Why eu4 is not the best

[jugqug]

This game is all luck based rng and has boring strats with AI focused on you it feels like. The DLC is 400 bucks plus and i regret every penny. I bought dlc before the pass now use that. This game blows and takes boring strats to win. The battle system uses dice rolls to determine damage which i dont like. The game wont let you get achievements unless you put on the setting that gives nations bonuses, for historically ''accurate" game play. But most of the time I dont see historical things just some events. do not waste your time on this game. DLC Is MaKiNg ThE gAme BeTtEr" a game shouldn't need dlc , hundreds of dollars worth, for it to be getting better. 10 years in. just make a new game at that point you would think. When the AI takes 5 level 8 forts in 5 months, most without breaches, and you've been on 75 percent for 2 years with pos siege ability you realize its even more annoying of a game than You think it is. Its like this because they know people wouldnt play if it was a fair system. Dont fall in the trap of "winning" in this game because it does not take skill to do. Before any one says its a skill issue , Im not loosing or stuck at a point my run is over and went great, probably better than expected but i just dont like certain features. Anyone else agree?

[Narrowmind]

Originally posted by jugqug:

what a great game.

Wow,you are so right! I agree with you wholeheartedly!!

[Triple G]

For some it´s RNG - for others it´s stochastics...

Also "insane" 10% buffs, which You as a player outperform anyways, with half the resources. The historical buffs are imho mainly so the AI nations wouldn´t be killed by some random AI faction, and to push some of them, to get stronger a bit quicker compared to the others...

But yes - that was a good advice:

Play a real game. Which is Football. Only skill. No luck. No dice rolls. Not these video games, which are all about RNG and simple maths. And we all know that the best single player video games are those which are 100% predictable and bear no surprises, because they don´t include RNG. RNG is not a game. If we know 100% what happens next - that can be called a game. We don´t even need to play them, because we know everything in advance - which saves the time to play them in the first place. Really good games make You spend Your time on more serious stuff, like chopping wood. This is what we want...

Also if You siege the Ottoman forts with their decadence debuff, the siege tick is like 3 days. It doesn´t even make sense to barrage them, when their siege tick is like 50 days... Oh - with the historical buff of course...

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by jugqug:

When the AI takes 5 level 8 forts in 5 months

Then your fort defense must be ridiculously low or they have napoleonic warfare unlocked for an extra +3 siege bonus, even then that's pushing it. Something's not quite right with the info you're presenting. Game is RNG but in these conditions something like this is exceptionally rare.

[Totally Innocent Chatbot]

Fort maintenance turned off or level 2 Castles in the 1700's are the only possibilities, really, assuming the whole thing isn't just a grotesque exaggeration.

[Kapika96]

That's an awful lot of words to say you're bad at the game.

[Thrakkanuur]

It's the 400+ bucks for the DLC that has me not wanting to even dip a toe in. No thank you.

[Unimportant]

Incoming jester farmer alert

[olElLI]

New to and Enjoying updated "vanilla" atm. You don't need to start the game with all (or any) of the DLC.

[Tungdil12]

Theres also the subscription for 5€ per month if you want to have all of the dlcs. No need to waste 400 bucks on that.

[grognardgary]

Because one does not like something or it hurts your feelings does not of necessity make it bad.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by jugqug:

This game is all luck based rng and has to cheat to win. The AI target players and are made to never let you win. The DLC is 400 bucks plus and i regret every penny.

Every word of this is wrong. The list of AI cheats is short, minor, and very well documented. The AI doesn't target players--only bad players think that it does. And if you spent "400 bucks" on DLC instead of trying all of them out for 5 bucks instead with the subscription, you made a very, very bad choice.

I could go on, but responding to rants is generally pointless. You have no skill at EU4 so you're raging instead of admitting you need to learn.

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

What is the deal, lately, to blame the game for not knowing how to play it?
Damn, I was there not that long ago (just a couple of years), and instead of "speak and prove I'm dumb" I asked for help when I needed it, and kept playing to learn on my own too.

I understand that those GSG games (especially the ones from Paradox) are hard to learn and a lot harder to master, the opposite of the vast majority of the games out there, so unless you come from previous games you need significantly more time to learn, but those reactions are simply blatant exaggerations, and I guess mostly from very impatient people. Otherwise, just trolling, which wouldn’t be any better.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

What is the deal, lately, to blame the game for not knowing how to play it?

Modern gamers feel entitled to win anything immediately. Spending dozens or hundreds of hours to acquire skill is a concept they loathe. They expect to have moved on to something else in far less time than that.

I've been PC gaming since the 1970s, and the changes to gamer attitudes and skill level in the last couple decades are enormous. When what was once a niche nerd hobby went mainstream, average ability and sophistication plummeted.

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

What is the deal, lately, to blame the game for not knowing how to play it?

Modern gamers feel entitled to win anything immediately. Spending dozens or hundreds of hours to acquire skill is a concept they loathe. They expect to have moved on to something else in far less time than that.

I've been PC gaming since the 1970s, and the changes to gamer attitudes and skill level in the last couple decades are enormous. When what was once a niche nerd hobby went mainstream, average ability and sophistication plummeted.

I am a bit younger, but I strated to play as a little kid at the 80s, so yes, I noticed the "is now or fu.ck it", but usually those games (GSG and 4X mostly) are quite in the niche group so there aren't that many players willing to play them, that's why it "surprises" me the amount of complains that has been around here recently.
Even worse knowing that now a days you have several ways to know a game and how it works, not like back then when the thing was "risk a buy or a friend letting you play it". But, considering that as of today, and for a while, you just need to say "hello" anywhere for half the population to be pissed at you... it shouldn't surprise me, but it kind of surprises me anyway.

[Totally Innocent Chatbot]

It certainly takes a special kind of lack of self-awareness to lose a game to the AI bots, then claim the game is bad because it "doesn't take real skill".