Europa Universalis IV announced

[Tamas]

I dont like this one:

"- When fighting a large coalition, you no longer get 100% warscore just for occupying coalition leader"

This makes impossible to defend yourself against an attack of a larger coalition what the AI is likely creating, if a player become a strong Empire.

Till this time it was possible to defeat even the largest coalitions if you captured the coalition leader' lands.

Now you can forget it.

Doesn't not being able to have 100% warscore from just AI leader just mean you won't be able to flip the attack and make crazy demands of the coalition?

It was basically as the "go for the plot leader" trick in CK2. You had your empire overrun by the 5 other coalition members, you concentrated on kicking the leader, and voila no problem.

[Anatron]

I dont like this one:

"- When fighting a large coalition, you no longer get 100% warscore just for occupying coalition leader"

This makes impossible to defend yourself against an attack of a larger coalition what the AI is likely creating, if a player become a strong Empire.

Till this time it was possible to defeat even the largest coalitions if you captured the coalition leader' lands.

Now you can forget it.

Well the original intention behind coalitions was to prevent blobbing and too fast expansion by the player, and this way it will do that better.
Makes the whole thing much more dangerous, though, I agree.

Yes,but sometimes the coalitions going insane just because you bulding yourself strong to survive.

With Byzantium after I pushed out the Ottomans from Europe i started to liberate Anatolia from Turks.After I succed with it Russia created a Coalition with Georgia to stop me.

Nice,just because I destroying my and his enemy too Russia slowed my further expansions against the Ottomans.The next 150 year war against the ottomans (till I annexed them) went with constant wars with Russia who protected the Ottomans all the time...

Sound logical if there is a heathen next to your border who means threat to you, you have to protect it .Right?

Thats how the new coalition system works,no logic just a hard mode for players.

[Queequeg]

That sounds really weird. I think Russia should just be way more hostile to heathen states than it is now. I've never seen it annex Siberia, which is kind of the entire key to a strong Russia.

[Zanza]

Tamas missed one :

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?723701-1.2-New-Features

Nice to see more national ideas especially Tuscany, Papal States, Switzerland and the German and Italian minors. Tuscany is certainly one of the countries I'd like to try eventually. They look like fun when the AI plays them as they often dominate Italy.

[garbon]

I dont like this one:

"- When fighting a large coalition, you no longer get 100% warscore just for occupying coalition leader"

This makes impossible to defend yourself against an attack of a larger coalition what the AI is likely creating, if a player become a strong Empire.

Till this time it was possible to defeat even the largest coalitions if you captured the coalition leader' lands.

Now you can forget it.

Well the original intention behind coalitions was to prevent blobbing and too fast expansion by the player, and this way it will do that better.
Makes the whole thing much more dangerous, though, I agree.

Yes,but sometimes the coalitions going insane just because you bulding yourself strong to survive.

With Byzantium after I pushed out the Ottomans from Europe i started to liberate Anatolia from Turks.After I succed with it Russia created a Coalition with Georgia to stop me.

Nice,just because I destroying my and his enemy too Russia slowed my further expansions against the Ottomans.The next 150 year war against the ottomans (till I annexed them) went with constant wars with Russia who protected the Ottomans all the time...

Sound logical if there is a heathen next to your border who means threat to you, you have to protect it .Right?

Thats how the new coalition system works,no logic just a hard mode for players.

I mean that just sounds like you dislike why Russia became hostile...but nothing about the coalition system being an issue.

[garbon]

Oh this will be a big change.

Can no longer maintain patrol ships where you do not have either province power or a trader

And do this mean it suddenly can make sense to take Mexico in one go?

Non-Pagan countries no longer get overextension for conquering the provinces of Pagans, unless those provinces have cores from other Non-Pagan countries

[Habbaku]

And do this mean it suddenly can make sense to take Mexico in one go?

Non-Pagan countries no longer get overextension for conquering the provinces of Pagans, unless those provinces have cores from other Non-Pagan countries

Sounds like it to me.  Ossum.

[Caliga]

Cool.  That's part of the reason why I ragequit my last game as Castile/Spain.

[Viking]

I'd still annex release aztecs too. Just to let the pagans convert themselves to avoid the religious unity penalties.

Then again, for overseas provinces... Owned provinces give half manpower, little tax, all trade power and nearly zero force limits, while Vassalized provinces give half tax, no trade, little manpower and half of force limits (beyond the 3 all countries get for being). It's actually a worth while trade-off and trade values, manpower and province tax values matter. High tax low MP, vassalize, trade power and cool trade good conquer. Naturally assuming you have the diplo slots to deal with it.

[Fireblade]

http://gamemoir.com/2013/09/23/europa-universalis-iv-is-the-best-genocide-simulator-of-the-year/

I like how the author was perfectly fine with attrition killing 55k people, conquering Venice, and (presumably) culture-converting a bunch of provinces, but as soon as she played a colonial country he freaked out about imaginary genocide.

"My first reaction is, then why are the Native American "states" that are in the game so underdeveloped? Surely they could have put in some more content for those factions, even if they couldn't get enough information to avoid "empty" tiles."

Because it would be slow as shit with a bunch of stone-age hunter-gatherer tribes scattered around the map?

"I've seen gamers who are people of color say they really want to enjoy a game like this, but they can't because it's attitude towards colonialism is so off putting."

I'm.. sorry that history happened?

Her point would actually pretty valid if she was arguing about West Africa. The Portuguese got their asses handed to them when they tried to do slave raids. Conquering Mali, Benin, or Kongo was absolutely out of the question. Hell, the Obas of Benin dictated trade terms to the Portuguese. Also, the Africans were more or less on technological parity with the Europeans until 1600 or so, and something like 8 out of every 10 Europeans who went to Africa before quinine died within three years.

[garbon]

That individual needs a smack on the snout.

[garbon]

But yeah, I'd rather if the points had been about fictional states like Swahili or the fact that states are just ignored in the far east because it is desirable to allow colonization there.

[Fireblade]

The more I think about it, the more I get pissed off. If anything, the game rewards you for ahistorically keeping Indian people alive. Slaughtering the natives takes money and manpower, while not doing anything to them increases the provinces tax value and manpower. I assume that by doing that, the game is representing the formation of a largely ahistorical European/Native creole culture. It's better if you DON'T commit genocide.

As we all know, the reality went more like "Thanks for the food Squanto, but we're going to plow up your land and have these niggers plant cotton everywhere. You don't like it? Tough shit, have some smallpox blankets and lead shot."

It's still hilarious that she's perfectly fine with the abstract slaughter of millions of white people, but peaceful integration with Indians is literally Hitler.

[garbon]

Well, that's sort of fair. White people aren't oppressed.

[Fireblade]

Well, that's sort of fair. White people aren't oppressed.

Lol, it's hilarious when I see people start talking about "White Privilege" when anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of history can name a hundred white ethnic groups who were oppressed at one point or another.

I bet you someone would literally claim that Bosnian women in Serb rape camps were not oppressed, because Bosnians are white.