|
If you're not taking Quantity as Ottomans to role play as massive hordes of terrifying Muslims laying waste to Europe in seemingly inestimable numbers then I don't even want to loving know you.
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
 Another screenshot of something new. Scary for the arabians that the timurids now have strait access to the arabian penisulta, although chances are that they just vassalize hormuz and then get stuck there. The horde AI seems to rarely integrate their vassals. But I remember being involved in a couple wars against the timurids early on in my jihad run where they couldn't do anything due to lack of military access. This change certainly makes playing in arabia a lot more volatile early on. Also zoroastrians.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think "pointless" regarding trade companies is a bit overstated....have you tried it yourself? I've done it both ways as the Ottomans and felt I was more powerful when I Westernized early and went trade company heavy (I made sure to have a vassal in India before I Westernized Yeah I felt like Admin first on Ottomans was a little overkill, you already have super cheap cores and are more limited by overextension and AE. Humanist is great for obvious reasons, I felt Religious was a decent option when I tried it out if you make an effort to Unify Islam early on. I've never been a huge fan of Westernizing as Ottoman/Eastern tech because you lose out on Indian/Chinese vassals and with Western Arms Trade or Impiety you can shave off another 10% tech cost, it's easy to stay at parity. I should try out a Trade Company heavy game, though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
(also if you annex someone that has a vassal you gain that vassal regardless of tech level)).
You already get a -33% coring cost from National Ideas and claims on a ton of land via events and taking Humanism lets you ignore unrest entirely. Reduced Coring cost does not increase your overextension threshold and just because you core things quick does not let you ignore non-accepted cultures or other religions.
|
Pellisworth posted:I've never been a huge fan of Westernizing as Ottoman/Eastern tech because you lose out on Indian/Chinese vassals and with Western Arms Trade or Impiety you can shave off another 10% tech cost, it's easy to stay at parity. I should try out a Trade Company heavy game, though. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I'd hope there wasn't a cap on development. I mean some places have obvious reasons for high base tax/development. Its either awesome land, the best for miles around or pretty good and an area people have put effort into for years. Then you get dumps like venice. High base tax purely because a bunch of rich people made it so. I want to make a new super city out of a maleria infested hell hole (5th Rome!).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I haven't played this game in a while and forgot how annoying lucky nations are. As France, I keep losing battles to stupid lucky Austria despite outnumbering them 2-1 in a battle because my moral can never recover fast enough.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I haven't played this game in a while and forgot how annoying lucky nations are. As France, I keep losing battles to stupid lucky Austria despite outnumbering them 2-1 in a battle because my moral can never recover fast enough. Yeah lucky nations make you work for it. Are you using one big stack to do the fights with Austria or are you reinforcing with fresh troops? The latter is far more effective. There's a couple other things you may want to look at (general pips, tech level, combat width, army composition) if you are looking for suggestions.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I haven't played this game in a while and forgot how annoying lucky nations are. As France, I keep losing battles to stupid lucky Austria despite outnumbering them 2-1 in a battle because my moral can never recover fast enough. reinforce during battle, don't cross rivers, avoid forests hills and mountains, use generals and try to lure the enemy into attacking YOU.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Mans posted:reinforce during battle Wait, is there some advantage to reinforcing during battle against a big stack instead of just dumping all your stacks in there right away?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Elman posted:Wait, is there some advantage to reinforcing during battle against a big stack instead of just dumping all your stacks in there right away? If you've got more troops than the combat width (or even just a bunch more troops than the enemy), having a giant stack doesn't help much unless enough of them get killed/routed for the extras to matter, while splitting them up means a boost in morale each time the reinforcements drop in. Roadie fucked around with this message at 22:55 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Roadie posted:If you've got more troops than the combat width (or even just a bunch more troops than the enemy), having a giant stack doesn't help much unless enough of them get killed/routed, while splitting them up means a boost in morale each time the reinforcements drop in. Yep another way to say this is that troops that are in a stack take morale damage whether they are fighting or not. If you have a 50 stack but only 25 can fight (due to combat width), all 50 regiments are taking morale damage. So halfway through the fight all 50 regiments will be at (let's say) half morale. If you have a 25 stack start the fight then they will fight just as well as the 50 stack, but only the 25 regiments are taking morale damage. When the remaining 25 regiments arrive, those troops will be at 100% morale. Note: It's helpful to have a few spare infantry regiments for soaking in the first group, so maybe go with 30-35 (with the extra over combat width being inf) for the first stack and then reinforce from there. Depends on reinforce times and how much micro you are doing on that battle.