That appears to be a bug (more than "simply" bad balance or design, I mean). There's massive christian zealot stacks appearing more often and in larger numbers than the devs think they should. Not even the player can withstand their onslaughts...
Europa Universalis IV - 13 August 2013
- Thread starter Bytewave
- Start date
That appears to be a bug (more than "simply" bad balance or design, I mean). There's massive christian zealot stacks appearing more often and in larger numbers than the devs think they should. Not even the player can withstand their onslaughts...
We had a thread here detailing how that could probably happen, why remove it ? D:
It's fine if the North Indian states form it. It just makes no sense for the South Indian states to do so.
China certainly wasn't behind Europe by 1600. Neither were the Mughals. So, yes, I see a problem with it.
Alright so I'm late to the party it seems! I just wanted to know a few things about the game before deciding on waiting or not:
1. Is this much more than an updated EU3?
2. Do non-western nations have a chance at success on a semi-global scale too?
3. Are nations who revolt in America less generic than in EU3? i.e. Does a Spain that's in control of the East coast of the North end up giving birth to USA, or something more realistic?
4. Are there consistent blobbing nations?
1. Is this much more than an updated EU3?
2. Do non-western nations have a chance at success on a semi-global scale too?
3. Are nations who revolt in America less generic than in EU3? i.e. Does a Spain that's in control of the East coast of the North end up giving birth to USA, or something more realistic?
4. Are there consistent blobbing nations?
Really? You show up on release day claiming you're late, then spew off a series of questions about the late game that a lot of us I'm guessing haven't really gotten close to experiencing, it being, you know, release day.
Faeelin
Banned
I would question China, actually; the fleets of Chinese pirates (and quasi-warlords like Koxinga) seem to be, individually, inferior to Europeans. European cannons were already superior, as was European astronomy; this was why jesuits were welcomed at the Ming and Qing courts.
As for the Mughals... they didn't even have a printing press.
Man, the Timiruds are nuts. Playing as the Ottomans, I watched as they nabbed Mesopotamia and waltzed into my eastern provinces with two ~14k stacks.
Really? You flip out and mock me because I asked a few questions to which a simple "We don't know yet" would have sufficed?
This thread is 2 months old, there were public play-testers, apparently a demo, and thousands of people who have played all day who are capable of correlating the things that go on in the full game. Yes, I find these to be perfectly acceptable reasons to claim to be "late to the party," considering I was unaware of most of that until today.
Say what, now? The Janissaries were beginning to decline as a professional force and the timar-holder system was breaking down by that point, but I'd say the Ottomans were able to hold their own with Europe even by 1700 - they were handing the Austrians defeat after defeat as late at 1739.
Faeelin
Banned
Look at the sophistication of the Dutch and English states compared to the Ottoman. Look at literacy rates. Compare the European navies to the Ottomans from Lepanto onwards.
... Why?! I've been hoping for that AH scenario to be a bit more feasible actually.
There are tons of awesome JAP events that are 'Daimyo-only', meaning they wont work once you unite Japan. That makes sense for some, but not most, of them.
Serious catholic influences in Japan is an awesome what-if. I want more of that, not less.
1. Its a very well updated EU3. Which was the plan all along.
2. Yes, when played by a human. Non-European AIs rarely achieve incredible feats, but a player can succeed with some extra effort as any nation.
3. Minimal changes in this regards AFAIK. So few people play that late in the timeframe and all. Its largely EU3 mechanics on that front, though there are more historical flavor events in the time period.
4. Not much more than in 5.2. The usual suspect will do pretty well, France especially, and Spain in the New world. Nothing fundamentally broken, though.
I'm just going to creepily lurk this thread and cry because my old laptop can't run it.
Heh, just imagine trying to run Ironman on it.
(Hint: The paradox forums have a few threads with people's brains exploding due to the fact that Ironman autosaves with every decision and month and battle and... well... anything. For slower computers that can mean a 5 second (OR MORE) delay any time anything happens.
)People asked "What if I want achievements?"
A dev responded "Buy an SSD!"
(I haven't tried it myself yet, but I haven't noticed too bad of a pause on autosave, but still, even quarter of a second would be highly noticeable when trying to run through a few years at max speed.)
Sophistication is a word with a wide range of connotations - are you referring to military sophistication? Literacy rates don't factor into that - they were very low, but that doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand.
As for navies, comparing the Ottoman navy to other contemporaneous European powers of roughly equal power is a false equivalence. The Ottomans were the only heavyweight without a major presence outside the Mediterranean, and their fleet was designed with these shallow waters in mind, not the oceans that, say, England and the Netherlands frequented.
As for Lepanto, its importance tends to be overrated. The Ottomans had a new fleet up and running in no time, although they did lose a fair amount of experienced soldiers.