|
Yeah I usually always do 100% Infantry, 2 cav, 50% arty for my mid-game armies. I don't know why always 2 cav but I remember reading somewhere they are only useful for flanking. I sort of wish we had some slightly HoI style army management to an extent. So you'd create an army, which would be a set thing with all units permanently assigned to that army, but it could split up and raid provinces or spread out or carpet-siege as needed, but then re-form at the push of a button.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm really lazy with army management. I have set template built stacks and in war I will never split them up because then I'll have to deal with sorting them all out after the war. So I'll sit there sieging with my 28 stack one fort at a time even with no enemy resistance because the idea of splitting an army up gets me all OCD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND I don't get this. Fort mechanics are phenomenal! I was playing Qara Qoyunlu and Persia declared on me, bringing Ottomans in. Due to my ring of forts to the west, I was able to just ignore Ottomans for three years while they sieged them down. It was huge. Actually, I wonder if it might take long enough to siege a fort down that I can build another layer of forts right behind the forts currently under siege. That might be a beautiful (if expensive) tactic. My only regret is that they did not represent China better. e: I did die because Persia then allied Golden Horde and called them in, and my chokepoint fort on my Golden Horde side was mothballed. I really wish the game would mention when new enemies join a war against you. e2: otherwise, I clearly would have beaten Persia, Ottomans, and Golden Horde 30 years into the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I don't get this. Fort mechanics are phenomenal! I was playing Qara Qoyunlu and Persia declared on me, bringing Ottomans in. Due to my ring of forts to the west, I was able to just ignore Ottomans for three years while they sieged them down. It was huge. Actually, I wonder if it might take long enough to siege a fort down that I can build another layer of forts right behind the forts currently under siege. That might be a beautiful (if expensive) tactic. There is a popup you can activate that shows when they answer call to arms against you. 
Semquais fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I usually always do 100% Infantry, 2 cav, 50% arty for my mid-game armies. I don't know why always 2 cav but I remember reading somewhere they are only useful for flanking. Cav's unique aspect is their longer flanking range. Generally yeah 2 is all you need to take advantage of that (more later as you tech up). However, as I understand it cav are simply stronger per unit than infantry for the first half of the game though 2.5x more expensive. Later once artillery becomes more powerful and infantry get better Fire modifiers, having a cav-heavy army is less attractive since their defensive Fire pips are bad and they will get creamed by Fire-heavy armies. The only way this wouldn't be the case is if cav gets penalties to defensive pips while fighting in rough terrain. That was a thing in EU3 and I've read thread posts claiming it applies in EU4 as well but I've seen no documentation or anything to confirm. You only need a handful of cav per army to make use of their flanking ability, but if you can afford it (and particularly if you have bonuses to cav combat ability and so on) having a higher cav ratio for the first half of the game (before 1600 or so) is stronger than straight infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Silly peace question: when I take provinces in a peace on behalf of my ally or vassal who gets the aggressive expansion? The interface seems to show me getting it all. I always thought by spreading the provinces around to my friends I'd be spreading the AE around too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
My armies are usually just the same "2 infantry, 1 cav, 1 art" spammed constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I don't get this. Fort mechanics are phenomenal! I was playing Qara Qoyunlu and Persia declared on me, bringing Ottomans in. Due to my ring of forts to the west, I was able to just ignore Ottomans for three years while they sieged them down. It was huge. Actually, I wonder if it might take long enough to siege a fort down that I can build another layer of forts right behind the forts currently under siege. That might be a beautiful (if expensive) tactic. Yeah that's my plan with Ethiopia at the moment. I've taken Alexandria but the Ottomans have basically taken the eastern half of the Nile so I've just built two forts with the intention of upgrading them ASAP in preparation for their attack. (They have the 'Conquer the Levant' mission). Fun game so far but yeah, wars have been much more gruelling on manpower. Development has been so usual for buffing up the Kaffa gold mine and now I actually have to put my army maintenance on low at peace since I find ducats so tough to come by at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:My armies are usually just the same "2 infantry, 1 cav, 1 art" spammed constantly. Isn't that way too many horsies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Any more than 4 cav per stack is a waste (and even 4 is pushing it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Isn't that way too many horsies? Yeah, I'm personally about 6-2-N or 6-4-N (or, later in game, 8-2-N).