Literally whatever you have the most nostalgia for. There have been so many changes, it's been a fundamentally different game seveal times over. Every major iteration has a slightly different appeal. I like 1.25 personally, but your milage may vary. I know some prefer 1.24 with the old mission system. If you like 1.14 it's a tough spot, since they've been deleting the old versions from Steam and oldest currently available is 1.17. Make local backups if you care about old versions!
Yeah I noticed that so I'm just going to pirate 1.24 instead. Paradox is really a piece of shit company they destroyed everything before 1.17.1, they should have died after releasing the steaming pile of shit that was eu3 and hoi3.
>they should have died after releasing the steaming pile of shit that was eu3 and hoi3. >He said, while asking which version of EU4 he should be playing
I stopped at Dharma DLC, whichever that was, and not including Dharma itself, since it's when the free-fall was already in motion. Mandate of Heaven was the last DLC that actually did something meaningful with the game.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't allow to abdicate/disinherit until what? Rights of Men? So that would be like 1.18? 1.19?
>abdicate/disinherit
Terrible mechanic. Having a bad leader is an important part of the game because it would slow you down and make you think how you'd use your limited monarch points, but reddit had to b***h and moan about it because OP Spain needed an OP ruler from the get go.
Same thing with promoting advisors. Paragoy has zero resource managment at this point.
>have leader with crappy mil point >have little mil points to get mil tech >be forced to have low mil tech and no generals because your generals keep dying
The mechanic would be better if you could have multiple claimants to the throne, and a disinherit or abdication should be able to backfire and trigger a civil war over the succession.
>t. never in his life played EU4
Thanks for sharing you cool fanfiction, thou
>oh no I am confronted with a challange and cant just steam roll until I rule the world by 1600
That's not challenge. That's the glass ceiling over your head that NO amount of player skill is going to overcome, because the game simply doesn't work like that. It was a skill thing pre-mana. With mana, you either have it, or you are fricked, because you literally have no resources, no matter what your country is doing.
You would know, if you ever played the game.
The mechanic would be better if you could have multiple claimants to the throne, and a disinherit or abdication should be able to backfire and trigger a civil war over the succession.
I'm still confused why it is not working like this by default.
... if the game in question actually has mechanics/rules for that.
And EU4 doesn't, since mana system is completely divorced from your performance. Best you can do is dealing with your shitty mana gain (to a point), but that's band-aiding the fact your military and economic performances translate to nothing at all, for your source of the default resource is pure RNG. So it's not "be good, and you will grow", it's "be lucky, and you will grow".
Not to mention, the main obstacle and in the same time way of overcoming it, is to spend mana on things. You have it - you push whatever button you chose for instant gratification. You don't have it? Well shit son, sucks to be you.
>I stopped at Dharma DLC, whichever that was, and not including Dharma itself
Yuuuup. I'm
Literally whatever you have the most nostalgia for. There have been so many changes, it's been a fundamentally different game seveal times over. Every major iteration has a slightly different appeal. I like 1.25 personally, but your milage may vary. I know some prefer 1.24 with the old mission system. If you like 1.14 it's a tough spot, since they've been deleting the old versions from Steam and oldest currently available is 1.17. Make local backups if you care about old versions!
and Dharma was 1.26. TC rework, government reforms, estates completely revamped, and especially the utterly moronic change of only being able to convert religion on full cores was the last straw for me. Gave the game a completely different feeling. There's been some patches where I was almost tempted to update again, but overall "free-fall" is quite the apt descriptor for this trainwreck of a game.
I was considering the Rule Britania, but then I've learned that government changes and mission trees aren't just a DLC, but actual core element of the game, so I said "frick it" and played for 2 years the final patch pre-Dharma. Then had to reboot my system and didn't reinstall EU4 ever since.
>What are you talking about?
As it very clearly says in the post - we're talking about 1.26 and why we both noped out of updating EU4 at that specific point.
>Patchnotes 1.26 >Can no longer convert culture or religion on territory provinces.
