https://www.paradoxplaza.com/news/Paradox-Brings-Some-Common-Sense-to-Europa-Universalis-IV-on-June-9th/
Quote
STOCKHOLM – May 8, 2015 – Thomas Paine's Common Sense was the best selling pamphlet of Revolutionary America. Paradox's Common Sense won't tear down the pretensions of monarchy like Paine's did, but it will give Europa Universalis IV new tools so players can manage the growth of their domains. With a focus on the art of ruling and national improvement, Common Sense adds depth to domestic rule and adds a number of major changes to diplomacy.
The most significant modification in Common Sense is the new provincial development system. Building space in a province is now limited by its terrain and Development Value. The more developed a province is, the greater wealth and power you can squeeze out of it. By spending monarch points, you can now customize your trading hubs or make great recruiting centers. Fewer, more powerful buildings means that every decision about construction has greater importance – if you want a manufactory and have no building slots in Champagne, what will you destroy?
This teaser video highlights another important feature: parliamentary rule.
Other major features include:
Parliaments: The English crown and other constitutional systems of government can now use their flexible system to pass laws through parliaments
National Churches: Protestant kingdoms can customize their new faith and make it a true partner to the throne.
New Religious Systems: Buddhism and Protestantism both get fresh coats of faith-based paint
New Options For Subject States: Once just tiny money faucets, recent expansions have made vassals and colonial nations more useful. Common Sense gives you new tools to exploit them or keep them in line
Government Ranks: As you invest in the development of your nation, you can climb from a small duchy to a major empire, unlocking new benefits.
New Government mechanics: Theocracies will have new actions and mechanics to highlight their unique character, and the Holy Roman Empire can create Free Cities
As always, Common Sense will be accompanied by a host of free updates and improvements - including some significant changes to the map of Europe.
Common Sense will be available on major digital platforms on June 9, 2015
Other than the Theocracies getting some more mechanics, I'm rather MEH about much of that.
Maybe it'll be more interesting after I've seen the details but this expansion doesn't rouse any excitement.
I am also hoping that the mechanics creep doesn't revive some of the more annoying number-chasing facets that was eliminated in between EU3 and EU4.
I'm still munching on sour grapes because it's impossible to reduplicate Columbus's first crossing of the Atlantic.
When basic history becomes impossible I start to lose interest and confidence in the system.
Developing provinces is probably my favorite part of the game, so in theory I am very interested in this idea of province development values and development limits. But we shall see: the devil is in the details. >:D
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 03:32:44 PM
Developing provinces is probably my favorite part of the game, so in theory I am very interested in this idea of province development values and development limits. But we shall see: the devil is in the details. >:D
That did pique my interest, but it sounded more like they were just limiting how many improvements you can make in each. Not sure how much will actually be added from the short description.
Need more details. ;)
Quote from: Nefaro on May 08, 2015, 03:34:01 PM
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 03:32:44 PM
Developing provinces is probably my favorite part of the game, so in theory I am very interested in this idea of province development values and development limits. But we shall see: the devil is in the details. >:D
That did pique my interest, but it sounded more like they were just limiting how many improvements you can make in each. Not sure how much will actually be added from the short description.
Need more details. ;)
This could be one of the greatest changes seen so far in EUIV. See Developer Diary 4 (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-27th-march-2015.847196/). What it means in terms of game play is that you don't have to go on a world conquest in order to grow. Instead you can invest your monarch points into increasing a provinces base tax, man power, or production.
I plan to take a one or two province minor, only expand into a 2-3 province radius from my starting provinces, then expend points into growing upward rather then out.
I can definitely see the attraction of growing up. There's a lot to be said, gameplay-wise, for keeping your attention local. When you're aggressively expanding and colonizing, eventually you will have you have multiple fronts all over the world, and fighting a global war gets to be a bit of a drag. You can slow the game down as much as you need to deal with it, but because of the way units disappear when you zoom out too far, you have to stop zooming out before you can see an area the size of the United States. With that limitation, world war means you'll have to click all over the map pretty constantly to shift your view to manage the different fronts, because you could drop a bunch of United Stateses down in the world.