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Any more than 4 cav per stack is a waste (and even 4 is pushing it) You can get full benefit from 6 in the mid game and I think even 8 in the very end of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Any more than 4 cav per stack is a waste (and even 4 is pushing it) Do enough cavalry combat bonuses do enough to counteract this? (assuming you're in a tech group where that doesn't put you in danger of going under the "insufficient support" threshhold). I've been playing a lot of Aristocratic-Quality-Persia games lately and trying to figure out a good inf-cav balance in that context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
If I tank my Naval Maintenance will my trade ships still protect trade effectively?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Zurai posted:You can get full benefit from 6 in the mid game and I think even 8 in the very end of the game. So how much should Poland or other countries that get Cav bonuses use?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I think the American natives could really use some help with how the game is right now; the changes from this patch really hurt them badly. I played an Inca game before the patch and then again after, and while it still took me five or so serious tries to get a foothold before the patch, it was usually still fun and I felt broken games were about 50-50 errors to luck before I figured out how best to do things. Now, I just feel like the game is just trying to stomp on me the entire way. For starters, the Inti authority mechanic probably needs to be re-calibrated. Prior to the patch, once I'd taken all of the provinces I could, I was making ~9-11 authority a year. I lost my game to computer issues when I had to format my HD, but when I left off, it was 1520 and I still had two reforms to pass; in my previous games I was generally able to do that by 1490-1500. Adding to this is the Empire autonomy reduction bonus, which ends up being a bit of a penalty for the early game; it means you're going to be able to manually reduce fewer provinces for the 5 extra authority. The slow down means you're also less likely to be able to use any of your bonuses for fighting during the time you're forming Inca; you get the colonist ASAP, and by the time you get your next one, you've already crushed everyone. The lack of a decent colonist from exploration means you're also not getting authority from those colonies. Colonization is a nightmare with the first idea group moved to Admin 5.. By 1520, I'd completed 5 colonies and reached the coast, and I got exploration around 1515, about 25-35 years later than previously. Before the patch, I generally had Central and South America explored and a path of colonies to the northern and NE coasts so I was pretty much ready to westernize at that point. To survive Europe, you have to be able to reform your faith and westernize ASAP; if any Europeans have Exploration completed, they'll declare war and your game is over. That's why it's very useful to be able to string colonies across land to the NE part of South America - you don't have to hit the coast if there aren't any Europeans there already, so they can't war dec on you since they can't see you yet. You can't do this in any amount of reasonable time as it is now. Moving exploration to Admin 5 is also in issue in that you get to check out where the Europeans are really late, so you don't know if you should be colonizing toward the Caribbean, to the NE, or towards Rio de la Plata. If you guessed wrong, and the Europeans don't show up there, you westernize later and every year you fall behind, your game is more at jeopardy. Development is a big hit to the Andes, at least. Most of the provinces are mountains, so you start off with a huge penalty to development costs. Alongside the fact that you generally don't have any points to spare, beyond a period where you stockpile Diplo Points in advance of getting Exploration, development is a complete waste. This makes the -10% development costs a joke for the Inca; they both get this benefit much later in the game (because of Admin 5 ideas) and it isn't very useful to begin with (since by that point, you're mostly colonizing - it might have been slightly useful earlier when you're spending dip points while waiting for admin 5, but you probably won't develop after that for the rest of the game). The change of the "Turn X into a city" and natives present also hurts because they're now all - dev costs rather than base tax. A lot of the provinces are also quite a bit worse for colonization; the game expects you to develop these, but it's not worth doing. Missions and events are also not quite as good. You used to get "turn X into a city" and build fort in X, so there was generally something worth taking all of the time, and now that's not really the case - the only real useful mission I had was "Conquer Wanka" at the game start and once "protect against X." Some of the changes in missions are great for Europe, but missing some of the +25 MP missions hurts when need every MP you can get. Similarly, Inca had some interesting events with the Mitmaq moving and resettling. They still get those, but now they don't matter; I don't care if there's one base tax here and not one there, since there isn't a bonus for capitals, and base tax doesn't affect goods produced anymore. In the same way, some of the other events that add base tax are less useful, though they do help since it's a net positive. I'd just rather concentrate base tax in my capital with the previous capital bonus, or in gold provinces; I'd definitely take the bad option and fight rebels if it meant adding base tax to one of those provinces, or to prevent the capital or a gold province from losing base tax. The increased coring, annexing, and reduced claims also hurts a lot. Admin is really important because you need to get Admin 5 ASAP, and those all slow you down. On top of this, you're going to have a total of -10 stability from reforming your faith, so they just don't have any admin to spare for anything; rolling a low admin ruler can ruin your run. Rebels adding nationalism to non-forted provinces is a huge pain in the rear end. Since mountain warfare with limited manpower is a huge deal, you can't just rush at rebels - you have to make them come to you. There was also a couple of times where I'd move troops into position from an event and then when I clicked the event, the rebels spawned somewhere else instead since the target province changed. Another minor issue was the reduced vassal force limits hurts quite a bit for wars. It's fine for the wars themselves, but their main benefit was that after fighting rebels after taking a religion idea, you could consolidate your troops and conserve manpower, because you'd be getting their troops to replace things so they were free manpower. Manpower is really, really scarce for most of an Inca game, because by the time you can afford mercenaries, you've already fought most of your wars. You can still do this, but now you only get a few regiments to replace your losses. I know it's the Inca, and they're not supposed to be easy - they never were, but now they're not really fun, either. Before the patch, there was always something to do once the local powers were integrated; you'd colonize, go after some of the better missions, beat up the OPMs and convert them to Inti for later integration, and you'd watch the Brazilian coast like a hawk. Now, you just tend to spend years on speed five waiting to enact a reform. Here's some suggestions: - Rebalance the authority mechanic back to levels seen in the previous patch. Even a small difference matters a lot. - Restore the first idea group to admin 4, or at least move the + settler growth to Dip 2. With 10 settlers per year, it's not worth having a second colony going. With 25, it's not a huge improvement, but it's enough. Dip 2 is pretty useless for natives anyhow, since trade range isn't going to matter much at all. - Make a cheap new trade ship unit for natives with no guns or a single gun and reduced durability, birch bark canoes or whatever. There was all sorts of trade during that time period between North, Central, and South America. A crappy transport ship would be great, too; there were native populations all over the Caribbean, so a native power should be able to colonize islands if they want to - as it is, you can just colonize via land. Events or missions that granted an explorer or conquistador would also go well with this, if Exploration has to stay at Admin 5. - If natives can't have ships, then at least take away the advisors and events that pertain to ships/naval tradition/morale, etc.; why do the Inca have an expert advisor on naval warfare clogging their pool if they don't have boats? - Native tech groups need either a boost in MP production, or a reduction in development costs. Places in the Americans including the Andes were among the most densely populated areas in the world prior to Europeans arriving; maybe this could be reflected in a modifier that gives large discounts to development cost that disappears some time after European contact, province modifiers like Machu Picchu might also remove the -50% cost for mountain development, etc. - If claims have to be stuck at 10% reduction, which barely covers the cost from war exhaustion, why not give missions claims the regular 25% discount and extend them for 50 years or something? That would help a ton of countries, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I like 6-2-4 once I get the second level of artillery and 10-2-8 once provinces can generally support 20k stacks. Sometimes I'll also make 10k backup stacks of only infantry if I think that there will be some big battles where the front line is going to get destroyed. Before the patch I used to use detach siege a lot to bait but now that forts block movement it's not really worth it. I also am lazy because my armies are full of mercs and I don't understand people having manpower problems. The idea of allowing for your armies to be permanent and having a button to have them all merge together again if you ever split them up would be amazing. I just hate having to spend a ton of time after a war reorganizing all my armies back to what they were so being lazy and not bothering wins out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Mugsbaloney posted:If I tank my Naval Maintenance will my trade ships still protect trade effectively? No, keep it at full all the time and mothball your offensive fleet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
