oh, it's that episode where Ganker is just one person! I love that one!
You just revealed your own ignorance
I'm not even that guy, but I couldn't see a HTTT torrent on 1337x, TPB, or freegog, just the Complete Edition.
You can install/uninstall DLCs manually on the Steam version of EU3 complete.
You can roll all the way back to In Nomine which is fine since there is zero reason to roll back to NA or Vanilla
>pirates
>cascading alliances
absolutely fricking not
>pirates
oh yeah I'd forgotten the fun of having to set aside a single patrol ship on a set monthly rout for every costal province in the world or I'd have pirates in as places as unlikely as the Shetland islands. The frick were they thinking with that feature?
>The frick were they thinking with that feature?
Just taking the EU1 and 2 and putting it in 3?
You've played those games in chronological order, right? You didn't just decide to randomly check 3 after playing 4 for a decade, right?
You’re an annoying homosexual
Vanilla EUIV before development amd forts was better
>Vanila EU4
>Good
>Better than any game
EU4 was unplayable until development was added to it as a DLC (by the time it was added to baseline, the game was again fricked up)
>get psyopped
>buy eu3
>its just worse eu4
frickers
Your fault for listening to a single person on this boards take on a strategy game
You scrolled all the way down to a dead thread just to make this reply
Step one of coming to terms with the fact that Ganker's taste in video games is strictly contrarianism. It's why eurojank is so commonly circlejerked, but only until the game gets popular enough and then it's hated.
t. zoomer thinking more DLC - good
HAHA
GOTTEM
HAHEH
the game is like $6 if you actually did buy it, even then it's an old ass fricking game with no DRM made by a shit company so why not just pirate it?
>waste at least 30 minutes finding a pirated copy of an ancient game
vs
>spending like 6 euro
it took me less than 5 minutes to find my torrent.
regardless my point still stands, it's a cheap ass game now, those who did buy post-eu4 are spending basically nothing.
I like Divine Wind.
Why all the hate for DW?
>thread details why people dislike DW
>uhhh why do you hate it though
It's literally just contrarianism.
The irony of this statement catapulted my sides with enough force to be on their way to Mars' orbit
I feel like it's a new thing. I never properly got gud at EU3 back in the day so I can't tell you why exactly DW is so bad (though you have an entire thread answering this very question here), but I remember being on /gsg/ before EU4 came out and pretty much every EU3 campaign that was posted was using DW. Hell, even now people are remembering the game on /vst/, but even now I have yet to see a single post of someone playing a campaign in HTTT instead of DW.
Should I play with MEIOU or D&T?
Yes
I played EU3 before EU4 came out and I remember it being way more frustrating to play
HOI2/DH were better than HOI3 though
Paradox games really didn't get good until Vicky 2/CK2/EU4, though EU4 got worse over time due to bloat
cascading alliances are a skill issue. if you can't win a war hopelessly outnumbered then git gud. if you can't do the diplo to mitigate the cascading alliances in the first place why are you even playing europa univeralis? go play hoi4
this, cascading alliances are not even bad and actually provide a modicum of challenge instead of letting the player just steamroll the AI one by one. Plus it makes me feel smart when I declare a war on some random country and the web of alliances causes the actual country I want to attack to join in without bringing their stronger allies.
>t. never even saw EU3 gameplay, not to mention playing it
Zoomers were, as always, a mistake
>game crashed and save file got corrupted again
It's impossible to have a full run without keeping several backups and it seems like the crashes/corruption issues get worse the later the game goes on, but I've have a crash and save corruption in the early 1400s too.
>I can't properly install a fricking game
>This means the game is bad
Alternatively
>I throw a bunch of totat-overhaul mods on the game
>Why is it so unstable?
>works on my machine
I have a normal install no mods or anything. The crashing has been an issue for the longest time, there are posts on Paradox forums back in like 2010 mentioning instability issues and people having to end their AARs early because of corrupt saves.
>>This means the game is bad
I wasn't insinuating that you fricking autist. If anything that's a sign that it's *good* when I want to play it but crashes keep ending my game.
Black person, the frick you are even doing here?
this is the EU3 thread Black person, am I not allowed to post about my legitimate frustrations with the game crashing? do I have to fellate this game and it's homosexual swedish developers and pretend it's the best thing of all time to post here?
I'm asking WHY are you posting about it, since you clearly aren't seeing this as an issue. Meaning you are posting for the sake of making a post.
But apparently questioning your moronic behaviour means I am the lord inquisitor chasing you down for not venerating the game (the frick?!)
You are genuinely autistic aren't you
>declare war on a tiny duchy
>suddenly you're at war with half of europe
This shit is unplayable, no idea how anyone stomached this back in the day.
