EU IV practically became unplayable

[Akim]

So many good mods have been given up after the unending DLCs and patch changes. After endless vanilla+DLC playing, I just am not content without Mods, and with the unending patches, the best mods are all defunct now.

[Marquoz]

Find another game, then. Or make your own mod. The "unending DLCs and patch changes" are why this game is still going strong after more than 10 years.

[tonypa]

You can play older version of EU4 that fits the mod you desire. You are not forced to play latest version and you never need to buy any DLC. Just stay at the version of base game you want. This not an option for most games, but it is possible with EU4.

Only problem that may arise is when some mods are upgradede and some are not so you have no best game version that fits all the mods, but you can not really blame developers for that.

Oldest version I could find available was 1.27.2, which was released 04 Oct 2018, about 5 years ago. I am not sure if you can easily go back to even older game versions or not (I remember trying out v 1.2 couple years ago or something like that and it was horrible). But still, you can play version 1.27.2 forever if you want to or if your fav mod requires it.

[Kapika96]

:D the game isn't "unplayable".

If you really want to play with outdated mods you can rollback the game version. Problem solved.

[bri]

Originally posted by tonypa:

Oldest version I could find available was 1.27.2, which was released 04 Oct 2018, about 5 years ago. I am not sure if you can easily go back to even older game versions or not (I remember trying out v 1.2 couple years ago or something like that and it was horrible). But still, you can play version 1.27.2 forever if you want to or if your fav mod requires it.

You can go further back than that on the steam betas as long as you have the code for the unlock for the EU lawyering thing.

[tonypa]

Thanks, found the beta code and with the code oldest game version visible looks to be 1.4 from 2014, which should be enough for anyone.

[Malvastor]

"Unplayable" = doesn't exactly match my precise preferences.

[Invisible]

Did you even read the Mod Spotlights?

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Akim:

So many good mods have been given up after the unending DLCs and patch changes. After endless vanilla+DLC playing, I just am not content without Mods, and with the unending patches, the best mods are all defunct now.

This is kinda a dumb argument, the patches make the base game better (you shouldn't need mods) and most mods are updated.

If a mod isn't updated, it wouldn't have been updated regardless of Paradox changing the game.

Also you can always revert to earlier patches.

I hate the launcher of 2.8, but tbh i miss 2.8 EU4 it was a simpler time.... also -20% dev cost from economic was still a thing.


The main reason mods aren't continued is because the modder either gave up on it or has too many IRL commitments to spend modding EU4.

[eoozy]

Originally posted by Akim:

So many good mods have been given up after the unending DLCs and patch changes. After endless vanilla+DLC playing, I just am not content without Mods, and with the unending patches, the best mods are all defunct now.

Ante Bellum is still going strong, one of the better mods, alternate history but still rly fun and has a lot of flavour.

[volbound1700]

I seem to be in the minority but I think a lot of the DLC has actually been a positive. I love the recent one focused on the great powers. I do think the change to Muscovy that requires payment to the Great Horde wasn't done well. Tributes are too much and too often. In single, you can overcome it but it does hurt you in Multiplayer games. Sometimes fighting the Great Horde to end it is not as easy as you would think (say they ally with Ottomans or Timurids early for example). I think it needs to be changed/toned down some. Conceptually,I still like it but just poor implementation.

I find a lot of the Mods to have issues actually...

One item that some mods fix that I think is poor in EU4 is colonization. AI spams way too much and colonization is boring. Half the time, Castilian players can just PU Portugal and ride AI Portugal spamming for example.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by volbound1700:

I seem to be in the minority but I think a lot of the DLC has actually been a positive. I love the recent one focused on the great powers. I do think the change to Muscovy that requires payment to the Great Horde wasn't done well. Tributes are too much and too often. In single, you can overcome it but it does hurt you in Multiplayer games. Sometimes fighting the Great Horde to end it is not as easy as you would think (say they ally with Ottomans or Timurids early for example). I think it needs to be changed/toned down some. Conceptually,I still like it but just poor implementation.

I find a lot of the Mods to have issues actually...

One item that some mods fix that I think is poor in EU4 is colonization. AI spams way too much and colonization is boring. Half the time, Castilian players can just PU Portugal and ride AI Portugal spamming for example.

I like everything the DLC has added tbh.

What i don't like is some overall weird and ahistorical things, like being easier for Europe to have a massive land empire than colonizing, or free update stuff like Economic being nerfed from -20% dev cost to 10% to 0% (moved to infrastructure, but it pisses me off immensely.) along with getting rid of the -10% dev cost from quality.

It's only natural for Paradox to introduce something like Developing provinces that is still less value then just conquest, only to get rid of it slowly over time for no reason.

It's a game about colonization, and Aboriginals used to have the STRONGEST UNITS pip-wise, that tells you all you need to know about the direction of EU4 really.

[volbound1700]

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

Originally posted by volbound1700:

I seem to be in the minority but I think a lot of the DLC has actually been a positive. I love the recent one focused on the great powers. I do think the change to Muscovy that requires payment to the Great Horde wasn't done well. Tributes are too much and too often. In single, you can overcome it but it does hurt you in Multiplayer games. Sometimes fighting the Great Horde to end it is not as easy as you would think (say they ally with Ottomans or Timurids early for example). I think it needs to be changed/toned down some. Conceptually,I still like it but just poor implementation.

I find a lot of the Mods to have issues actually...