Yes, the Dharma patch was *so* bad, they ended up reversing quite a few of the core decisions. But for several patches it was just terrible. Once they had walked back most the awful changes, they seamlessly entered the phase where every patch would literally break the game in a major way. The other anon is right, 1.26 is where EU4 went into free fall.
They were such a curse. Neat idea, but the execution is utterly horrible, the way tomdeal with them is moronicly gamey (hurr just stack development in one province), and they remove proper tech parity differences between Europe and rest of the world.
The concept is great, the execution is passable. What kills the whole system dead is the fact you can push development to compensate, especially when you have no exposure to that specific institution. Renaissance firing up? No sweat, just throw bunch of mana on any of your provinces somewhere in China, and you will have your own Renaissance, with mahjong and rice.
The concept is great, the execution is passable. What kills the whole system dead is the fact you can push development to compensate, especially when you have no exposure to that specific institution. Renaissance firing up? No sweat, just throw bunch of mana on any of your provinces somewhere in China, and you will have your own Renaissance, with mahjong and rice.
It kind of blows my mind to think that the development stacking is the intended way to work around the institution gap that would otherwise ensue. It’s not interesting in gameplay sense, it completely defeats the point of the entire institution mechanic, and even in a silly game like EU IV, it’s probably one of the, if not the most unhistorical and unrealistic thing around.
I mean I get if the development was HELPING you with the whole thing, and only AFTER being exposed to the idea. That would still be silly and gamey, but at least would made some semblance of sense.
Instead, it's just 20-30 dev points and you have an institution going on the day it fired on the other end of the planet (assuming you had storage of mana to pull that off)
As for "muh historical" - the last time EU was about that, it was EU2 premiere and its related mods. There is a good chance current EU4 playerbase wasn't even born back then, or were toddlers. And I don't mean it as an insult to the playerbase, but to point out how fricking long ago that was, along with the fact EU3 was essentially a sandbox.
Eu4 has tons more historical events going on compared to eu3, not eu2 levels mind you, but eu3 feels many times more void than eu4. Had eu3 gotten its own sub-game like darkest hour, and if it was as good as darkest hour, I would rather play that than eu4 to be honest.
As with many things that were "good ideas, shit execution", M&T kinda fixes that. Not only you can't kickstart institutions, but in the same time, you do have ability to get them going even if you aren't directly exposed to them. Like slowly getting points for banking, because it was already "invented" and you are controlling one of the biggest trading hubs on the planet, with extra bonus if traders from areas where that institution is already present are in your local node. Of course with trade rework that example no longer applies, but you should get the general idea.
They were an excellent idea for me, but only if said institutions form in Europe and Europe only then spread out to the rest of the world via European colonies in Asia, Africa or the Americas. I hated seeing Manufactories or Enlightenment popping up in India or China without Europeans to spread the institutions.
... because? It's a perfectly viable option, since in both cases you need to have both sufficient tech (unlikely for AI) and also viable economy (also unlikely for AI). The goal is to be a crutch for a player, so you can pump up your own nation into position where it makes sense, rather than being stuck with a waiting game.
I assume you would shit a brick if you were told first institution in M&T starts in Far East and you will be lucky to get it to Europe before tail end of 18th century, given you can't just cheese the game with development (since there isn't any in M&T)
I've been doing most of my achievements while on a beta branch. You can get achievements as long as the specific achievement has been in the game on that version. The wiki can tell you the version each was introduced https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Achievements
They were such a curse. Neat idea, but the execution is utterly horrible, the way tomdeal with them is moronicly gamey (hurr just stack development in one province), and they remove proper tech parity differences between Europe and rest of the world.
I get the issue. Curbstomping India in the 1600s just as easily as colonial natives was fun. But it's not like westernization was such a brilliant mechanic either. Institutions have made a lot more tags playable and enjoyable. I think the trade-off is worth it. I've had some great non-western campaigns that would have been boring as frick waiting on westernization.