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Wait, so combat width is "how many units in combat at all, including the artillery firing from the back line?" That is....not at all what I thought it was.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Wait, so combat width is "how many units in combat at all, including the artillery firing from the back line?" That is....not at all what I thought it was. Not exactly. It has how many Infantry and Cavalry are fighting. Artillery is in the second row and also fights in their own special way.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Wait, so combat width is "how many units in combat at all, including the artillery firing from the back line?" That is....not at all what I thought it was. Combat width is "how many units can be in a line". The front line units can always attack, units in the back line cannot unless they are artillery. There is some difference between Cav and Infantry in the front line in terms of how they fight. So if your combat width is 10 you could have potentially 20 units in battle - 10 melee units in front, 10 artillery in the back. If you are fighting before artillery, then a combat width of 10 would mean you could only effectively use 10 regiments. http://www.eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare The eu4 wiki does a decent job of explaining it if you want more details. [edit]Yeah I edited it to just point out there are differences between cav and inf in the front line Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 23:25 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Technically speaking, infantry and artillery can flank, too, they just don't get as much benefit from it and can't do it from as far away. Cavalry have a higher maneuver score and get a +50% (I think?) damage bonus when flanking, while normally the benefit is just that you are dealing damage without also receiving damage.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Also, combat width gets extra complicated because there's a given number dictated by your miltech (which actually starts at 15, the + from tech is on top of that), and then terrain applies a percentage modifier on top of that result (IIRC).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Also, combat width gets extra complicated because there's a given number dictated by your miltech (which actually starts at 15, the + from tech is on top of that), and then terrain applies a percentage modifier on top of that result (IIRC).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I really wish Westernizing changes units to be as powerful as Western group. I think it's ridiculous my massive westernized Incan Empire is still fielding less capable troops than the Spaniards or the Portugese.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:I really wish Westernizing changes units to be as powerful as Western group. I think it's ridiculous my massive westernized Incan Empire is still fielding less capable troops than the Spaniards or the Portugese. While its stupid it is much better balanced these days. You are behind but only slightly behind. And you can still dish out the best Europe can throw at you. Just....don't use leaderless stacks against Prussia ever.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
You're not behind at all. Western units aren't any better than the other tech groups any more, they changed that. Every tech group peaks at a different time so sometimes even if you're equivalent tech they might be better, but a couple of unit upgrades on from that you can go back and get your revenge.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Elman posted:Wait, is there some advantage to reinforcing during battle against a big stack instead of just dumping all your stacks in there right away? All regiments in a battle lose 1% of their morale for every day of combat, even if they're not actively fighting. So you want to wait until your first army is about to break, and then send in the reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
I like spamming mercenaries around a big battle on my own land and sending them in. You get a surprisingly large boost to morale over the battle doing that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:I really wish Westernizing changes units to be as powerful as Western group. I think it's ridiculous my massive westernized Incan Empire is still fielding less capable troops than the Spaniards or the Portugese. I wouldn't say that, they changed the way the military upgrades and parity is pretty much ok, in fact, if you take a look at the wiki the muslim tech group has advantage militarily for most of the game, are you at the same tech level as them ?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
I would like to add that the late game westernized Incan troops look super cool. They made it the long but uneventful wars to kick the whitemen out of north america all the better  .