Vic2 has great powers butting in when you just want to attack a tiny country
Small countries being allied with multiple great powers is rare, and they cannot be sphered by more than one country. It's not even remotely comparable to EU3 where everyone's allied with everyone.
Is there seriously not a box you can untick to disable cascading alliances?
There is.
It's called "Don't play DW, why the frick you even installed it".
There is not a single fricking feature in the entire DW that justifies using it at all. None.
horde mechanics
China mechanics
not being able to spam millions of buildings just like that
and cascading alliances aren't a real problem
>horde mechanics
Exploitative as all frick. Literally just console those CBs rather than doing the endless loop or suck up the stability
>China mechanics
Broken. As in - non-functional
>not being able to spam millions of buildings just like that
Wrong, you just need to blob first to shit out crazy amount of magistrates. But the moment you have 20+ provinces, the whole "balance" is a complete joke
>and cascading alliances aren't a real problem
Ask me how I know you never played EU3 pre-DW, zoomershit.
at least with horde and china mechanics they play differently, instead of being just another country (a common problem in pdx games)
magistrate production mostly depends on the government while needs depend on provinces, blobbing just makes it worse
another advantage of DW: infamy actually matters now
>noooo I can't do WC anymore easily by conquering enemies in piecemeal while ignoring the infamy
that's exactly the point
>muh different gameplay for specific country
Yeah, zoomer as frick.
Stick to EU4 and GoY$, never touch anything prior to CK2. It will be to a great benefit of everyone, yourself included
>magistrate production mostly depends on the government while needs depend on provinces, blobbing just makes it worse
t. less than 50 hours into the game
>Projecting hard on cascading alliances
Any fricking human with functional brain and non-moronic level of IQ can handle cascading alliance. The point isn't how "difficult" it is, but the tedium of it. You can completely ignore any obstacles the game desperately throws at you, other than making the game itself boring - because rather than steamrolling 3-7 countries, you have to steamroll the entire continent, time and again. All while the only challenge those countries have to offer is the amount of them and the length of a single war. Having a SINGLE 30 years war is fun. Having EVERY war play like that is just annoying.
>b-but you can handle it, that's the only reason you are seething
Black person, there is a solid chance I've clocked 1k h in EU3 before you learned how to read, not to mention heard about PDX games.
Besides, the main effect of cascading alliances is that once you break the legs and kick out the teeth of the main participants (usually in wars that lead to the cascade, rather than during it), you get open season for map-painting. Because once you triggered a cascade, there is no turning back: every war from now on will be like that, so you might as well just do a moronicly big land grab and completely cripple your enemies. Who cares if they are going to DoW you the second the truce is over, they are going to DoW you ANYWAY, so you can simply cripple them for good or flat-out annex. Diplo-annex? Why bother, if you can just conquer 10+ OPMs in a single go. Everyone hating you? They hate you anyway.
Cascading alliances were simply a very bad fit build on even dumber bedrock. All just to test on an active game elements that were later reworked and implemented to EU4. Thank god they've made Sengoku, rather than trying to throw CK2 alpha tests on EU3, too.
>magistrate production mostly depends on the government while needs depend on provinces, blobbing just makes it worse
If only you could just spam colleges for unlimited +0.05 per building, giving a free magistrate every 20 provinces, aka what the anon told you about.
I guess it's less broken than HTTT +0.02 magistrate monthly per province, but pretending the DW construction system isn't laughably easily to exploit is just being clueless. If anything, that game fully encourages mass spam of every possible building, rather than doing it selectively. I never bothered with improving MP in colonies, and had just a handful of provinces with shipyards - but in DW not only there is no downside in spamming, you kinda have to due to how limits operate.
Insisting DW in any way increased difficulty, while it made the game both easier to get into and also easier to exploit, is just laughable.
>infamy actually matters now
It really doesn't, for reasons covered in
. That change made infamy simply a binary choice: either you have none, or you don't care how much of it you have. There is no in-between or even point of decreasing it. You just go with being a pariah once the ball starts rolling, Vicky 2 style (except Vicky 2 had exploits to decrease it into nothing and instantly, no matter the amount you've gained).
They did anyway. The entire building system was the test for the idiotic construction from CK2 and what was implemented in the release state of EU4. Which also for time being required mana to do any sort of construction, aka one of the most hated features of the game and a residue from "you must have magistrates" - except mana is based mostly on RNG, while magistrates were the result of player's competence.
>There is no in-between or even point of decreasing it
of course there is a big difference between staying under infamy cap (but still having infamy) and going above it
there was a famous AAR of doing WC under the infamy cap
So... ESL or just poor reading comprehension?
Or just desperate to keep this shit thread afloat?
>Always hearing grogs badmouth EU3+4.
>Decide to try EU2 for myself.
No matter how bad you think EU4 is it can't compare to EU2.