I’d personally love something like older MEIOU, eg. reduces the amount of silly power fantasy garbage and adds some needed complexity, but still doesn’t go full madman with additions like current MEIOU. Still recognizably vanilla, but just a bit more grognardy.
Literally whatever you have the most nostalgia for. There have been so many changes, it's been a fundamentally different game seveal times over. Every major iteration has a slightly different appeal. I like 1.25 personally, but your milage may vary. I know some prefer 1.24 with the old mission system. If you like 1.14 it's a tough spot, since they've been deleting the old versions from Steam and oldest currently available is 1.17. Make local backups if you care about old versions!
Yeah I noticed that so I'm just going to pirate 1.24 instead. Paradox is really a piece of shit company they destroyed everything before 1.17.1, they should have died after releasing the steaming pile of shit that was eu3 and hoi3.
>they should have died after releasing the steaming pile of shit that was eu3 and hoi3.
>He said, while asking which version of EU4 he should be playing
I stopped at Dharma DLC, whichever that was, and not including Dharma itself, since it's when the free-fall was already in motion. Mandate of Heaven was the last DLC that actually did something meaningful with the game.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't allow to abdicate/disinherit until what? Rights of Men? So that would be like 1.18? 1.19?
>abdicate/disinherit
Terrible mechanic. Having a bad leader is an important part of the game because it would slow you down and make you think how you'd use your limited monarch points, but reddit had to b***h and moan about it because OP Spain needed an OP ruler from the get go.
Same thing with promoting advisors. Paragoy has zero resource managment at this point.
>have leader with crappy mil point
>have little mil points to get mil tech
>be forced to have low mil tech and no generals because your generals keep dying
>oh no I am confronted with a challange and cant just steam roll until I rule the world by 1600
The mechanic would be better if you could have multiple claimants to the throne, and a disinherit or abdication should be able to backfire and trigger a civil war over the succession.
>t. never in his life played EU4
Thanks for sharing you cool fanfiction, thou
That's not challenge. That's the glass ceiling over your head that NO amount of player skill is going to overcome, because the game simply doesn't work like that. It was a skill thing pre-mana. With mana, you either have it, or you are fricked, because you literally have no resources, no matter what your country is doing.
You would know, if you ever played the game.
I'm still confused why it is not working like this by default.
Dealing with limited resources and coming out on top is an essential part of strategy.
... if the game in question actually has mechanics/rules for that.
And EU4 doesn't, since mana system is completely divorced from your performance. Best you can do is dealing with your shitty mana gain (to a point), but that's band-aiding the fact your military and economic performances translate to nothing at all, for your source of the default resource is pure RNG. So it's not "be good, and you will grow", it's "be lucky, and you will grow".
Not to mention, the main obstacle and in the same time way of overcoming it, is to spend mana on things. You have it - you push whatever button you chose for instant gratification. You don't have it? Well shit son, sucks to be you.
>I stopped at Dharma DLC, whichever that was, and not including Dharma itself
Yuuuup. I'm
and Dharma was 1.26. TC rework, government reforms, estates completely revamped, and especially the utterly moronic change of only being able to convert religion on full cores was the last straw for me. Gave the game a completely different feeling. There's been some patches where I was almost tempted to update again, but overall "free-fall" is quite the apt descriptor for this trainwreck of a game.
I was considering the Rule Britania, but then I've learned that government changes and mission trees aren't just a DLC, but actual core element of the game, so I said "frick it" and played for 2 years the final patch pre-Dharma. Then had to reboot my system and didn't reinstall EU4 ever since.
You can convert non cored provinces. What are you talking about?
>What are you talking about?
As it very clearly says in the post - we're talking about 1.26 and why we both noped out of updating EU4 at that specific point.
>Patchnotes 1.26
>Can no longer convert culture or religion on territory provinces.
Yes, the Dharma patch was *so* bad, they ended up reversing quite a few of the core decisions. But for several patches it was just terrible. Once they had walked back most the awful changes, they seamlessly entered the phase where every patch would literally break the game in a major way. The other anon is right, 1.26 is where EU4 went into free fall.