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think "pointless" regarding trade companies is a bit overstated....have you tried it yourself? I've done it both ways as the Ottomans and felt I was more powerful when I Westernized early and went trade company heavy (I made sure to have a vassal in India before I Westernized I had way too much money without trade companies, you just need to push into Europe/Venice early on, this has the side effect that you get to gently caress with Austria earlier which almost always fucks up the entire HRE. There are ways to conquer with only pre-Westernization vassals or conquering someone who has a vassal but that still limits your choices. I don't want vassals to get too big or they take too long to diplo annex, and I generally diplo annex 2 vassals at the same time every 20-25 years then build up new ones. Getting Admin ideas first and unlocking them up to the coring cost discount asap means you will integrate newly acquired land a lot faster and cheaper. The sooner you get that extra discount the faster it pays off. Cultures and Nationalism never were a problem for me as the Ottos, just wipe some rebels now and then. In my last Otto game I went Admin, Influence, Quantity and it was hilarious how easily you conquer and integrate large lands. I ended up behind in diplo tech from spamming trade buildings but this meant I made enough money to go way over my force limits. Comparing my runs with humanist first vs admin first I would say that Admin was more fun and efficient, with humanist ideas I did have less rebels but they really aren't that big of a deal. Mechanic question, I tried some Ironman starts as The Knights, my strategy was to day zero non-CB DoW Ancona to join the HRE. It took me 11 tries until Ancona didn't get allies midwar, the only difference I could see was me having a diplo rep adviser that game. Is it possible that Dip Rep decreases the chance your wartargets have to get alliances? My plan was to join the HRE, get the Pope, Austria and Castille as my big allies then share Venice and eat up the Balkans to get a power base strong enough to challenge the Mamluks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
I have to say after being used to needing to be super aggressive as a minor outside of Europe, that strategy didn't work out too well after deciding to play in Europe for the first time since the goon game I played ages ago. Looked like I wouldn't have that much AE only to have 2 years straight of everyone slowly joining up to kill me in the HRE. Restarted with a bit less aggression but even then I don't remember it being that harsh on you. And this was with Austria thinking I'm a cool dude to drink with. That all said and done, making way on a Hansa to Prussia game. Went over the first hump to culture swap to Danzig even though it meant giving away every province I had to vassals. Then realized Poland stole all my stuff off of TO right after my war. Luck be it, Austria breaks my alliance only to have Bohemia and Muscowy join up. Quick war later and I'm all set to be Prussia once I hit the proper tech. Merchant republic Prussia is going to be crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
In my newest Norway game my king has 0 in military and a legitimacy of 22 (he was a weak heir that refused to die). Currently the civil war disaster is ticking up 1 per month because he has under 1 in military skill. At least that is what the tooltip says. Wierdly it didn't start to tick up at once when he took over as king, but a few years after one of my wars. I thought disasters were linked to the overall revoltrisk in your country which for me was 0,60 so I raised stability to 2 to get that under 0. But that didn't help. Is there nothing I can do to stop this disaster?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Don't worry too much about it, civil wars aren't so much a disaster as they are a way to quickly gain legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
You can't get a disaster when at war. Believe it or not, Civil Wars are actually pretty good when you have a poo poo leader with low legitimacy like yours. They give a lot of events which just throw legitimacy at you, and if you don't like your ruler enough then you can just let a pretender take over with better stats. Civil wars can be great if you can keep it together with all the unrest it adds. e; plus, if you finish the civil war you get 3 stab which is just great
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Hard to argue that you're illegitimate after you've killed everyone saying you are.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Civil war is probably the second most benign disaster. As long as you can handle the rebels it's not bad. Obviously you don't want it to happen but compared to what could happen instead it's not bad.Tomn posted:Hard to argue that you're illegitimate after you've killed everyone saying you are.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Poil posted:Civil war is probably the second most benign disaster. As long as you can handle the rebels it's not bad. Obviously you don't want it to happen but compared to what could happen instead it's not bad. Most being? War of the roses?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Most being? War of the roses? When it happened in my Qing game it did spawn about 200k patriots all over the place from the extra revolt risk but overall it's the least painful disaster in my experience.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Most being? War of the roses? I'd say WotR is indeed the most benign. You get an awesome new king, you stomp a handful of rebels, and then you gain some stability.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I dunno, looking at the list on the EUIV wiki and there are some I never knew about which look even limper than WotR. The Count's Feud is just laughable. You get one size 1 noble or size 2 pretender rebel stack, with a chance of a second size 1 stack, and a positive or negative relationship modifier of 50 with Sweden. When it ends you get 50 ducats and one stab. Seems pretty nothing to me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Week and half to go before the new expansion and still no pre-order available. Haven't they in the past had them available for pre-order for a few weeks before release?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Nope. They did it once very early on, and they broke it pretty badly they stopped putting pre-orders up for their dlc
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
What an age we live in to ask for preorders on downloadable content.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Yes well it is not Peasant's War I get that, but the timing is awful. Reformation will come in a couple of years and I need to switch so I can get my colonial nations. And Norway is a land with lots of mountains and islands so rebels are a total pain. Just annoys me that a good start is being ruined by something as random as getting a king with 0 mil. But thats EU4 I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
don't think anyone posted the dev diary yet: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-28th-of-may-2015.858320/quote:Send Officers Most of these seem really useful. Finally you can do some things with protectorates!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:05
|
|