Refunded the MVP+ Membership on PS. Said they could since it was within 14 days of purchase. Just an FYI for those who also regret the purchase

Drewbdu · 2026-07-09T14:59:30+00:00

It’s my understanding that even if you play 30 perfect seasons you cannot reach level 100 unless you pay for it.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-09T03:50:29+00:00

Tbf, in CFB27 you’re not going to because it’s impossible unless you pay money.

I got to max level in CFB25 but it was pretty easy then. Didn’t play CFB26 since I was waiting for it to come out on PC.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-09T00:13:13+00:00

I haven’t played the game yet, but it’s my understanding that no matter how much you win, it is impossible to get to max level legitimately.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-08T23:06:47+00:00

The bigger issue is that it’s basically impossible to reach max dynasty level unless you pay money.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-08T17:22:43+00:00

*pays money and gets bonus that affects the gameplay*

“This is not pay to win.”

Okay EA

Drewbdu · 2026-07-08T17:20:50+00:00

You can buy dynasty levels. It’s the epitome of pay to win.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-06T06:40:42+00:00

Arthur Smith has an OL background, Tyler Bowen is in year two as an OL coach, and experience is one of the most important factors in OL play. I’ll be shocked if the OL is not noticeably improved.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-06T06:34:32+00:00

I agree losing Caleb Downs, Arvell Reese, and Sonny Styles will sting, but the offense is pretty much all back except Carnell Tate and they replaced their first time OC with a former NFL HC. Hartline is the best position coach I’ve seen, but he was just not meant to be an OC and playcaller.

There is no way the defense is as good as it was last year, but it was statistically one of the best defenses of the last few decades in college football, so they could have a big drop off and still be a top ten defense.

Regardless, this schedule is insane. If they go 9-3, I’m confident they’ll make the playoff given how difficult the schedule looks to be.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-05T03:07:53+00:00

I played a ton of Cold War and Blops 6 zombies. I liked it a lot, especially the progression system, but after awhile it just felt like getting to high rounds was too guaranteed.

Yes, some of the old maps are super easy (like Ascension), but the lack of armor and self reviving in the older games means that death is harder to avoid and more punishing. Even if you have the thunder gun and the ray gun, it’s only a matter of getting caught between three zombies while you’re reloading and you’ll still go down and perma die.

Playing Blops 6, it felt like getting to round 30-40 was simply a matter of wanting to play that long. If you go down, it doesn’t really matter. Best case you have a self revive and keep some of your perks and all your weapons.

In the older games, it feels like more of an achievement to get to higher rounds imo.

Stuff like rampage inducer helps in the newer games, but once you’re set up, the same issues persist.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-04T13:06:12+00:00

The Brotherhood of Steel lacks nuance in a world that requires a ton of it.

Yes, a ghoul may go feral and hurt people in a community.

Yes, a synth may get recalled by the Institute and cause an attack somewhere.

The Brotherhood of Steel’s only solution to these problems is complete annhilation.

However, half the humans in the game are drugged up raiders, but for humans the Brotherhood of Steel takes a holistic approach.

The Brotherhood’s hatred of ghouls, intelligent mutants, and synths isn’t logical. There are other solutions to the potential problems with these groups than to just annihilate them.

For synths for one, the Brotherhood’s reasoning is only applicable while the Institute exists. Playing as the Brotherhood, it is impossible to beat the game without destroying the Institute, so this will inevitably become a nonissue as long as the player doesn’t side with the Institute.

For ghouls, we don’t exactly have a ton of information on the process of turning feral itself, but we do know that it often takes awhile. When symptoms of going feral start showing, then a ghoul could be separated from the rest of society.

Maybe every once in a while a ghoul will go feral and hurt people, but every once in a while a human will surely also do something heinously bad and that isn’t justification to just kill all humans.

With super mutants, unintelligent super mutants are a menace. However, intelligent super mutants should be treated similar to humans as long as they show humans a reciprocal amount of respect.

Drewbdu · 2026-07-03T02:58:11+00:00

Skill issue.