Quote from: Kushan on May 08, 2015, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on May 08, 2015, 03:34:01 PM
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 03:32:44 PM
Developing provinces is probably my favorite part of the game, so in theory I am very interested in this idea of province development values and development limits. But we shall see: the devil is in the details. >:D
That did pique my interest, but it sounded more like they were just limiting how many improvements you can make in each. Not sure how much will actually be added from the short description.
Need more details. ;)
This could be one of the greatest changes seen so far in EUIV. See Developer Diary 4 (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-27th-march-2015.847196/). What it means in terms of game play is that you don't have to go on a world conquest in order to grow. Instead you can invest your monarch points into increasing a provinces base tax, man power, or production.
I plan to take a one or two province minor, only expand into a 2-3 province radius from my starting provinces, then expend points into growing upward rather then out.
That's good news. But couldn't you already do that to some extent? I'm guessing they're making it more pronounced?
Another issue I've seen with province improvements is that the AI still didn't want to use them. That was a big issue in EU3, and from what I've seen it's still a problem in EU4. Hopefully this will address it, otherwise the AI may be further disadvantaged in that area.
I wonder is this will make some of the minor countries more playable.
Quote from: Philippe on May 08, 2015, 03:30:19 PM
I'm still munching on sour grapes because it's impossible to reduplicate Columbus's first crossing of the Atlantic.
When basic history becomes impossible I start to lose interest and confidence in the system.
This is why I gave up on EUIV early. >:(
Quote from: Barthheart on May 11, 2015, 07:16:14 AM
Quote from: Philippe on May 08, 2015, 03:30:19 PM
I'm still munching on sour grapes because it's impossible to reduplicate Columbus's first crossing of the Atlantic.
When basic history becomes impossible I start to lose interest and confidence in the system.
This is why I gave up on EUIV early. >:(
Are you guys using the randomized New World option? I could understand not getting across due to the randomization which, IMO, is a nice change. Otherwise you know, beforehand, where it's easiest for you to cross depending on which nation you're playing.
I've crossed over to Greenland or Brazil earlier than Columbus' voyage in games without the randomized map, but that's something I thought was far too cheesy. Far more than not hitting 1492 in the Caribbean right on the head.
Another issue with the initial discovery is that landing somewhere and/or sailing around the coasts will allow you to explore quite a sizable area. Much more than Columbus' first journey. So maybe it's not trying to emulate that one due to the amount of discovery possible on the first journey? Something to think about.
Quote from: Nefaro on May 11, 2015, 10:03:41 AM
Quote from: Barthheart on May 11, 2015, 07:16:14 AM
Quote from: Philippe on May 08, 2015, 03:30:19 PM
I'm still munching on sour grapes because it's impossible to reduplicate Columbus's first crossing of the Atlantic.
When basic history becomes impossible I start to lose interest and confidence in the system.
This is why I gave up on EUIV early. >:(
Are you guys using the randomized New World option? I could understand not getting across due to the randomization which, IMO, is a nice change. Otherwise you know, beforehand, where it's easiest for you to cross depending on which nation you're playing.
I've crossed over to Greenland or Brazil earlier than Columbus' voyage in games without the randomized map, but that's something I thought was far too cheesy. Far more than not hitting 1492 in the Caribbean right on the head.
Another issue with the initial discovery is that landing somewhere and/or sailing around the coasts will allow you to explore quite a sizable area. Much more than Columbus' first journey. So maybe it's not trying to emulate that one due to the amount of discovery possible on the first journey? Something to think about.
