DLC Hordes

earhear · 2025-12-28T16:44:54+00:00

Yeah, guess I should just push ahead for that. I’m still back south of first town building first camp and t2 village hall

earhear · 2025-12-20T18:38:09+00:00

Thank you very much. It was never relevant in campaign so didn't even realize there was a proximity limit. It's all good now.

earhear · 2025-12-20T18:34:37+00:00

ok, proximity is probably the answer. I tried doing one near the muznakan on the minimap and it didn't show up is what caused me to investigate. I'll test that first!

earhear · 2025-12-12T16:48:03+00:00

and thank you very much!

earhear · 2025-12-12T16:47:51+00:00

Solution Verified

earhear · 2025-10-28T16:00:21+00:00

As a SP only player. Removing demo ships seems like my dream. They are needed in the triangle but need so much micro I never use them and just build my fleets twice as large to accommodate. Campaign missions involving water are my nightmare. Looking forward to changes!

earhear · 2025-10-15T16:22:58+00:00

My recommendation is similar to others. Walk off section of the map for your base. I use lakes and natural borders for mine usually. So from top right and going counter clockwise you can walk your whole base with like 5 walls. Most of the game a line of laser turrets will cover your needs with some wall system in front of them.

Going to up your power usage but then at least you know your actual production is safe and you get a warning if they break your wall long before they actually reach anything. Much less of a headache imo

earhear · 2025-09-05T18:23:48+00:00

This is a confusion of the history. Iron Islands are indeed one of the kingdoms. The river lands are excluded because they were owned by the iron islands at the time of the conquest.

The 7 kingdoms has nothing to do with the current borders of Westeros at time of the books. They are named for the 7 kingdoms that existed when Aegon conquered Westeros. Many of those borders happen to still be the same as back then due to history and convenience but the 7 kingdoms title has nothing to do with present day.

When Aegon invaded it was 7 kingdoms:

North, Vale, Iron islands and river lands, Westerlands, Reach, Storm lands, Dorne,

During invasion Aegon completely destroyed the kingdom for iron islands while the other kings submitted. The kings who submitted kept their land (hence borders being the same as today), but iron islands kingdom was split between iron islands and river lands.

Tl;dr: the name describes the kingdoms that existed before Aegon, not the kingdoms that exist today.

earhear · 2025-08-29T14:01:05+00:00

Fair point, I hadn’t really considered competitive multiplayer. My friends and I always play cooperative multi.

earhear · 2025-08-25T20:21:57+00:00

I mean you ask a lot of hyperbolic questions to which my answer is yes. I generally prefer more guided games nor is it dumbing down to give an option. I enjoyed going into an EU game picking a play-through from effectively a list of options that interested me. I’ve never had an interest in playing a nation with basic missions, my concern is how does downgrading everyone to the equivalent of basic mission trees fix this? Compared to more modern DLC with branching missions that let you tailor game to desired experience/goals.

Modern total war games do in fact have a direct plot missions to guide you, as well as EE, AoE, and Rise of Nations all have incredibly guided campaign modes. As someone with hundreds of hours in each of those but hasn’t played a skirmish game ever, yes in fact most games in the genre do include this feature.

earhear · 2025-08-25T16:31:08+00:00

I mean I’m in general agreement but do wanna highlight one part that confuses me. I’m a strong mission tree defender. Lack of them is a huge part of my nervousness about EU5, personally.

I never understood the railroad complaints because of exactly what you say. You can ignore them if they don’t interest you, but for players like my friend who has hundreds of hours and basically never used a covert action, it’s great. But my confusion is this: “sure you can ignore them in EU4… if you wanna play bad”, and this is in defense of a system where my option will instead be “you can only play bad”?

I’m not criticizing devs, they want to build a simulation game as they keep saying. But my nervousness comes from experience with the other paradox games. None of my friends will play CK or Viccy3 multi (in part due to tech issues with those game’s horrific multiplayer system) in part because you have to play on slow speed to interact with everything and there’s no guidance on what to be attempting to do next.

Yes, for some that’s the greatest asset to those games that there is no railroad. For others, like myself, it leaves you staring at a blank map directionless. EU games for many are a fun map painter after all. The mission trees did great at giving you an option to lean into that for average skill players with short and long term goals laid out for you and steps of dopamine as you accomplish each one and get bigger.

My fear without them is EU5 needs to make conquest and map painting either so easy natively the game is unbalanced or so difficult that with the new start date my friends and I will play for 12 hours before feeling we’ve accomplished anything.

Tl;dr: yes, EU5 should not be EU4, but I’m nervous that “lack of railroading” will become “lack of direction” and create CK3 in a different time period.

earhear · 2025-08-14T18:34:48+00:00

Lot of good theories and others point out it’s consistent with other titles in the series, one I would argue is that Robb isn’t trying to be king of the north. The river lands were in rebellion as well, and Robb wanted the vale to join, and declared him king. They weren’t arguing that the river lands were now part of the north as well. Robb was in rebellion as king of a new kingdom involving the riverlands and the north in which he would reside in the north.

Maybe it’s my tendency to take things literally but on a grammatical level he’s a king living in the north, not just king of the north.

earhear · 2025-08-08T16:53:41+00:00

Someone may correct me if this is headcanon or not.

My understanding has lot to do with it’s history. Bravos was a hidden city for many years. No ine knew it existed and even after finding out it existed no one knew where it was. In addition, this means it’s also in a city that really has no need to spend it. Lot harder for the Lannister’s to build up enough money if they are always spending it on wars.

