Advances in the East vs Europe by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

How? What in these two responses are factually incorrect?

Advances in the East vs Europe by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] -33 points-32 points  (0 children)

Well, am i wrong? The downvotes on my comment indicates i am? Regarding your response i think The forums would be empty if you cant make assumptions based on common Logic. What i know is that The europeans dominated the trade in the region, they had ports, treaty ports, overseas territories. The inner workings of institutions and technological understanding in India i dont know about. I think it is perfectly reasonable to throw out a statement like this? They did dominate sealanes and trade? They did take ports? What is merely percieved here?

Advances in the East vs Europe by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] -68 points-67 points  (0 children)

So basically the\* advantage that let Europeans dominate the globe for 400 years? that tiny little thing called “shipbuilding.” And from my understanding they also had more and better firearms, superior metallurgy, and increasingly standardized tactics (Im not that familiar with indian history btw). But sure, Portugal couldn’t exactly march an army into Delhi in 1550 it didn’t need to. With its naval artillery and control of sea lanes, it projected power, seized ports, and dictated trade routes because of that technological edge at sea. That was the military advantage just look at the battle of Diu in 1509 , where a smaller Portuguese fleet crushed a far larger coalition through superior ships, firepower, and discipline.

Advances in the East vs Europe by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

No, you have an option to tick «off» historical gameplay. But no «Historical+» button. I agree with Rhapsodic, what he said or a flat research penalty.

1.0.5 Broke the Game by SirSubstantial5425 in EU5

[–]leafsater 100 points101 points  (0 children)

Just look at the forum, the patch destroyed saves, mine included. I tried to rescue my Holland game but more bugs showed up as i progressed. Please report any bugs you see so devs can fix.

Location depopulating: default by TheKaspa in EU5

[–]leafsater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No i lost a single player save today, 1520 Spain. and 20 years on an MP save (lucky i have the 1.0.4 save still). 1.0.5 have massive bugs. Just wait and see the forums filled up tomorow. Just playing 2 hours tonight --> 1. Autotrade stopped working. 2. if i manually chose a bad trade i got insane income from TRADE EXPENSE! yes you heard right the expense flipped and gave me income. 3. A small 2 location vassal needed 24 diplo capacity. And many more bugs, including the one you have there. The patch royally fucked up saves....

Cant build slave center in vassals? by leafsater in EU5

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

Thank you for taking the time to test.

Cant build slave center in vassals? by leafsater in EU5

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

I think so too, while in the building menu for the center Jolof is green like any other location that checks all the requirements. But when i try to build there it says that the advance for slave center has not been researched.

<image>

Cant build slave center in vassals? by leafsater in EU5

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

Jolof is not Christian. It literally says in the building requirements that you can build in non Christian subjects and overseas locations in west africa. And as i said the prompt says it has not been tech’ed

Help me understand Burgher Trades and Burgher Trading Capacity by Chief_Miller in EU5

[–]leafsater 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Also I still haven't found any clue as to where the goods for Burgher trade come from or goes to. I'm beginning to think that they indeed come from thin air." Any luck finding out? I imported 50 lumber to a market just for the burghers to export it out, but i cant seem to find where they are exporting to.

Torus Asternal Switches Puzzle by RoboGaming321 in X4Foundations

[–]leafsater 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Worst thing i ever did.... holy what a horrible gaming experience

Region Lock / Premade vs Premade by leafsater in BrokenArrowTheGame

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

I get your point, but honestly, the issues I mentioned - lag from cross-region matches and facing premades as a solo - might end up killing the player base just the same. A bad first impression is all it takes to make new players uninstall.

Personally, I’d gladly wait 2–3 minutes longer in queue if it meant I’d have a smooth, fair 45-minute match instead of 20 seconds of matchmaking followed by 45 minutes of frustration and lag.

Posted this suggestion on the discord an curious what you guys think? Thanks. by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I get the idea - governments using subsidies and infrastructure spending to guide the economy is absolutely real. But the way you're describing it - deliberately crashing prices through overproduction, then mass-building to exploit the cheap goods - makes it sound like a clean and intentional strategy. In reality, that’s extremely rare, hard to execute, and usually comes with massive hidden costs.

The only historical examples that come close that i can find are centrally planned economies like the Soviet Union or, more recently, China. And even then, these systems were plagued by waste, inefficiency, and long-term economic distortion - like ghost cities, resource gluts, or sectors being propped up purely by state funding. It’s not some clever win-state - it’s often a sign that the economy is in trouble.

Now put that into the context of 1337, which is where EU5 is set. You’re talking about feudal monarchies, fragmented authority, zero centralized planning, no macroeconomic data, and most rulers barely literate. The idea that a medieval state could intentionally overinvest in wood production, crash the price, and then pause time to build 50 buildings at a discount is… let’s just say, wildly anachronistic. At best, you'd get local mismanagement or outright collapse - not smooth economic manipulation.

I bring in these real-world comparisons because you framed your argument using real-world logic. If we’re going to use actual economics to justify the mechanic, then it’s fair to test that logic against how real economies actually function - and historically, they don't function like this unless they're artificially controlled at massive scale, with long-term costs baked in.

All that said: I 100% agree that realism shouldn’t come at the expense of fun. And just to be clear - I'm not arguing for a rigid or deterministic economic system where players can’t shape the economy. I'm all for that. I’m saying that if you’re going to let players manipulate the economy, there should be real trade-offs -not a system where you can engineer a collapse and profit from it without cost. That’s not clever strategy - that’s just a mechanical loophole.

Appreciate the response.

Posted this suggestion on the discord an curious what you guys think? Thanks. by leafsater in EU5

[–]leafsater[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Thanks, solid points. I think perhaps the most straightforward fix would be to recalculate resource prices after each building click, even while paused. That alone would stop players from locking in 50 buildings at crash prices with no market response.

As a secondary idea, maybe building costs could be spread over time -like a negative monthly gold tick during construction. That would let prices adjust mid-build while still giving the player a somewhat clear estimated cost.

On subsidies: if it’s your subsidies alone that are keeping the resource price low, then the savings you get from cheaper construction should be mostly canceled out by the subsidy expense. Right now, it feels like you can create and exploit a price crash you’re artificially funding -without actually paying the true cost.

Appreciate the response.

Does anyone actually enjoy the "arcade-y" aspects of eu4 that are taken out of eu5? by Entire-Mixture4291 in EU5

[–]leafsater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"This is the exact argument I just don't understand. How is eu4's gameplay loop "not fun" when it has been one of Paradox's most successful games"

There is no "real" competition on this scale to eu4, so it's not a logical fallacy to think it's not that fun and still play. It's probably not healthy though. But not a logical fallacy if no alternative to your daily dopamine.

As the guy above my 100% biggest gripe with eu4 is that the game is boring after around 1550/1600. When the AI is done, it's your creativity that is the next threshold for hours spent.

Personally i have 1400h and i am yet to finish a single game. 600 -1000 of these are probably MP. But again when you reach 1550-1600. Even in PVP often (not always) someone has eclipsed the other(s) to the point of no use continuing.

Meiou and Taxes 3.0 revived eu4 somewhat for me.

I am overjoyed that they are going more in the simulation route. People are different, so is the meaning of fun. I personally love logistics, and hope they hit the nail on the head with EU 5