Europa Universalis IV announced

[garbon]

Yeah, I saw that update and was like ugh, don't even want to copy any of it to Languish. Just make it stop.

Actually there is also a thread complaining about decline in history. Of course everyone goes well its just a sandbox! I feel like the same conversations had Eu2 vs. Eu3 are happening all over again.

[Zanza]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

[Valmy]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

Aren't your heirs basically random? Sounds like a chance to cheese out of something bad instead of having to actually play the game.

[garbon]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

Aren't your heirs basically random? Sounds like a chance to cheese out of something bad instead of having to actually play the game.

Indeed.

[Tamas]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

Aren't your heirs basically random? Sounds like a chance to cheese out of something bad instead of having to actually play the game.

Exactly, and they will have that with the 100 mil option as well.

[Zanza]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

Aren't your heirs basically random? Sounds like a chance to cheese out of something bad instead of having to actually play the game.

Presumably the next heir will be random too and you face risks of not having a heir (succession war, personal union etc.).

[garbon]

Giving the players options to change stuff that was previously set in stone is good. The "prices" seem low though, so it may be too easy.

Aren't your heirs basically random? Sounds like a chance to cheese out of something bad instead of having to actually play the game.

Presumably the next heir will be random too and you face risks of not having a heir (succession war, personal union etc.).

Are there many instances of an heir being set aside so easily in Western monarchies without immediate negative ramifications (which 50 prestige hit is a minor speedbump)?

[Zanza]

Should probably spark a pretender or so as well.

[The Brain]

Oh yes.

[Valmy]

Presumably the next heir will be random too and you face risks of not having a heir (succession war, personal union etc.).

Huh. It said 're-roll' not 'push your existing heir aside' which would make more sense

Though why you would do so when you don't have an heir is beyond me. Wouldn't you know that before attempting to disinherit your heir?

[garbon]

No. You generally don't know when say your heir dies if you've an heir to spare. Game might already have it calculated (not sure) but you certainly don't know.

[Zanza]

Trying to get rid of Enrique by assigning him to hopeless fights as a general or so is a time-honoured tradition of EU4 players anyway, no?

[Sheilbh]

Seems particularly odd as I thought they were trying to make it a little more CKish with the dynasty.

[Zanza]

Today's developer diary has something on factions in revolutionary republics. Which is something that has zero relevance to me as I've never played a game beyond the first 200-250 years as it always got boring by then.

[garbon]

Today's developer diary has something on factions in revolutionary republics. Which is something that has zero relevance to me as I've never played a game beyond the first 200-250 years as it always got boring by then.

I find factions to be dull as fuck. Also, other than starting as Rev. France, doesn't one only become a revolutionary republic through poor performance? I think it what happens as a result of a disaster?