Never played Russia though, which everyone says needs quantity. In fact, I can build about 80k+ more right now and don't bother. I already fight on 3 fronts at the same time without much issue, If I had 200k more troops, they would be falling over each other. This last conquest I had when I went to 190OE I had to whack a mole of over 1 million rebels and it was tedious dealing with the additional separation they get for 10 years because I could not get there fast enough. The one thing I can see it for is putting multiple stacks of rebel killers throughout the empire. I can see a use for it in the first 50 years, but after that? In my thinking the majority of your blobbing starts later in the game when your force limits/manpower is already pretty strong. I am in 1750ish right now on a WC and I am still not maxed on force limit(860ish of 980ish) and have 350k manpower. I see everyone tout how great quantity is and I have never taken it. A war exhaustion ticker is an absolute must for anyone who doesn't want to look at MrNegative999. Some great policies together with exploration, influence, offensive, can help you save some serious cash considering firing advisors, or taking the level 3 instead of a budget option. even a garbage general could have 3 siege and nothing else, and come in handy. Ah but guess what, that land belonged to a subject anyway, whoops.Įven innovative can be much better than humanism, if you really have nowhere to put the monarch points. Is that going to kill your game because you're a year short of a WC, and have to move your armies in to reconquer that bad boy. Ok, let's say a province actually defects. and save about maybe 1400 monarch points you might not even need by throwing 2800 adm at rebel scum. "humanism" because you want your rebels to pop later. It's a great way for ming to expand in all directions too, Having a conquistador can save you many armies in Africa and the middle east, because of how the AI always ends up defending if you don't ,but nah Gold, force limit, trade power all yours for the taking, basically for free because wasting dudes on "+20 colony growth" is a bit shit when you have swedish mercs breathing down your ass. It's the difference between life in a european prison stuck between whales and already pissed off hre sharks, core creation can't save you there, a marginally better army can't save you there, you need a way to get to some natives, you got a way to get to some natives. If they get the budget to build something with a more solid multiplayer experience we will see the PERFECT game.I do agree with the last 4 but #1 has got to be exploration. Can't wait to see what we get when the final few pieces of the game design puzzle fall into place. If you love strategy gaming please go and buy this game and support this developer! This is a FAR, FAR superior game to Civilizations 1-5 as well as anything put out by Creative Assembly. I'm very excited about where this will lead with the Hearts of Iron series, because all the design wisdom that we can see in CK2 and EU4 is leading in the absolute correct direction. The depth and complication is welcome, but it has been softened with a more thoughtful and gaming friendly structure! GREAT WORK PARADOX! Good things take time, and your grand ambitions are finally bearing fruit. Europa Universalis IV seems to demonstrate that Paradox has really turned the corner. The machine kept churning away but Paradox learned to save us from the worst of it, and the gameplay began to blossom. However something miraculous happened with Crusaders Kings 2, and echoes of the good things we saw in earlier games (Hearts of Iron 2) reappeared: Better looking graphics. But beyond inaccessibility, the games were finally not that good, because even when you figured out the mechanisms they were still too MECHANICAL: not even really worth learning in the end because they were all variations of a sausage machine. Most of the Paradox efforts suffered from terrible tutorials and ridiculous learning curved that discouraged any vaguely casual gamers. Their games have been for the most part tedious, pretentious and ugly, with cluttered mechanisms, and hideous micromanagement. Their WOW! For about ten years Paradox Development have been a small team of nice guys working hard to give us good games and mostly failing. WOW! For about ten years Paradox Development have been a small team of nice guys working hard to give us good games and mostly failing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |