|
reL posted:Ok yeah so this is my first time using the El Dorado exploration features, and I've lost ~400 MIL just replacing conquistadors at this point. I'm having to abandon exploration to allow myself to catch up in tech. Is this the usual? I've been running 2 at once so I guess that's my mistake here. It's random, my conquistadors usually live long enough to be useful (you can get a lot of +50 adm/dip point events). I doubt it matters how many you have as long as they operate in different areas.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Anyone know if it's WAD that being the aggressor in a rival-based succession war in the HRE counts as declaring a no CB war and thus puts the Emperor on the defending side? I assume that this is what happened as I was starting Brandenburg + 2 provinces so I assume that Austria wouldn't have been able to rival me due to their being so much more powerful than me, and they definitely weren't allied with anyone else involved in the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I'm begining to think that my nation is cursed. I've actually killed off a 0-0-0, 1-1-0 and 0-3-0 as heirs on top of these guys. My current heir is a 0-0-3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
If you're not running a republic with a +1 republican tradition idea I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
What's a good way to kill off an heir (if any)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What's a good way to kill off an heir (if any)? Make them a general and do as many sieges/battles as possible with them
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What's a good way to kill off an heir (if any)? There is no way to kill heirs or monarchs reliably, because you're not supposed to have awesome monarchs all the time (Dutch Republics notwithstanding). You can make either more likely to die by making them a general, and further help the odds by throwing them into battle as much as possible. But it's far from a sure thing. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I've played 700 hours of EU4 but never played a merchant republic. Someone give me a recommendation for a good nation to try it out as and maybe any advice you think is relevant. I have all the DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I'd like Wiz to fix the thing where merely making your monarch a general makes them more likely to die (from the extra death check for generals). I can't stop doing it for bad kings, even if it's gamey, and it makes me reluctant to use good kings as generals because even if I'm willing to risk them in a war, I'm much less willing to risk them knowing that after the war they have a bigger chance of dropping dead just sitting around the palace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:There are two strats that work with Byz most of the time. How often do I got to restart the game to make this work? The ottomans declare war one me one year into the game and I can only build four galleys until then and achieve nothing else and nothing else
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If you're not running a republic with a +1 republican tradition idea I don't know what to tell you. I think the best you can get is Novgorod with +0.5 RT The policies that give you +0.2 RT are terribad. For a Merchant Republic that means you get to re-elect once more every 50 years, at the cost of 1 MP/month for the duration. It doesn't take much math spergery to see what a bad return on investment that is. Re-electing to a third term means a 6/4/4 dude vs. a fresh 4/1/1 ruler, so you net a maximum of 8 points per month * 4 year election term = 384 MP Maintaining the policy is 1 mil or adm point per month for 50 years to generate the 10 RT for a re-election = 600 MP *faaaaart* Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If you're not running a republic with a +1 republican tradition idea I don't know what to tell you. This is basically the same as consoling monarch points since I think Hamburg is the only European nation with RT ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I've played 700 hours of EU4 but never played a merchant republic. Someone give me a recommendation for a good nation to try it out as and maybe any advice you think is relevant. I have all the DLC. Well there's three that start out in 1444 as merchant republics: the hansa, venice and genoa. Venice is the easiest of the three and genoa is the hardest of the three to play. Just look at where each three of them start and pick the location you would like to play in as. Don't be afraid to go into debt to get mercenaries to grab more land. You might think that as a merchant republic you should gun for the Trade idea but that's a trap since the last thing you need is what that idea group gives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I'd like Wiz to fix the thing where merely making your monarch a general makes them more likely to die (from the extra death check for generals). It's not gamey, it's modeling the difference between sitting in a palace and being out in a military camp where supplies are limited and disease is more prevalent. What you're describing is the exact tradeoff you're supposed to be weighing. A king is a 'free' general. In the case of a crappy king you want to get rid of, the choice is easy. Do it. In the case of a good king you want to keep, also relatively easy. Don't do it. And anywhere inbetween (like I can only afford 1 general but my king is decent so I do risk him dying hmmm let me check the heir) is the decision making that's supposed to come into play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Well there's three that start out in 1444 as merchant republics: the hansa, venice and genoa. Venice is the easiest of the three and genoa is the hardest of the three to play. Just look at where each three of them start and pick the location you would like to play in as. Don't be afraid to go into debt to get mercenaries to grab more land. You might think that as a merchant republic you should gun for the Trade idea but that's a trap since the last thing you need is what that idea group gives. also Novgorod, all of them are cool and fun Edit: I need to try Novgorod, Muscovy seems to get routinely clowned by Kazan or Golden Horde and looks really weak this patch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:This is basically the same as consoling monarch points since I think Hamburg is the only European nation with RT ideas. Novgorod and Ireland both have RT ideas, I believe. Also maybe some of the Italian minors?