>Playing rev France.
>2k Dutch rebels.
>Send Napoleon with 30k to deal with them.
>Napoleon dead and stack wiped in a blink.
>'k
>Playing Engerland.
>Colonies each have about 200 to 400 pop.
>Literally never stop revolting ever despite +3 stab.
>Spawn about 8k-18k each time.
>Which is funny because they apparently only need 1 man to have a 50/50 chance of stackwiping God.
>Check paradox and steam forums to see if anyone else has had this issue.
>A lot of people do.
>Every time someone complains to the FTG dev about combat he writes a weird fanfiction justification like 'plucky elite dutchmen defending their homeland' and swears the player must be lower tech or daring to attack a tile that isn't plains.
>1 province mountain countries are immortal because it is literally impossible IRL to cross the alps.
>Says somethin moronic like population count actually means household count and that's why 2000% the population is always rebelling despite max religious tolerance and +3 stab.
Don't listen to grogs, they just don't like change. EU3 and EU4 may have their shitty parts but so does EU2, the grogs are just comfortable with EU2's bullshit because they grew up with it and are now too old to adapt.
That OG EU2 soundtrack is legit though, shame FTG replaces it with garbage.
The OG board game is decent,maybe, I played it once 30 years ago and it was fun. Their software is shit.
>EU3
>pick Napoleonic Warfare
>win
there's nothing in EU3 called "napoleonic warfare"
were you trying to say Esprit de Corps?
Yes that's the one.
I think I actually agree now. EU4 in its ~2017 versions was superior but after estates and mission trees got foisted on it, now it's an inferior game.
The last arguably good update was the the tech levels spread over provinces based on development level/trade.
I am forever mad that once they've decided to add estates into the game, they didn't rework them into something more "engaging" with the rest of the game, but just bolted a stand-alone DLC content without any changes to it. You just kinda have them and that's it.
The final nail to the coffin for me was rework on governments and the resulting "government reform" bullshit that offers you an illusion of choice, while in reality, your government choice is just between either having the exact same preset for being a monarchy, a republic or using some busted DLC element of a specific country. Oh wow, what an innovative system, where it pretty much doesn't matter at all what's your government.
>add estates into the game, they didn't rework them into something more "engaging" with the rest of the game
Yea it's complexity for the sake of complexity, like a busy board on the side of the main game. I guess it's to counter "muh blob gayme" accusations, but I'd prefer a steamlined/solid blobbing game rather than one with half baked forced "muh society" simulation. That's the update I stopped playing at.
>mission trees are the "let's frick it all up" moment
You can practically imagine the team meeting where someone presents the math of how little work it would be to generate "mission tree" DLC content and they decide to implement it.
Annoyingly you COULD have randomization within mission trees fairly easily. Just have a 3 reserved spots that randomly generate every few in-game years in "local conquest, financial, diplomatic" categories
Like you've said, writing a linear tree is easier than writing a limited random choice of a tree. Not by much, but still easier.
The actual stupid thing is that they had a perfectly functional mission system, but some moron said "hey, what if we implement HoI4-like system to guide AI?". And so now you have shitty mission system combined with baked-in shitty AI, because it became 100% linear.
Mission trees were the worst. It was the point where it became clear they have no idea what to do with the game anymore, but still need updates and DLCs coming out to maintain the level of income EU4 is generating. The game had its issues prior, but mission trees are the "let's frick it all up" moment, from which there was no recovery.
As to if EU4 was ever better than 3? It's pretty much apples and oranges comparison for me. It's not like with 2 and 3 comparison, where arguments could be made over 3 being a straight improvement of the game. 4 is a completely different beast, build on different principles, and with different enough gameplay. It had its moments, somewhere between Art of War and Mandate of Heaven, but it never was "EU3, but better". Instead, it was "EU, just different". Especially since both games are build on directly opposing ideas: 3 was about the ever-increasing player agency, while 4 is all about ever-decreasing player agency.
I like mission trees
Is there an EUIV version worth rolling back to if I've only got Res Publica, Art of War and Wealth of Nations. I bounced of the game because it felt totally broken trying to play without all the DLC, large parts of the UI either didn't work or were just advertisements for more DLC.
>not pirating EU4
Two words:
MAGNA
MUNDI
>By yes, I never actually played this mod, but I heard it's double-redpilled and Uber-based
MM is an autistic mess that's not even trying to be fun, not even in the masochistic way of having fun. I'm glad that Ubik turned out to be a complete moron and self-killed his "magnum opus" with his sheer personal stupidity.
facts
>can only find complete edition without httt and dw or one with httt and dw
many such cases
Get a Steam key for two fiddy and manually disable the DLC.
>Can't google for shit
Many such cases
No way. 2010s was the height of paradox. Everything before and after that decade is shit.