One item that some mods fix that I think is poor in EU4 is colonization. AI spams way too much and colonization is boring. Half the time, Castilian players can just PU Portugal and ride AI Portugal spamming for example.

I like everything the DLC has added tbh.

What i don't like is some overall weird and ahistorical things, like being easier for Europe to have a massive land empire than colonizing, or free update stuff like Economic being nerfed from -20% dev cost to 10% to 0% (moved to infrastructure, but it pisses me off immensely.) along with getting rid of the -10% dev cost from quality.

It's only natural for Paradox to introduce something like Developing provinces that is still less value then just conquest, only to get rid of it slowly over time for no reason.

It's a game about colonization, and Aboriginals used to have the STRONGEST UNITS pip-wise, that tells you all you need to know about the direction of EU4 really.

I still find European Colonial Powers to be stout but man does Portugal spam everywhere so other powers don't have much of a chance. Portugal wasn't even that major of a historical colonizer.

Here is what I would fix:

1. Historical Treaty of Tordesillas: Pope event around 1490 that pushes Portugal to go East and Castile West. Give player option to turn on/off if they want it.

2. Get rid of the Colonial Nation's ability to colonize. You have to do it making it more interesting

3. Free up spots in India. India doesn't really get colonized like it did by Portugal and others with trade posts. I thought of having a semi-colony where a European nation can put a trade posts but it is still owned by local nation. This reflects a lot of the colonization process in Africa, India, and Far East at the time.

4. AIs never declare colonial wars. They need to program them to occur more often

5. Make less playable natives but make the native attacks from the blank areas more common. You can just put colonization on co-exist and sit back and never have a problem

6. Limit colonization of certain areas until later tech (similar to Greenland). I am thinking North America above Florida should be off limits until mid-1500s at least and Australia/Oceania until 1700s.

The system really isn't horrible though. I do find it more fun in multiplayer games if you have other players colonizing and having fun with it.

[bri]

The pace of colonization is completely broken at the moment. Far too many bonuses to colonial growth and settler % have been added in recent patches and don't even get me started on the cluster-f$%^ that is North America. Something is very wrong when places are settled in the average game 200 years or more before they were historically reached.

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by volbound1700:

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

I like everything the DLC has added tbh.

What i don't like is some overall weird and ahistorical things, like being easier for Europe to have a massive land empire than colonizing, or free update stuff like Economic being nerfed from -20% dev cost to 10% to 0% (moved to infrastructure, but it pisses me off immensely.) along with getting rid of the -10% dev cost from quality.

It's only natural for Paradox to introduce something like Developing provinces that is still less value then just conquest, only to get rid of it slowly over time for no reason.

It's a game about colonization, and Aboriginals used to have the STRONGEST UNITS pip-wise, that tells you all you need to know about the direction of EU4 really.

2. Get rid of the Colonial Nation's ability to colonize. You have to do it making it more interesting

I think it only makes sense that they be able to colonize (since that's what happened in real life). But it should go a heckuva lot slower. And in some cases the player should be incentivized to try and slow their colonies down, because huge prosperous colonies start to wag the dog.

Originally posted by volbound1700:

3. Free up spots in India. India doesn't really get colonized like it did by Portugal and others with trade posts. I thought of having a semi-colony where a European nation can put a trade posts but it is still owned by local nation. This reflects a lot of the colonization process in Africa, India, and Far East at the time.

I suspect that's what the "charter trade company" option is supposed to allow for. Problem is it's usually too expensive for the AI to bother with. Maybe if there were events or incidents to nudge European and Indian AIs into agreeing to "Fate of Neumark"-type deals.

Originally posted by volbound1700:

6. Limit colonization of certain areas until later tech (similar to Greenland). I am thinking North America above Florida should be off limits until mid-1500s at least and Australia/Oceania until 1700s.

I don't tend to like hard arbitrary limits, but it would be reasonable to make exploration a lot slower and colonizing more costly. Or maybe just make colonization costs rise with distance, so you can't build a city in Canberra for the same cost as Cabo Verde.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

Originally posted by volbound1700:

2. Get rid of the Colonial Nation's ability to colonize. You have to do it making it more interesting

I think it only makes sense that they be able to colonize (since that's what happened in real life). But it should go a heckuva lot slower. And in some cases the player should be incentivized to try and slow their colonies down, because huge prosperous colonies start to wag the dog.

Originally posted by volbound1700:

3. Free up spots in India. India doesn't really get colonized like it did by Portugal and others with trade posts. I thought of having a semi-colony where a European nation can put a trade posts but it is still owned by local nation. This reflects a lot of the colonization process in Africa, India, and Far East at the time.

I suspect that's what the "charter trade company" option is supposed to allow for. Problem is it's usually too expensive for the AI to bother with. Maybe if there were events or incidents to nudge European and Indian AIs into agreeing to "Fate of Neumark"-type deals.

Originally posted by volbound1700:

6. Limit colonization of certain areas until later tech (similar to Greenland). I am thinking North America above Florida should be off limits until mid-1500s at least and Australia/Oceania until 1700s.

I don't tend to like hard arbitrary limits, but it would be reasonable to make exploration a lot slower and colonizing more costly. Or maybe just make colonization costs rise with distance, so you can't build a city in Canberra for the same cost as Cabo Verde.

I agree i have to HARD DISAGREE on hard limits to colonizing.

Meiou and taxes has it, and I HATE IT because sometimes i want to play as a native colonizer, and the hard limit prevents it.

Also, it makes it extremely easy for another nation to cut off access to an area.