Europa Universalis IV announced

[Martinus]

Seriously, I would really like to seem them try something new for a change and not "[Existing Game] n+1".

I completely disagree. Some of the best games on the market come from companies that have mastered the development of 3-5 "flagship" games and now release new more enjoyable iterations.

Blizzard has WoW (where, due to the nature of MMORPGs, expansions could be considered really new game iterations), Starcraft and Diablo. There are games like Sims, Civilization, Drago Age, Fable, etc.

[The Brain]

There are games like ... Drago Age, ... etc.

[Martinus]

There are games like ... Drago Age, ... etc.

[Syt]

Seriously, I would really like to seem them try something new for a change and not "[Existing Game] n+1".

I completely disagree. Some of the best games on the market come from companies that have mastered the development of 3-5 "flagship" games and now release new more enjoyable iterations.

Blizzard has WoW (where, due to the nature of MMORPGs, expansions could be considered really new game iterations), Starcraft and Diablo. There are games like Sims, Civilization, Drago Age, Fable, etc.

You, sir, are why we can't have nice things.

Enabler.

[Martinus]

Well, I'd rather Paradox release a new Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings every 3-4 years.

But yeah I'm excited for EU4. I was actually thinking recently it would be fun to play EU3 again but some of it has become quite obsolete.

[The Brain]

Morbidly obsolete?

[HisMajestyBOB]

I like some of the ideas, and some/many are long overdue. But, I rarely play EU3 these days, and have time for CK2 only occasionally. I'll probably pass on this until I get a new computer and the first couple of major DLCs/patches are released and on sale.

[Phillip V]

I was actually thinking recently it would be fun to play EU3 again but some of it has become quite obsolete.

Which parts?

[Habbaku]

Judging from the dev's commentary on the EUIV forum, they are going to be trying to make naval stuff more important, especially with regards to trade.

[frunk]

Paradox has always had a lot of trouble getting the naval element of their games right.

[garbon]

Paradox has always had a lot of trouble getting the naval element of their games right.

[dps]

Paradox has always had a lot of trouble getting the naval element of their games right.

I simply don't understand their insistance that AI naval units not be subject to attrition, because the AI wouldn't be able to handle it.  First of all, it seems an incredibly simple think tocheck for--just have code in there somewhere that says, in effect, for each fleet at sea,  "If:  attrition > 50%  Then:  return to nearest friendly port".  It can't be that hard to code something that straightforward.  It doesn't have to be 50%, of course--something like 70% might be better.  Heck, deciding what value would be best to use probably should be harder than actually coding  it.   

Second, the AI in EUI and EUII couldn't really handle land attrition, either, and that didn't keep their armies from being subject to it.

[viper37]

Seriously, I would really like to seem them try something new for a change and not "[Existing Game] n+1".

I remember I was really excited when I first read their announcement of Victoria, or Hearts of Iron or Snowball developing Crusader Kings; even EU: Rome.

Now every announcement leaves me "meh, figured as much" even if the end product is fantastic (like CK2).

they War of the Roses, I think...

[garbon]

Is there something about Quebec that makes its inhabitants bring up irrelevant examples?

[Syt]

Paradox has always had a lot of trouble getting the naval element of their games right.

And that's a surprise because . . . ?