Yeah... it's more me wanting to be able to reconstruct CC's first crossing in 1492 by going more or less strait across to the Caribbean without all your ships dissolving before you get there.... :P
Quote from: Barthheart on May 11, 2015, 10:14:15 AM
Yeah... it's more me wanting to be able to reconstruct CC's first crossing in 1492 by going more or less strait across to the Caribbean without all your ships dissolving before you get there.... :P
But Chris did start out with 9 ships. 6 of them actually dissolved en route. ;D
Under the old system I never had significant problems getting three ships to the Bahamas, eastern Cuba, northern Hispaniola, and back. But you had to be very judicious about how often you attempted to explore, and had to keep your eye on the attrition counters to be sure to know when to turn back. And in real life you're supposed to lose a ship or two anyway.
Under the new system you can't pick your route. It usually takes two trips to get Columbus across the Atlantic, and on that second trip when he will actually hit land, you can him send just about anywhere EXCEPT the place he actually went. Gulf of St. Lawrence, Chesapeake Bay, Lesser Antilles, Guyana, Brazil, no problem. Bahamas ? Never.
It's really a shame, because with proper handling the new system could make the exploration happen in a more realistic way on a more realistic timeframe. I haven't tried this in a while, but last time I played as Portugal I think I ran through about three hundred years of exploration in less than three decades.
If they ever get their scripts written correctly the scrambled geography will become completely unnecessary. Besides, most people don't know where those places are supposed to be anyway.
Quote from: Philippe on May 11, 2015, 01:57:57 PM
....
Besides, most people don't know where those places are supposed to be anyway.
;D
Until we fight there, it doesn't exist. O0
Quote from: Philippe on May 08, 2015, 03:30:19 PM
I'm still munching on sour grapes because it's impossible to reduplicate Columbus's first crossing of the Atlantic.
When basic history becomes impossible I start to lose interest and confidence in the system.
It seems silly to me that something that has been proven to work in real life, can't be accounted for in a game. So, I understand that point of view and agree with it. What I don't get is, the game is ruined for you because you can't cross like Columbus? The only time the game is ever in a state of, "exactly like history,' is when you start it. As soon as you start the clock, everything has the possibility/ability to change. Even if you played as close to history as possible, random events will change the experience every time. So, something small like Columbus' crossing is a game killer? To each his own. :)
Quote from: glen55 on May 08, 2015, 11:00:16 PM
I can definitely see the attraction of growing up. There's a lot to be said, gameplay-wise, for keeping your attention local. When you're aggressively expanding and colonizing, eventually you will have you have multiple fronts all over the world, and fighting a global war gets to be a bit of a drag. You can slow the game down as much as you need to deal with it, but because of the way units disappear when you zoom out too far, you have to stop zooming out before you can see an area the size of the United States. With that limitation, world war means you'll have to click all over the map pretty constantly to shift your view to manage the different fronts, because you could drop a bunch of United Stateses down in the world.
I understand your frustration. It's the reason I don't play Great Britain in Hearts of Iron. Too much stuff going on all over the world at the SAME TIME! Having said that, it was the failure of the other colonizing/exploring powers to be better at it or overcome their competition that allowed GB hegemony over a global empire. And I think EUIV does a GREAT job of modeling that! The fight over the globe by the European powers to take control of trade routes and lands supplying resources. Again, I can see why it's a PITA, but, it's the exact time period that the game covers, so, it's kind of obligatory :)
The reason this severely diminishes the game in my eyes is that, in one form or another, it is supposed to be a simulation, and you use that simulation to model alternate history. The problem is, if I don't have faith that the simulation can model reality in a reasonable way, it's just an over-priced fantasy game dressed up in historical costumes that I've spent far too much money on DLC's for.
Most of the time I'm willing to cut the game some slack and turn a blind eye to whether or not it's doing a good job of modelling things like what was really going on in the curia and how the Holy Roman Empire really worked. The problem with the voyage of Columbus is that there is no way, no how, that I can bring myself to overlook the fact that the voyage of discovery is just plain impossible in the game system as it exists. Why is it impossible ? Apparently because the designers of the game care more about applying their cool game system than they do about simulating the historical mechanics that under one limited set of circumstances will produce an outcome that we think of as historical.
There's no if in what-if if the what is missing.