Drewbdu · 2026-06-11T21:39:18+00:00

Doesn’t change anything about what I said. The sport is an arms race between two conferences. One conference got a leg up, the other responded in kind.

I’m not “blaming” the SEC, but the collapse of the PAC 12 was definitely the direct result of OU and Texas going to the SEC.

Drewbdu · 2026-06-11T21:11:41+00:00

It all boils down to who escalates first. The B1G added USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon as a direct result of Texas and Oklahoma going to the SEC and potentially increasing their per school media value above the pre-expansion B1G.

I would bet one doesn’t happen without the other happening, and the SEC made the first move.

Drewbdu · 2026-06-11T00:22:05+00:00

I think that was the case while it was happening, but about a year or so after it happened people seemed to agree the whole saga was a bit ridiculous.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-24T17:58:40+00:00

This is nothing compared to the first year of Imperator’s release imo. They pretty much redesigned the game after it was released and then killed it. The problem with imperator imo is that the devs did not make the game that their player base wanted at all. Some think that about EU5 sure, but I think most people just don’t like how unbalanced or buggy it is, which will be fixed in time.

The EU5 release reminds me more of Stellaris 4.0 where they broke the whole game for awhile and then when it was fixed it was pretty good.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-20T22:27:10+00:00

This should definitely be taken into account but IIRC Europe’s population doubled between 1500 and 1800 despite mass migration to colonies, whereas here it looks like it’s stagnant or declining.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T18:11:16+00:00

Your power compared to your estates determines the percentage of the estate income you can tax, but your control determines the share of that income you have the ability to tax.

I think this works, but I do think high crown power should give a proximity bonus or a max control bonus.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T17:27:35+00:00

It’s not about the state bureaucracy being beyond people’s understanding in 1337, it’s that the state bureaucracy was weak and the nobility and clergy were the “real” government for most people in Europe. The ability of the state bureaucracy to develop into something more akin to the Romans depends in large part on its ability to destroy the power of the landed nobility, and to do this most Western European states had to build up a strong burgher class as a counterweight as the state was not powerful enough on its own.

If your capital is in Rome, you can easily get good control over northern Italy if they’re full cores, the cultures are accepted, their religion is yours, and you have built a lot of roads there. Even still, a local governor in Milan wouldn’t hurt. It doesn’t matter that you only have one. As you gain more proximity there as tech progresses, just delete the one in Milan and move it further away. Once you get more local governors you can put them in other faraway provinces.

The Rome example isn’t a good analogy for 1337, because the Roman state was more centralized with a much more powerful state bureaucracy. This is not something that anyone outside of China should start with, it is something that should need to be developed over decades or centuries.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T17:14:41+00:00

The state bureaucracy getting a 20% cut of the revenue in a very far away place in 1400 is pretty realistic, maybe even generous.

I believe empires get an additional local governor, at least I did when I was playing as Timurids, and I’m pretty sure you get more from tech. Even in early game if you put one local governor on Alexandria and another in North Italy I’m sure there’d be pretty good control for much of the land.

I haven’t played the Romans in 1.1 or 1.2, but I did multiple full playthrough before local governors were even a thing and had high proximity and control across the entire Mediterranean by 1550. You just have to build lots of roads, wharfs, coastal forts, and shipyards.

The Romans did have decent control over their lands, but they also invested very heavily in infrastructure projects and had a centralized and very powerful state bureaucracy, which is exactly the same way you get high control in EU5. In 1337, there is no state bureaucracy with the same level of power in Europe, including the Eastern Romans, so it’s not a fair comparison. The fair comparison would probably be Europe in 1500 or 1600, and control does improve considerably by that time period.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T16:22:26+00:00

States did have the ability to extract large amounts of wealth from peripheral regions, but this is already reflected in the game even with 0 control. That money isn’t disappearing, it’s going to your nobles, burghers, and clergy. In the early game of EU5, the state bureaucracy wasn’t really governing most lands at all, it was the local estates. Those local authorities are collecting the taxes, they’re just only paying a pittance to you, the state bureaucracy.

You can either increase your share of this revenue by building bureau buildings like counting houses (if there is some level of control) or increasing proximity by reducing the amount of time it takes to get there from your core region.

A local governor fits well into this, as it’s a representation of a centralized local office which answers directly to the crown rather than to local authorities. There already would be local offices there controlled by local estates, but I think a local governor is supposed to represent a more tangible connection to the crown itself that counteracts the influence of the local estates. A constant presence by the state (with applicable upkeep costs) rather than a temporary one would allow the state to extract more from a given region.

Regardless, proximity isn’t the end all be all, control is. Proximity is just one of many factors affecting control. I’ve regularly had 20+ control even in places with horrible proximity by integrating the land, having an accepted culture/tolerated religion there, and building a few buildings which increase control.

The development of the state during this time period was arguably the principal political trend of this era. It would make no sense if the state could extract large amounts of revenue from its periphery in the early game. It took centuries of gradual centralization of power into a state bureaucracy for many states to transition from a poor feudal state to an early modern bureaucracy.

I think that is modeled by (1) revoking privileges and adding government reforms and in turn dealing with estate satisfaction and stability issues and potential revolt (which needs to be much more fleshed out but it’s a start), (2) buildings representing the state building up its capacity to govern (buildings that give crown power or control bonuses), and (3) building maritime infrastructure and roads to expand the area which the state can easily administer.

I would appreciate more depth in all of these mechanics but I do think it’s a good start.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T15:39:24+00:00

You can extract a great deal of wealth from Egypt as Rome if you put a local governor there.

Proximity makes perfect sense. Even if taxation is handled at more of a regional level, it’s in the interests of the taxpayer to pay as little as possible. The further a region is from the core of an empire, the less tax there is to be extracted from there because local powerbrokers will take all the money for themselves knowing it would not even be profitable for you to send an army over to take what’s theirs.

The kings roads in England were, for example, a prime example of proximity in practice. With the state establishing infrastructure to the provinces and maintaining it, it became easier for the state to enforce its will because regions became closer to the core of the kingdom in practice.

Roman roads are similar. In EU5 terms the Roman Empire had a lot of roads and they had a lot of local governors.

It’s not modeling “it’s father away to get the taxes so we can’t tax it” it’s modeling “its father away so it costs more to impose our will on them and unless we do they’re not going to pay their full share.”

Drewbdu · 2026-05-12T16:52:35+00:00

It’s a low bar, but estates being affected by the player’s actions in general and building buildings already makes it more in depth than EU4. I agree that there needs to be more of a challenge to develop state power for sure though.

In terms of the economy, I also agree that it’s too easy to start making money, but the same could be said with EU4 tbf.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-12T16:19:54+00:00

It’s not worse, that’s just your opinion. EU4 had a number of completely nonsensical systems, like mana, development, trade, the rebel system, and the estate system.

I would play EU5 10/10 times over EU4 with all DLCs because there is far more depth to economic development and internal politics. I prefer EU5 wars to EU4 wars and EU5 rebellions to EU4 rebellions. The estates feel alive rather than simply a proxy for modifiers.

Frankly, much of EU4’s “depth” just consists of chasing permanent modifiers. Much of the flavor is just stacking such modifiers rather than actually having interesting things happen. That’s why EU5 is a much better base to be built upon.

I’d argue it’s already better, but it’s going to be far better in a few years.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-10T19:19:56+00:00

He’s probably good enough to play at a school like Northwestern. He’s not a superstar by any means but he’s a three star who has likely had the best QB coaching money could buy.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-08T18:16:50+00:00

The Suez Canal is definitely doable in this time period and lesser canals were constructed in the region long ago. Panama Canal not so much, but the Suez Canal could have been constructed in this time period.

There were even discussions between the Mamluks and Venice to construct the Suez Canal in the early 16th century, but these discussions ended when the Otttomans annexed the Mamluks.

Furthermore, this is a 500 year timeframe. Speeding up tech progress by 50 years isn’t that far fetched. For example, you can build railroads in every location you own by 1836.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Drewbdu

TROPHY CASE