![axis history forum why gone axis history forum why gone](http://france1940.free.fr/photos/G1Rb.jpg)
Mare Nostrum was supposed to be the maritime expansion. Otherwise, I'm looking at the features and it seemed to not be very good indeed. The Cossacks added the favour system, which had great promises but was a bit too static.
AXIS HISTORY FORUM WHY GONE PATCH
The patch also added the new building system, and disasters.
AXIS HISTORY FORUM WHY GONE FREE
I agree with you that El Dorado was underwhelming, but it introduced custom nations, which was a bold move and, even though I didn't play often with them, it catered to an audience kind of like game rules : you can play historically, or you can take the strangest route.Ĭommon sense added protestantism in its current form, remove electorate, buddhism, free cities, subject interactions (which are hardly a bad thing), and as I remember it, it was a well regarded expansion at the time. If I am their target audience in the slightless, they certainly took all the wrong notes from their previous expansions when they built things like Golden Century or Leviathan (or Origins). Neither were particularly good at their stated goals, and they've had an outsized negative impact on optimizers in Despite your perception, there have been things added over time that I found interesting, at least enough to keep me intrigued buy their expansions. The former was introduced as a disastrous attempt at realism, and the latter was thrown in for MP balance. There's also quite a few features that have been included to the almost pure detriment of people who play for the strategic experience, such as terrcorr and its GC evolution, or end-game tags. Others are on the list explicitly because the devs are trying to balance other priorities, typically realism or multiplayer. Some of these are on this list simply from the devs not caring enough to balance this game like a true strategic experience, where numbers are adjusted until everything is at least plausibly worthwhile in normal games. Privateering beyond a power projection top-up.planting colonies and letting them mature on a wide scale) Most trade modifiers outside of steerboosting ultra-late game money funnels.About half of the wonders they've added.Religious conversion compared to Humanism.Furthermore, there's too many mechanics that are simply not real strategic choices in normal games unless you're specifically playing for them, such as: It's also not a "powergamer's wet dream", as wide-scale conquest is about as difficult in 1.31 as it was in 1.20. EU4 has oscillated at times on the simulation-strategy axis, but it's remained in about the same place over a long period of time. People who think EU4 has been a story of slowly going from a realistic simulation in 1.1 to an arcade-like experience today have nostalgia goggles stuck on so hard that they're remembering a time that never existed. It got slowly better from 1.1 to around 1.23, declined sharply from 1.24 to 1.29 (the terrcorr era), then it's gotten better again in 1.30 and 1.31.
![axis history forum why gone axis history forum why gone](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/b8/9f/e3b89ff651d087594e12f72322379991.png)
Click to expand.The trajectory of this game has been uneven.