aeglus posted:The idea of allowing for your armies to be permanent and having a button to have them all merge together again if you ever split them up would be amazing. I just hate having to spend a ton of time after a war reorganizing all my armies back to what they were so being lazy and not bothering wins out. Yeah, I've gotten to the point where I don't split my armies up even I'm losing a lot of siege effectiveness, or if I do want to carpet siege I'll only split one of my armies up so I know that all the little stacks go back together. And yeah, the only problem I have with Common Sense is how hosed over the rest of the world is compared to Europe now, especially the Americans. It doesn't make much sense to me that woods or forest should hurt your development if you're a Native American. The complete lack of development they start with doesn't seem right either. Looking at the development minimap you would think they were cavemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Do enough cavalry combat bonuses do enough to counteract this? (assuming you're in a tech group where that doesn't put you in danger of going under the "insufficient support" threshhold). I've been playing a lot of Aristocratic-Quality-Persia games lately and trying to figure out a good inf-cav balance in that context. axeil posted:So how much should Poland or other countries that get Cav bonuses use? Cav combat ability just doubles down on the strengths of cavalry and does nothing for their weaknesses. I would say as many horsies as you want and can afford up to a reasonable proportion (don't want to get too close to your support limit) before ~1600, after that cut back. The meta of military unit progression in the game goes something like this: First half of the game, cav do way more damage per unit than infantry, and infantry is more Shock-focused. Early artillery is not very damaging and plays more of a support role, most important in sieges. As tech progresses, infantry catch up to cav in overall weapon modifiers and infantry becomes more Fire-focused. Artillery gets a ton more Fire damage in the second half of the game. Cavalry has bad Fire pips, which means as Fire damage from infantry and artillery improve they become more fragile. It's a gradual shift but I think the break point is roughly 1600 and mil tech 16. After that artillery gets massively more powerful. Edit: personally since I like horsies I will do something like 8-10 / 4 / X earlier in the game where X isn't usually more than 4 artillery, plus some merc infantry. Midgame onward I'll run 8/4/8 and toss in 2-4 mercenary infantry with each 20 stack. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Oh to have Europe look like it did in 1560.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I found this really funny because it is pretty much impossible in EU4 for the Ottomans to get that big, even if they ignored the Middle East. They get no good missions or events that help them conquer anything they did historically after Constantinople (conquer the Levant now gives a measly 10% discount on the coring cost on a ton of land), but Austria, Spain, and England get crazy missions to let them PU major countries. Why dont the Ottomans get missions or events inciting them to do historical conquests? Why dont the Russians get missions to conquer hordelands? Why isnt China represented better? I don't disagree with your point but just by chance my last 2 games before this patch had the Ottomans at around historical boundaries or bigger. They'd probably be doing better this game if I didn't stop them at around where Serbia/Croatia is. They really need a reworked mission to take over all of The Mameluks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I found this really funny because it is pretty much impossible in EU4 for the Ottomans to get that big, even if they ignored the Middle East. They get no good missions or events that help them conquer anything they did historically after Constantinople (conquer the Levant now gives a measly 10% discount on the coring cost on a ton of land), but Austria, Spain, and England get crazy missions to let them PU major countries. Why dont the Ottomans get missions or events inciting them to do historical conquests? Why dont the Russians get missions to conquer hordelands? Why isnt China represented better? In my current France game the Ottomans have close to that and are threatening Venice although most of Hungary is ok. They also have a huge chunk of the mid-east.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Speaking of The Ottomans, someone already completed a single tag WC with them for this patch: http://imgur.com/a/blUrq