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I've played 700 hours of EU4 but never played a merchant republic. Someone give me a recommendation for a good nation to try it out as and maybe any advice you think is relevant. I have all the DLC. Novgorod. Make friends with Sweden and Poland-Lithuania. Even if they don't help you, you can still beat Muscovy with many mercs since you are rich as gently caress. Create Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Well there's three that start out in 1444 as merchant republics: the hansa, venice and genoa. Venice is the easiest of the three and genoa is the hardest of the three to play. Just look at where each three of them start and pick the location you would like to play in as. Don't be afraid to go into debt to get mercenaries to grab more land. You might think that as a merchant republic you should gun for the Trade idea but that's a trap since the last thing you need is what that idea group gives. Nobody ever remembers Ragusa  As an aside, all merchant republics have an automatic CB on each other, so Genoa and Venice can go to war with Ragusa on day 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:I read this as playing the TO in a diplo-annexing fashion rather than a strategy for diploannexing the TO.  I have Pskov waiting to grab another Novgorod province or two before I diplo-annex them, Luneberg in the west ready to soak up all the small nations around there, and the Mazovia behemoth which is costing me 1346 dip points (  ) to diplo-annex which includes the bonus you get from Influence and will probably double my economy/army when they join. I ended up taking Influence first after all, and I think it paid off as it let me save up my admin points to "rush" to 10 and switch to Prussia as soon as the reformation happened and I converted all my provinces. Went Quality then Economic after that, and planning to get Offensive at 14 to get the bonus discipline for the achievement.On a related note, the Protestant faith bonuses seem pretty crazy good. Besides getting the ridiculous tax bonus for having 100 devotion (which is super easy to maintain, I think mine's fallen to 90 like once and has stayed above that the rest of the time) you can pick and choose bonuses whenever you need them thanks to an abundance of church power. Seems so much more useful and dynamic than the Bhuddist system where you either just resign to having -100 karma or bend over backwards to keep it neutral for some small bonuses in exchange for way slower expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Edit: I need to try Novgorod, Muscovy seems to get routinely clowned by Kazan or Golden Horde and looks really weak this patch. The AI for Muscovy seems really bad at taking advantage of the opportunities they get for expansion. In my TO->Prussia game above I allied with Muscovy and want to help them form Russia, but they just keep shooting themselves in the foot. They managed to go to war with Novgorod right after Novgorod allied with Sweden, resulting in an eventual white peace. Then like 25 years later Muscovy decided that they could definitely take on the Crimea-Kazan alliance that formed after they split the Golden Horde's lands between themselves. So it was Muscovy's ~20k troops against Kazan...and Crimea...and a 10 province Circassia...and Gazikumukh...and Nogai. Needless to say they didn't so hot that war, but at least they managed to diplo-annex Perm again after having to release them as a result of their loss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:It's not gamey, it's modeling the difference between sitting in a palace and being out in a military camp where supplies are limited and disease is more prevalent. What you're describing is the exact tradeoff you're supposed to be weighing. A king is a 'free' general. In the case of a crappy king you want to get rid of, the choice is easy. Do it. In the case of a good king you want to keep, also relatively easy. Don't do it. And anywhere inbetween (like I can only afford 1 general but my king is decent so I do risk him dying hmmm let me check the heir) is the decision making that's supposed to come into play. I mean it's a historically themed game, when you have kings deliberately throwing themselves into battles in hopes of dying it seems a little silly. edit also I diplo-integrated Russia, what the heck do I do with it now 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:This is basically the same as consoling monarch points since I think Hamburg is the only European nation with RT ideas. Hamburg is fun to play as and owns. Re: Prussia chat, forming Prussia as the TO makes you lose your theocracy government, right? From reading the event files though it seems like Riga or Magdeburg would be able to form Prussia and still stay as a theocracy, which might be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I mean it's a historically themed game, when