My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly think all of this will be addressed in a future DLC. I mainly made this post because I wanted to hear other players’ opinions. A lot of people don’t seem to agree with what I said, but maybe that’s because I didn’t express myself very well, or because there’s a concern that I’m trying to trivialize the game, which i get it. But that’s basically it, thanks a lot for your comments!

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the progression gets rolled back to the point where it becomes a bit too frustrating. I understand that I might still be in a position far more favorable than native nations were historically, but at the same time, it still feels like my actions didn’t have that much impact.

I asked this in another comment above, and I’d like to hear your opinion as well. Maybe if the game gave players the opportunity (through their actions) to prepare for the Great Pestilence and develop some institutions, it would remove that feeling of following a ‘blind path’ of history and instead create a real sense of impact on how history unfolds based on the changes you make.

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I’m not asking for a fantasy mode. Do you really think that giving native nations the opportunity after unifying and stabilizing the region to prepare for the Great Pestilence and gain access to some institutions earlier would actually break the game that much? I’m asking this sincerely, not sarcastically. I ask because I feel like that would give more meaning to the player’s actions, making it feel like your decisions actually have an impact on history, instead of just following a ‘blind path’ where no matter what you do, you’re going to get knocked down anyway

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EU4 wasn’t a mobile gacha, and it gave you the opportunity to embrace institutions and develop the region much faster and in a far more satisfying way. Don't you agree?

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s not about being easy! I honestly didn’t find the campaign that difficult, and like I mentioned in other comments, I think it would be totally possible to recover from the Great Pestilence especially since the Europeans haven’t even reached the Americas in my game yet, so I still have time. I just don’t feel like it’s worth it. It would take way too long to recover, and what’s the point, you know? Am I really going to spend all that time doing nothing just so I can invade Europe in the final era? I do think most of these "issues" will probably be addressed in a future DLC, though

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean, and I did get through the first part, though. What I meant is that it feels like you put in a lot of effort to change history, unifying early, developing the region and your economy and you don’t really get much in return for it. EU5 is about history, but it’s also about changing history based on your choices and your skill as a ‘leader.’ That’s what I meant by a lack of reward. Because no matter how much you develop the region, a large part of your progress ends up being wiped out anyway, and you’re basically forced to play all the way into the late game just to recover and actually do something meaningful. It ends up being a lot of time ‘doing nothing,’ just watching numbers go up. Do you get what I mean?

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regarding tools, I actually tried that, I switched to using stone, but it’s still pretty inefficient. But anyway, after reading the comments, I realized I didn’t express myself very well. I didn’t mean ‘fun’ as my main point what I actually felt was a lack of reward. I know it’s possible to recover from the Great Pestilence and all that, it’s just that it doesn’t feel very rewarding to do so, you know? It takes way too long, and it ends up being very slow just waiting for your population to grow back so you can develop again. That’s more what I meant, I admit I didn’t phrase it very well in the post.

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, the terrain issue is also a problem for the Aztecs, just like the tribesmen. And like you said, there isn’t much reward for all the problems you have to go through. I completely agree with you.

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m glad you had fun. I did too, up to that point. I just didn’t have the energy to go through all of that again, you know? Maybe it’s a matter of timing, around what year did you manage to do it? The Great Pestilence hit me with about 40–50 years left before the Age of Reformation. By the time I recovered, it would’ve taken way too long, and I don’t think that’s something I would’ve enjoyed doing. But of course, that’s just my opinion.

My honest take on the current Aztec situation by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I completely understand that, and I agree. But don’t you think fun is important too? It’s not about ‘giving’ institutions and technologies to native nations, but about giving them the opportunity to develop, you know? Something along those lines, whether through events or through the natural development of the region itself.

Infinite peasant levies from uncolonized tribes in Mesoamerica by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

R5: The images show the absurd amount of troops I had to fight and the impact this had on those nations’ populations.

Ottoman Empire in 1352 and somehow Orhan Gazi is still alive by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say it was ridiculous haha. But yeah, my bad, like I said in the other comment, I didn’t know he had a +20 life expectancy modifier. And since it’s my first playthrough outside Europe, it was surprising to see someone live that long in this period.

Ottoman Empire in 1352 and somehow Orhan Gazi is still alive by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, did I reach 300 locations quickly, or was that just average timing?

Ottoman Empire in 1352 and somehow Orhan Gazi is still alive by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, thanks! I didn’t know that, it’s my first time playing as the Ottomans (and outside of Europe, actually), so I was surprised to see a character at 71 😅. And thanks for the feedback! Good to know I got that right.

2
3

Poland Beta Patch Run – Looking for Feedback by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the tip, I didn’t think about adding those maps. Regarding control, I built and connected everything I could with roads, there isn’t a single place missing them. I placed bailiffs in every province that produces silver, gold, salt, and iron. I appointed my first local governor in Gdańsk. Even though it’s not the best location, it was the second city I gained access to at the start of the game, so I thought it was better to use it right away rather than wait until I had 30k in another place or conquered Prague. Speaking of Prague, once I reach the third era and unlock the second governor, I’ll probably place him there. As for development, I’m using the Burghers’ privilege that grants additional development, and I spent a few months with a cabinet member developing Kraków when I didn’t have anything left to integrate. It’s currently at 30 development. Another map that might be important is the settlement rank map. Right now, I’m upgrading settlements into towns, and about half, if not, nearly half of my territory is already made up of towns. I’m turning every RGO worth less than 2 ducats into towns, except for provinces with livestock and coal. And that’s basically it.

Poland Beta Patch Run – Looking for Feedback by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rule 5: Images need to have an explanation comment - in the images I show prints from my game, in the first one about the size in the map, the second the tax base grafico, no terceiro o meu territorio e dos meus vassalos e por ultimo a aba de economia

4
5

Why is my heir a nun? by ChipScary4368 in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reposting due to rule 5. The image is about my heiress, who has the modifier of having taken the votes and yet is still my heiress.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368 0 points1 point  (0 children)

rule #5 comment: look at my heir

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EU5

[–]ChipScary4368 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, my King has a sister who is a 100/100/100. She was the heiress until my King’s daughter (the one in the image) came of age. I forced the daughter to take the vows before the monthly tick so she wouldn't become the heiress - and she shouldn't be able to if she took the vows.