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
I can't even wrap my head around WC's. I've been playing this game since it came out and the best I can ever do is maybe half of europe before the game ends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't even wrap my head around WC's. I've been playing this game since it came out and the best I can ever do is maybe half of europe before the game ends. I'm even worse, I'll get to like 1600-1650 and be doing amazing and think I might have a chance at it but just get bored because it's so slow and such tedious micromanagement of a huge empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I'm even worse, I'll get to like 1600-1650 and be doing amazing and think I might have a chance at it but just get bored because it's so slow and such tedious micromanagement of a huge empire. I've been playing since EU2, but I get closer to the end now and even finished my first game ever of EU a month or two ago. But yeah, by 1600 or so you know if you won the game. That's why I switched out of Europe and made the end game goal to destroy the navy of every European power then take territory in France. Keeps me going longer. This patched helped to slow things down for those in Europe. CK2 on the other hand, feels so easy to take over a large bit of Europe and it's extremely easy to keep things stable so I end up quitting after 100 years. Which is too bad since CK2 is a ton of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't even wrap my head around WC's. I've been playing this game since it came out and the best I can ever do is maybe half of europe before the game ends. Especially now, how the gently caress do you core everything?  I've bitched about Ck2 a lot in the ck2 thread, but the general problem is that EU4 has changed so much with DLC its like EU6. Meanwhile all the CK2 dlc is...move the start date back and add more to the map. The core gameplay is the same, and after my Restoration of Rome playthough...I pretty much figured it out and understand how to conquer vast amounts of land at once. And now it's simple. Much like how EU4 needs China to be represented better, CK2, needs the struggle between vassal and ruler to be represented better. Eimi fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
aeglus posted:I don't disagree with your point but just by chance my last 2 games before this patch had the Ottomans at around historical boundaries or bigger. They'd probably be doing better this game if I didn't stop them at around where Serbia/Croatia is. They really need a reworked mission to take over all of The Mameluks. Baronjutter posted:In my current France game the Ottomans have close to that and are threatening Venice although most of Hungary is ok. They also have a huge chunk of the mid-east. I would just like to see a few missions or events giving them bonuses. If Paradox is going all hard-line about making things a little harder for the player they should not be afraid to give the Ottomans crazy scary bonuses for 150 years that simply expire or are hard to keep around and even penalties or harsh events. And I am saying more on top of the already rare-to-happen Janissary events. It would be neat if they got their own government form/succession law to help curb their power if they did get some crazy bonuses to play with. I mean... England and Poland get their own governments so I do not think it is far fetched to see such a major historical player get its own govtype/succession law. Pellisworth posted:I'm even worse, I'll get to like 1600-1650 and be doing amazing and think I might have a chance at it but just get bored because it's so slow and such tedious micromanagement of a huge empire.  ).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I think my Milan game is about to come to and end with a bug that reliably crashes my game every time. I took 13 provinces off of Spain and had them release a couple things, then the very next day the game hard crashes to desktop  Not sure why.Eimi posted:Especially now, how the gently caress do you core everything? dude that did it posted:Math(s) This is where Ottoman ideas come to the rescue! They are perfectly placed to block themselves off from Asia with a Persian vassal and from Africa using Syrian and Iraqi vassals. In the early game, this reduces their cost to core provinces by 50% multiplicatively with their 68% reduction (33% national idea + 25% admin idea + 10% claim) to make coring a province cost 1.6 admin points per development. Trying to core a 30 development Beijing? 48 admin points please. Trying to core a standard 6 development desert province? 10 admin points please. In the late game, this gets boosted by an additional 50% from administrative efficiency to reach the minimum coring cost of 1 admin point per development. The limiting factor will be coring time. Thankfully, reduced coring costs from ideas also reduces the coring time. It takes around 13 months to core.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