you have kings deliberately throwing themselves into battles in hopes of dying it seems a little silly. Time to eat Poland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Novgorod and Ireland both have RT ideas, I believe. Also maybe some of the Italian minors? I think it was a stealth nerf but they removed the RT from Ireland's ambition at some point. It's just legitimacy now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Hamburg is fun to play as and owns. Yeah, the TO gets a unique decision to form Prussia which removes them and all their provinces from the HRE and switches to a monarchy. The LO and others can form Prussia without a government switch or losing HRE status I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Yeah, the TO gets a unique decision to form Prussia which removes them and all their provinces from the HRE and switches to a monarchy. The LO and others can form Prussia without a government switch or losing HRE status I believe. Oh right, I forgot that the LO is also Prussian culture, whoops. I might try a game as them some time now that theocracies are a bit more interesting, forming Germany as a Protestant theocracy seems like it would be fun. Magdeburg also has the interesting distinction of being the only country which can form both Westphalia and Prussia without moving capital or culture shifting though there isn't a cunning way to exploit this or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Watch out for Riga if you're going to play as the LO, I hear they're a real powerhouse this patch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:It's not gamey, it's modeling the difference between sitting in a palace and being out in a military camp where supplies are limited and disease is more prevalent. What you're describing is the exact tradeoff you're supposed to be weighing. A king is a 'free' general. In the case of a crappy king you want to get rid of, the choice is easy. Do it. In the case of a good king you want to keep, also relatively easy. Don't do it. And anywhere inbetween (like I can only afford 1 general but my king is decent so I do risk him dying hmmm let me check the heir) is the decision making that's supposed to come into play. I'm not talking about the chance of dying in battle. My understanding is that for every 'tick' of time that passes, your monarch rolls a die to see if he dies a natural death. Generals do the same. If you turn you monarch into a general then every tick he rolls the dice to see if he dies from natural causes while being a monarch and then rolls the dice AGAIN to see if he dies from natural causes while being a general. Which means when your 0-1-0 comes to the throne you can immediately make him a general and there's an increased (doubled?) chance of him dying from natural causes even if you aren't at war and have no intention of going to war! (That's gamey) Similarly, if you turn a good king into a general and have him survive the war you fight, then for all the rest of the years he lives he continues to roll two 'death dice' every tick even though the war has been over, you've been at peace for decades, and he's sitting around the palace getting fat. It's certainly possible I've misunderstood how the mechanic works, but I thought this was a confirmed (and presumably low priority to fix) quirk of the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:It's not gamey, it's modeling the difference between sitting in a palace and being out in a military camp where supplies are limited and disease is more prevalent. What you're describing is the exact tradeoff you're supposed to be weighing. A king is a 'free' general. In the case of a crappy king you want to get rid of, the choice is easy. Do it. In the case of a good king you want to keep, also relatively easy. Don't do it. And anywhere inbetween (like I can only afford 1 general but my king is decent so I do risk him dying hmmm let me check the heir) is the decision making that's supposed to come into play. There should also be ways to get better generals than grinding AT (Basing your whole idea lines on it and constantly being at war) or using 500 mil points to recruit 10 generals in the hopes one of them isnt total poo poo. There should be a way to make sure every monarch you get isnt 0/1/0 every-other ruler. Your entire game is based around Monarch Points and as a monarchy (like 75% of the countries in the historical game) you have exactly zero ways to cultivate a better ruler. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:There should be a way to make sure every monarch you get isnt 0/1/0 every-other ruler. Your entire game is based around Monarch Points and as a monarchy (like 75% of the countries in the historical game) you have exactly zero ways to cultivate a better ruler. In fairness, that's the idea behind advisors and national focus. Advisors ARE pretty drat expensive, though. I'd sort of like to see advisor cost scale more by the size of your country, so that smaller countries could get +3 advisors more easily, but bigger countries would still find them prohibitive. I do think it might be interesting if there were a few more ways to affect this though. Perhaps a few of the (currently underpowered) idea trees could have a capstone that gave +1 to that monarch point category? Or maybe add some policies that let you get +X MP in a category for scaling penalties.... Like Harsh Regime: +1 military point per month for +5 national revolt risk Unctuous Diplomats: +1 diplomatic point for +3% prestige decay Overbearing Bureaucracy: +1 admin point for -10% national tax The actual numbers would be different, obviously