Anything before the moronic institutions were added
They were such a curse. Neat idea, but the execution is utterly horrible, the way tomdeal with them is moronicly gamey (hurr just stack development in one province), and they remove proper tech parity differences between Europe and rest of the world.
The concept is great, the execution is passable. What kills the whole system dead is the fact you can push development to compensate, especially when you have no exposure to that specific institution. Renaissance firing up? No sweat, just throw bunch of mana on any of your provinces somewhere in China, and you will have your own Renaissance, with mahjong and rice.
It kind of blows my mind to think that the development stacking is the intended way to work around the institution gap that would otherwise ensue. It’s not interesting in gameplay sense, it completely defeats the point of the entire institution mechanic, and even in a silly game like EU IV, it’s probably one of the, if not the most unhistorical and unrealistic thing around.
I mean I get if the development was HELPING you with the whole thing, and only AFTER being exposed to the idea. That would still be silly and gamey, but at least would made some semblance of sense.
Instead, it's just 20-30 dev points and you have an institution going on the day it fired on the other end of the planet (assuming you had storage of mana to pull that off)
As for "muh historical" - the last time EU was about that, it was EU2 premiere and its related mods. There is a good chance current EU4 playerbase wasn't even born back then, or were toddlers. And I don't mean it as an insult to the playerbase, but to point out how fricking long ago that was, along with the fact EU3 was essentially a sandbox.
Eu4 has tons more historical events going on compared to eu3, not eu2 levels mind you, but eu3 feels many times more void than eu4. Had eu3 gotten its own sub-game like darkest hour, and if it was as good as darkest hour, I would rather play that than eu4 to be honest.
>Bro, EU3 has less events than EU4
>t. never played EU3
Thanks for sharing
As with many things that were "good ideas, shit execution", M&T kinda fixes that. Not only you can't kickstart institutions, but in the same time, you do have ability to get them going even if you aren't directly exposed to them. Like slowly getting points for banking, because it was already "invented" and you are controlling one of the biggest trading hubs on the planet, with extra bonus if traders from areas where that institution is already present are in your local node. Of course with trade rework that example no longer applies, but you should get the general idea.
They were an excellent idea for me, but only if said institutions form in Europe and Europe only then spread out to the rest of the world via European colonies in Asia, Africa or the Americas. I hated seeing Manufactories or Enlightenment popping up in India or China without Europeans to spread the institutions.
... because? It's a perfectly viable option, since in both cases you need to have both sufficient tech (unlikely for AI) and also viable economy (also unlikely for AI). The goal is to be a crutch for a player, so you can pump up your own nation into position where it makes sense, rather than being stuck with a waiting game.
I assume you would shit a brick if you were told first institution in M&T starts in Far East and you will be lucky to get it to Europe before tail end of 18th century, given you can't just cheese the game with development (since there isn't any in M&T)
The game already finished when dharma came out, I don't play anything after dharma because paradox keeps cash grabbing.
1.24 is the best. Easy to pirate compared to the older patches plus you can play MEIOU and taxes.
Any version old enough to have the old pirate and rebel system.
El Dorado.
Can you get achievements using older versions of the game or only the newest version? I want my cheevos.
I've been doing most of my achievements while on a beta branch. You can get achievements as long as the specific achievement has been in the game on that version. The wiki can tell you the version each was introduced https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Achievements
I get the issue. Curbstomping India in the 1600s just as easily as colonial natives was fun. But it's not like westernization was such a brilliant mechanic either. Institutions have made a lot more tags playable and enjoyable. I think the trade-off is worth it. I've had some great non-western campaigns that would have been boring as frick waiting on westernization.
i havent played in a few years and i have to say that everything is completely different than i remember...
I wish someone released a fricking debloat mod. The inverse of MEIOU.
I’d personally love something like older MEIOU, eg. reduces the amount of silly power fantasy garbage and adds some needed complexity, but still doesn’t go full madman with additions like current MEIOU. Still recognizably vanilla, but just a bit more grognardy.