yes that’s right
err AFAIK
I just tried it again at 1.5 & 1.0; definitely a slight blur/fuzziness to my eyes anyway at 1.5. I guess this is a case of YMMV though. It is definitely easier to read.
So when I load the game at 3440x1440 at 1.0 gui, half the head of the person on the loading screen (where it says clausewitz engine top left) is missing - is that how it is supposed to be?
Yes, the scaling there is not as good as other games where this option can be configured in UI. It looks like there’s no filtering applied and, say, a letter may look very different depending on where it is.
They’re adding a proper support for UI scaling in European update next year. Mind you, CK2 has official support for UI scaing it still doesn’t work proper, and HoI4 and Stellaris had them on release but had problems for years after release, HoI4 still has huge issues.
Oh right. Thanks.
What’s the size of your monitor? The scaling does literally just scale up the existing UI graphics, so if you have a big screen I can easily see how a large UI will make it blurry. The ultrawide rez might be affecting it too.
Regarding the missing head, that isn’t normal but it might have something to do with the ultrawide rez you’re using? I’m not sure.
Rest assured it’s worth the effort. I would take the blurry UI over a small UI that strains your eyes, you’ll be playing this game for hundreds of hours so you don’t want to hurt them! Maybe try 1.2 or 1.3 as a compromise?
You can always lower resolution if you don’t like missing tooltips and non-working map. Actually EU4 works a little better than HoI4, it’s tooltips are still on the screen while in HoI4 they just disappear for some things like battle planner.
It’s a 34” monitor. When I drop down to 2560x1080 the full head displays.
I will continue to play around with it to see if I can find a sweet spot.
That sounds less than ideal. It’s another game I need to try.
It’s a very different game focused on warfare while being very easy to play in single player in a way that makes sense. I’ve only played in once as USSR and conquered whole Europe without understanding how any mechanics work. So it seems to be geared towards ahistorical outcomes that trigger inner civil wars or something, a lot of content focuses on that and it’s the only way to make major powers playable. Unlike EU4 minor powers have almost no unique stuff. So can’t wrap my head around that map but I love EU4 and will probably play it forever. And if you like it too you’ll have a lot of it too. If you don’t then chances are you won’t like HoI4 too unless you’re way more into WW2 than Renassaince/Enlightenment.
Have you tried UI mods?
I’ve been using the Better UI mod -which increases the size of the in-game windows and lists to show more data- together with the Bigger font mid from the same author, for years on my 1440p screen now.
Works very well, although I’m honestly not certain if that will work with your monitor size… But would only take a few minutes to try.
The loading screen graphics and such shouldn’t be an indication of any sort of issue. I have a 34" widescreen and while the loading screen images are a bit off, the rest of the game is fine. Just wanted to make sure you’re not using the images as a metric to see if the UI scaling is set right.
No I was just curious whether it may be indicative of some setting or other I might have but forgotten about or something.
Not yet. Thanks for the recommendations.
Can someone confirm if this is true? For reference, I was asking which bundle to buy to have every DLC included. I figured they’d offer something like this since it has been years since the game first came out. Through cursory search on the store I limited my selection to Empire bundle and Collection bundle. This was the answer I got however:
The “Empire” bundles seems to only include all “gameplay DLCs” (Expansions and Immersion Packs) except the newest one, Golden Century.
The “Collection” bundle seems to include all DLCs (including unit models etc) up to Rights of Man, so the newer DLCs (MoH, TR, CoC, RB, Dh and GC, along with their respective content packs) are not included.
That looks correct, yes.
Wow, you’re missing a lot of achievements. You should get on that. :D
I haven’t played a full game of EUIV in awhile but booted one up last week and I’ve hit 1650 and I remember my biggest problem with this game: the wars become both tedious and never-ending if you are aiming for WC. I don’t so much mind the endlessness of the wars as the hundreds upon hundreds of provinces spread across the entire map that you have to individually split your armies through so you aren’t senselessly wasting manpower on attrition as you capture each one like the beautiful and unique flower it is.
So my question is: I haven’t experimented much with vassal playstyles. I’ve never even done a HRE run. My last major game was as Britain and I PU’d France and Aragon but made the terrible mistake of absorbing France and regretted it so much I gave up the game. Is it possible that this playstyle might be far better suited for me personally or is there something about it that makes it ill-suited for WC?
The reason I haven’t tried a vassal playstyle more seriously is that in most strategy games, the AI for your vassals is so terrible that you are always better off controlling the territory yourself. But France was feeling pretty effective in helping me out (it is France though, and not say, Ravensburg) so maybe it can be made to work efficiently enough for me to wrap up some of the more late-game achievements I haven’t gotten.
Anyways any advice on this matter would be appreciated, from whether its doable to what factions are easiest to do it with; seeing as France PU is pretty easy as long as you can micro well enough to win the Hundred Years War I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Britain is the best for this and I just shouldn’t have absorbed them. But a different country would be nice. Thanks!
I’m a player that prefers to not bother with min-maxing (although roleplaying eventually breaks down), but I’m pretty sure having big vassals with powerful national ideas is the way to go. You can get them to spend their MP in coring before absorbing them (admin points are rarer in a WC) and the combined force limit is higher.
Having a vassal that you can feed their own cores in wars is the best, and big rivals are likely to get piled on when you go for them.
This is all correct. For a host of reasons.
Baseline manpower generation and force limits. At a certain point this becomes nearly irrelevant, but in early to mid game? Significant.
Development. They may spend monarch points to develop provinces.
Province efficiency . Things like accepted cultures, estates, etc. it is very likely that the vassal gets more direct revenue, manpower, and less autonomy due to various modifiers.
Rebels. I mean we all know that the AI has lowered rebellion risk. Or certainly feels that way (support rebels has given me jack and shit over hundreds of hours). Or if they get them, you don’t have to worry about them.
Institutions. Your cost to adopt them will be lower because base development is lower. Your vassal will pay the cost to upgrade themselves.
Everyone agrees with that. I myself didn’t do WC but I know mechanics well enough to know how to do it. The most important thing is that you start somewhere around 1650, yes. You get your absolutism maxed out and also some administrative effectiveness, and now you can core provinces fast. You also probably have some trade companies and whoever you started as by this time you can probably take on any alliance.
Real vassal WC recommendation is Japan. Or rather Shogun that doesn’t form Japan. This way you can vassalize the world and don’t need diplomatic relationships. Otherwise you’d be forced to have just a few vassals and as you’ve said, they won’t conquer the world by themselves.
Also most high level players concentrate on achievements, those usually are more fun and memorable than WC. After you get to absolutism any country plays the same when you shoot for WC.