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Except the games succession system is really underwhelming (using nice language because Wiz and Johan read this thread). It is super gamey to use the whole "a general is more likely to die" mechanics to try to kill a bad monarch and it is dumb that I cant turn a good ruler into a general because that means an RNG not related to combat he is more likely to die. I should be able to un-make him a general if he is more likely to die if made a general and staying a general means an RNG is chasing him. Also Kings and Generals were often well attended to in an army camp and on a battlefield - they rarely had to deal with supply shortages, though being in a military camp does expose them to disease. But then how many kings have we heard about dying of disease while on campaign compared to how many kings went on campaign in the time period? Yeah it's kinda silly how Kings become generalissimos when in reality if they wanted to lead an army personally they'd leave their fancy castle, point the finger somewhere inside a decent tent, sometimes they'd go ride into battle covered in heavily armored knights intent on making sure he lives and then he'd go right back to the fancy palace. Here he just becomes one with the army, living in barracks for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
I've always thought that the higher tiers of government should start to average your monarch points out a little. So you get screwed over a lot less by a 0/0/0, but a would-be 6/6/6 no longer has the power to revolutionize your country either (because you wouldn't be able to roll one). Also, perhaps add the ability to spend AT to bump up stats in a particular category for a general? I literally just thought of this, I have not thought it through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Mans posted:Here he just becomes one with the army, living in barracks for the rest of his life. Just roleplay that the increased chance is due to war wounds that never heal or syphilis from post-victory partying and it just took a while to slay your ruler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:In fairness, that's the idea behind advisors and national focus. I do think it might be interesting if there were a few more ways to affect this though. Perhaps a few of the (currently underpowered) idea trees could have a capstone that gave +1 to that monarch point category? Yes that is a little ranty and I know thousands of people play with it and ~~deal with it~~ all the time, and there things you can do to "game" bad heirs and whatnot (or I could just play as one of the few merchant republics or whatever) but I guess I am just tired of praying the RNG doesnt gently caress me OR savescumming OR using the console. I want to try ironman games but I know I'll just give up when I have 10 year regency then five years of a 1/0/2 ruler then a 12 year regency then for 3/2/3 ruler who dies one year in, ect edit: Trabisnikof posted:Just roleplay that the increased chance is due to war wounds that never heal or syphilis from post-victory partying and it just took a while to slay your ruler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Bah, if your king isn't reliving the life of Alexander the Great you're doing something seriously wrong when you make him a general. 
Poil fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Do you get the -2 stability hit if your king is an inactive general?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Node posted:Do you get the -2 stability hit if your king is an inactive general? nah pretty sure you get -1 for a monarch dying in general and -2 only for if they die leading an army in battle
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Fine Goosestep down  Got it in 1547 thanks to a +5% discipline advisor popping up. Otherwise I was still 2 admin tech away from unlocking another idea group to use on Offensive, and then however many years away from filling all those out to get the discipline bonus at the end. Pretty fun game, TO->Prussia is really interesting and different if, like me, you're mostly used to playing big blobs. Also was a hilarious change of pace to have actual good units for once. I kept panicking and over-compensating during wars because I'm so used to my guys only winning if I have a huge numbers advantage, so it was fun seeing my 10-12k stacks walk in and beat way larger stacks. Completely wiping out a 13 stack with 18k men in a single battle was pretty neat  Just want to say again how much I like the achievements in this game and how well the system is used to basically create a bunch of 50-250 year challenges that you can knock out in a weekend. Now to pick between Bengal Tiger and the Ceylon one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Bohemian-Dutch War of Honor? What the hell is that? I just got called into one as an ally. Does that mean an AI actually declared war over a diplomatic insult? I've never seen that before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Rakthar posted:It's not gamey, it's modeling the difference between sitting in a palace and being out in a military camp where supplies are limited and disease is more prevalent. What you're describing is the exact tradeoff you're supposed to be weighing. A king is a 'free' general. In the case of a crappy king you want to get rid of, the choice is easy. Do it. In the case of a good king you want to keep, also relatively easy. Don't do it. And anywhere inbetween (like I can only afford 1 general but my king is decent so I do risk him dying hmmm let me check the heir) is the decision making that's supposed to come into play. He's saying just by clicking the button to make your king a general he gets an increased chance to die, even if you never assign him to a unit or send him to battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:06
|
|