People used to complain when they noticed that for something like two decades Avalon Hill produced games that used the same Combat Results Table and pretty much the same ground movement rules, regardless of the scale or time period being simulated. At some point along the way people who care about this kind of thing noticed that what AH was simulating in their games was not any given set of historical circumstances, but an Avalon Hill game. I still remember when Ty Bomba threw the old rule book out the window and stopped using Zones of Control -- it didn't always work but it was a breath of fresh air to have someone ask why are we doing it this way, because that made you think about what was really supposed to be happening.
My basic problem boils down to trust. If I can't trust Paradox to get something simple and easy like getting Columbus right, there's no way I'm going to take them seriously when they try model the forces at play in political and social evolution. I might start asking myself why the combat mechanics are so weird and what is it exactly that they're supposed to represent, or maybe notice that the sieges go on for way too long. If I just want to push pieces around and have a fantasy that I'm conquering the world, it's a lot cheaper and easier just to play Risk.
[This rant was written without benefit of alcohol, otherwise it would have been a lot mellower].
Thank you for explaining that to me. I can see now how something small like that would put you off the whole thing. So what type of game matches more closely what you like?
All I have wanted them to do for the past oh ...... 1000 years, is make the damn naval combat more realistic.
Naval battles are way to decisive, with too much "Winner take all" . You can build a 120 ship fleet and lose it all in a single battle. Drives me NUTZ, I tell you.
Quote from: bboyer66 on May 12, 2015, 08:39:49 AM
All I have wanted them to do for the past oh ...... 1000 years, is make the damn naval combat more realistic.
Naval battles are way to decisive, with too much "Winner take all" . You can build a 120 ship fleet and lose it all in a single battle. Drives me NUTZ, I tell you.
Yeah, but there would be some resulting problems with that too.
I think each battle in a province or sea zone is supposed to represent a series of battles in the area. That seems to work okay for land battles nowadays, with the defeated force retreating a long distance back to friendly territory and (finally) being very vulnerable to effective elimination in game terms.
It probably shouldn't work quite the same way with fleets, but I think they would have to force them to retire home to port and be locked there for awhile. Not sure how well that would go over with players in a game situation, however. Otherwise, we'd have the whole "bouncing armies" problem again, on the seas, requiring too much micro-management in constantly pursuing fleets. That's something I don't miss from EU3.
Quote from: Nefaro on May 12, 2015, 09:09:05 AM
Quote from: bboyer66 on May 12, 2015, 08:39:49 AM
All I have wanted them to do for the past oh ...... 1000 years, is make the damn naval combat more realistic.
Naval battles are way to decisive, with too much "Winner take all" . You can build a 120 ship fleet and lose it all in a single battle. Drives me NUTZ, I tell you.
Yeah, but there would be some resulting problems with that too.
I think each battle in a province or sea zone is supposed to represent a series of battles in the area. That seems to work okay for land battles nowadays, with the defeated force retreating a long distance back to friendly territory and (finally) being very vulnerable to effective elimination in game terms.
It probably shouldn't work quite the same way with fleets, but I think they would have to force them to retire home to port and be locked there for awhile. Not sure how well that would go over with players in a game situation, however. Otherwise, we'd have the whole "bouncing armies" problem again, on the seas, requiring too much micro-management in constantly pursuing fleets. That's something I don't miss from EU3.
Just make it so that a fleet after taking 50% casualties will at least consider retreating to an open friendly port within say 2-3 provinces. The "bouncing navy" thing could be avoided by having higher attrition rates for battle damaged ships at sea. Actually I think the entire naval warfare aspect of the game should be improved or at least revisited. To me its easily the weakest part of a great game.
Quote from: bboyer66 on May 12, 2015, 10:02:17 AM
Just make it so that a fleet after taking 50% casualties will at least consider retreating to an open friendly port within say 2-3 provinces. The "bouncing navy" thing could be avoided by having higher attrition rates for battle damaged ships at sea. Actually I think the entire naval warfare aspect of the game should be improved or at least revisited. To me its easily the weakest part of a great game.
Yeah, the battle side of all the Pdox games have been the weakest point.