aeglus posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Yeah I stopped my Russia game in ~1680 because the only real challenges left would be to take out the Ottomans or Ming, both of whom are gigantic blobs with big armies but would still be overwhelmed by my forces. Now that I actually understand Some day I'll actually watch DDRJake's Ryuku campaign and maybe learn some things (I know he at least abused the double-dip relations trick that's not possible anymore). Then again it's like dozens of hours worth of footage, the beginning of which is just doing diplomatic stuff and trying to stay alive. VDay fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
After ranking up GB to an Empire level title, I am disappointed that my monarch is not a King-Emperor. Way cooler than being a normal emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
There is a bug with administrative efficiency in that it works additively instead of multiplicatively which means that as the ottomans with admin ideas you'll hit the 1 adm/development (0.5 for overseas provinces) sanity check on coring cost at tech 27. And even before that, if you focus on overseas territory as the ottomans with admin ideas (i.e. have a vassal between you and the territory you want to core) you pay a measly 2 adm/development. This makes a wc not that hard but still really really tedious. Can't recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Hey, I figured out the bug. The KEEP RIVAL (my case Spain) OUT OF ITALY mission is broken. Once you complete it, the game crashes the very next day. I tried messing around a lot to figure out what the problem is and either not taking the Italian provinces to finish the mission OR canceling the mission fixes it. Someone want to take a look at the mission and see if anything looks wrong with it? it gives +2 tax and something else to every province you have in the Italian region for 10 years so it's not something you really want to avoid just because of a bug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
The last three reformations I've played through have been wet farts, is this just my bad luck or a change since CE dropped? In each game the centers spawned in Scandinavia and England and barely brushed the continent. Reformed still seems to be working as usual, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
I'm 99% sure it is due to the lots of new provinces in the german region, which the centres for protestant commonly starts out on. Maybe they need to change the upper limit of centres of restorartions to four.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
VDay posted:Some day I'll actually watch DDRJake's Ryuku campaign and maybe learn some things (I know he at least abused the double-dip relations trick that's not possible anymore). Then again it's like dozens of hours worth of footage, the beginning of which is just doing diplomatic stuff and trying to stay alive. His main combo on the last one was using the first half of the Humanist tree to get +Religious Unity then flipping back and forth between 99.9999% and 100% by starting a colony (patched to no longer work). Then he would complete Achieve Religious Unity and then do Accumulate Money / Recover Manpower to recycle and get 25 adm/dip every few days. He did years of that off camera to keep enough power to core and stay ahead in tech. By the time he was flipping unity with a huge empire with the colony having a negligible effect the viewers built him a spreadsheet to make sure his calculation was correct. The early years are actually the best ones to watch as its actually combat. Later it was him with 50 vassals and negative dip streamrolling countries with the Deus Vult CB and taking provinces at no cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:His main combo on the last one was using the first half of the Humanist tree to get +Religious Unity then flipping back and forth between 99.9999% and 100% by starting a colony (patched to no longer work). Then he would complete Achieve Religious Unity and then do Accumulate Money / Recover Manpower to recycle and get 25 adm/dip every few days. He did years of that off camera to keep enough power to core and stay ahead in tech. By the time he was flipping unity with a huge empire with the colony having a negligible effect the viewers built him a spreadsheet to make sure his calculation was correct. The early years are actually the best ones to watch as its actually combat. Later it was him with 50 vassals and negative dip streamrolling countries with the Deus Vult CB and taking provinces at no cost. Plus the event for having vassals of a different religion giving him stab every minute so he could no CB/Trucebreak
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Fuligin posted:The last three reformations I've played through have been wet farts, is this just my bad luck or a change since CE dropped? In each game the centers spawned in Scandinavia and England and barely brushed the continent. Reformed still seems to be working as usual, however. In my current game, Austria is the only catholic state (and indeed, only state to own catholic provinces at all) between Iberia and Poland. Which I count as successful. Reformed was more successful than Protestant in Germany though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 23:31
|
|