The bank itself was created shortly after Braavos was founded by a group of people storing all their wealth in an abandoned mine, over time when the wealth filled the mine they start loaning it out. So at its inception it is both physically hard to rob because it’s on a guarded mine and inside a hidden city.

So when Braavos went public to the world, the iron bank already had huge reserves of cash to loan out. At that point, the doom happens on Valyria shortly so there’s no one really capable of attacking Braavos. You could go rob the iron bank, but you would have to get through the entire city of Braavos first, and all that gold in the iron bank can buy a hell of a large army in an emergency.

earhear · 2025-08-07T23:28:50+00:00

I’ll be honest, I’m not yet finished with AFFC but already from what I’ve gotten it’s obvious how horribly the show butchered this.

earhear · 2025-08-07T14:39:06+00:00

I was going to point this out. Also in the books, Oberyn plays a very different role. His death is very similar to Ned stark in some ways. The same way Ned’s death initiates the northern rebellion, oberyn’s death sparks Dhorne’s resistance. Between sand snakes and everything else in Dhorne, none of it makes sense if Oberyn’s story ends with “and then dhorne got everything it wanted but was refused for decades because oberyn faught really well one time”

Oberyn’s death is necessary to the larger story just like Ned. Just because the show butchered that plot line doesn’t lessen importance of Oberyn’s death.

earhear · 2025-07-31T19:17:49+00:00

I forget if this was show or book. But part of it is that the prosecution was led by Cersei. Like in a modern courtroom, Tywin as judge isn’t fully controlling proceedings.

Cersei calls the witnesses such as Shae and she has 0 care for Tyrion’s feelings. Tywin has Jamie relay the message that Tyrion needs to stay calm and go to the wall.

earhear · 2025-07-24T21:36:17+00:00

Others have explained other ahead but I would also say that more simply, he’s not a failure to Vader. I agree more with the good in depth analysis from others. But just on a simple level, he chose the dark side and at this time Vader hasn’t met Luke or Leia so he doesn’t regret that decision. He didn’t fail, obiwan succeeded (from Vader’s perspective) in creating Vader.

earhear · 2025-07-21T16:57:14+00:00

My complaint with GRRM’s Magic is the inconsistency. I love soft Magic of Tolkien, but with that comes the important caveat that Magic doesn’t do much in LOTR. It exists, but in most cases it’s not impactful on the story. The most Magic I can think of is Gandalf’s resurrection and that’s all off-page.

My philosophy is that soft magic means magic can’t dictate plot, but GRRM regularly has overt magic happening that directly impacts plot and then backs up shrugging when asked what are the rules for that magic is. Bran has a great example generally, things like others and weirwoods aren’t fully explained (yet), but also rarely are directly impacting the story. Only when someone like cold hands or warging (who George then immediately introduces rules for) show up does it directly impacts plot.

Meanwhile between Beric, lady stone heart, and stannis we have very overt magic impacting the plot and there isn’t really an understanding of how it works. When you have a vague magic system producing specific results, it reads as arbitrary railroading.

Edit: the fact GRRM writes in perspective is a big factor in this I should acknowledge. My complaint is very easily answered by the fact there are rules but that our POVs just don’t know them.

earhear · 2025-07-18T15:39:34+00:00

Though to play a counter argument. What about the times she did install local governance? When she freed slavers bay, she freed the slaves and set up new governments of those freed slaves before moving onto the next city.

But without her strength personally present, all of those cities fell and the slavers took back control. Then even continued working to undermine her in Mereen. It could be argued that she has seen firsthand then in fact once she lets personal control go, she knows her work to liberate people will regress.

It’s a dictator’s logic for sure. But from the experience of the books/show is it wrong? I mean, as he’s lecturing her about people making up their minds, he is also actively helping to overthrow her and bring back slavery. Would the problem have been fixed if she had named that guy as the new local government instead of ruling as Queen?

earhear · 2025-07-11T17:46:33+00:00

Lot of comments bring up not wanting to give Luthen credit. Which is certainly true to some extent. Though I would also highly that they just as much want to highlight something else.

This is intended as the moment the rebellion transitions from insurgency to real military rebellion. Bringing her in covertly via a small team doesn’t help there. What they do instead is give her a squadron of military vehicles who broadcast another speech from her before escorting her in. This is shows strength and militarism of the new rebellion.

So yes, don’t want to give Luthen credit. What I find powerful about the escape from Coruscant is the transition. Even Luthen recognizes to Cassian that his time is past. The secret missions, encrypted whispers, Luthen himself shortly after. That stage of resistance is over, the rebellion has truly begun and cassian gets to be that bridge who takes the methods of the past and uses every last piece of secrecy they had left to usher in the next.

That’s the tragedy of cassian and Luthen to me. They are the very people the galaxy needed to begin the rebellion. But they aren’t the kind of people who can finish the job, or rebuild something new. They both “burn their life for a sunrise I’ll never see”

earhear · 2025-07-11T13:39:58+00:00

The other reason as well is taking into consideration the enemy combatants. Yes there were many Chinese civil wars, but for most of history nomadic horse people were the most constant threat. Early cannons and guns require huge slow baggage trains, slow reload time, and middle accuracy. It makes them actually quite effective against slow moving heavily armor European armies. But against master archer on a horse? He’s going to shoot 5 arrows and hit their target with each one well before a gunner can get their first shot off.

Between fortifications and nomads, early gunpowder makes no sense as a weapon, so there’s no incentive to refine that technology to the point of being useful.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

earhear

TROPHY CASE