|
PleasingFungus posted:iirc, wiz has said that it's so that north africa counts as 'distant overseas' for the iberian nations. (since that's how they were treated/governed historically.) North Africa just feels like a trap for the AI and incautious players. Especially as Portugal I got absolutely spammed with missions and events trying to persuade me to take North African territory, but it's horrendously expensive to core, hard to convert, wrong culture (that is also hard to convert) and mostly worthless. There are a few trade centres and a gold mine, but I usually just take Tangiers and leave them alone for the rest of the game. At most you could turn it into a march I guess, but that's also less than ideal since it would be Sunni unless you convert the territory first...
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Elman posted:Does this seem doable at all? Going to play devil's advocate a bit on this and say that I think it'd be pretty reasonable for you to quit this run. You don't have your armies in the sidebar, but based on your manpower and money I don't know if you have the resources to be as ridiculously aggressive as you'll need to to get the achievement on time. It's not even about having to fight the bigger powers, that might actually be the easy part if you can make some strong alliances (which it seems like you have). The hardest part is going to be taking all of Mali and Ethiopia's lands. There are a ton of provinces there and even though most of them are trash it's still probably going to take 3-4 wars each to grab them all up. Since you're going for max conquest every time it also means that you're going to have to eat 14-15 year truces, which means of your remaining 110 years about half are going to be spent just sitting and waiting for truces to expire, because as I'm sure you've learned by now rebellions in a country that huge and spread out are a gigantic pain in the rear end so taking a truce-breaking stab hit isn't an option. Then there's the time to fabricate claims, core your lands, convert them so everyone doesn't rebel every 10 seconds, etc, and suddenly your timeframe to actually expand looks very limited. On the other hand if you're having fun you might as well try to finish and see just how close you got, and use that as a learning exercise like you said. Just keep in mind that you're literally going to have to be fighting 100% of the time to have a chance, which might get a bit tedious after 30-40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:...because I am waiting for China to be represented better. Sindai posted:The development and faction changes made Ming buff enough that even with the autonomy floor they rarely lose a war badly enough to gain enough war exhaustion to start the rebel death spiral. It can happen but it's no longer a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
I have noticed that sieging a fort with 5 men in the garrison takes as long as sieging that same fort when it is at its max garrison  edit: and I cant assault unti lI get a wall breach, now, ugh. A Buttery Pastry posted:What do you think China is lacking, in terms of representation? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why vassals cost a relation slot to maintain but colonies and protectorates don't? All that does it make it so every vassal is someone you end up wanting to diplo-annex, there's no benefit for a long-term vassal. Sometimes I just want basically a big client/puppet state or what ever. It's like the whole vassal system is built around the assumption that they are just temporary until you annex them. I just want to have a huge vassal empire rather than paint the map my own colour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
reL posted:Ok, so, do you have any idea when that calculation is done? I can't remember from which province I issued the move order, but the scenario goes like this: It's the moment you declare war. If you declare war, any troops not in your territory, a vassal's territory, or on a ship1 get flagged as Exiled. Exiled troops cannot interact with enemy armies or provinces until they return to one of those places. This is done for two reasons: to allow troops in foreign lands to return home after peace is declared (Exiled also gets applied to troops standing in newly-neutral lands), and to prevent the exact sort of thing you're attempting to do. 1Troops in allied territory or uncolonized territory also don't get flagged as exiled upon a declaration of war, but returning to there does not clear the exiled flag. http://www.eu4wiki.com/Land_warfare#Exile PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
aaaaaaaaaaa I have 100 Power Projection and it gives me a whole +0.1 Republican Tradition :imafag: (I have like 10,000 more infantry I could be sieging the province with, if I could assault) So for Noble Republics every option is always going to be a 4 a 1 and a 1 in whatever order based on the type of guy? Then I need to re-elect them to give a +1's across the board?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Cannon help a lot with sieges, especially when it's just a level 1 castle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Speaking of exile, I wish the rules for that were a bit more lenient (or I guess strict) because I still occasionally run into an issue where I wish my guys would be exiled so that I could send them home through half a dozen neutral countries but can't because for some reason. I don't know if it's some rule that I'm unaware of or a bug, but in my old PLC game I would constantly be at war with half of central Europe, and every once in a while my guys would just get stuck in some OPM after a war ended. I eventually got better about not leaving guys in foreign land when ending a war, but it's still a bit annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Where is the separatism and how long it will last displayed for a selected province?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
VDay posted:Speaking of exile, I wish the rules for that were a bit more lenient (or I guess strict) because I still occasionally run into an issue where I wish my guys would be exiled so that I could send them home through half a dozen neutral countries but can't because for some reason. I don't know if it's some rule that I'm unaware of or a bug, but in my old PLC game I would constantly be at war with half of central Europe, and every once in a while my guys would just get stuck in some OPM after a war ended. I eventually got better about not leaving guys in foreign land when ending a war, but it's still a bit annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
double nine posted:Where is the separatism and how long it will last displayed for a selected province? Hover over their revolt risk, it starts at +15.00 and drops .5 every year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:So for Noble Republics every option is always going to be a 4 a 1 and a 1 in whatever order based on the type of guy? Then I need to re-elect them to give a +1's across the board? I've been using a Grand Republic and it seems like yeah that's what it is every time. On the plus side you can get some pretty powerful leaders by re-electing them a few times and you're never going to get hosed with some piece of poo poo 1/1/1 or a regency. So far I've skirted down to 70 republican tradition with no ill effects aside from not getting the full bonus from republic tradition. Worth it sometimes to have a great leader, though. Other times you can just elect a new guy to rebuild the republican tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:Cannon help a lot with sieges, especially when it's just a level 1 castle. I just do not understand why you cant assault if you have 100% more men than the fort, or why I can siege it with fewer men, or why it wouldnt fall faster considering there were so few men guarding the walls. Those ~200 dudes must not have slept for a year if they were guarding a fort's walls with so many men sieging for that long. Moridin920 posted:I've been using a Grand Republic and it seems like yeah that's what it is every time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Is there like a mod or something that adds some preset idea sets for the nation designer? I was gonna try and build Iraq to make a kinda gooniversalis set up but choosing ideas was too much for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I'm at miltech 4 otherwise I would have cannons :\ The glib answer: Because it's a castle with walls and that's a real bitch to get into when you don't have cannons, this is why they built Castles even though they were monstrously expensive. The gameplay answer: The number of times I'd use big stacks to grind down forts in no time when I had either lots of cash or manpower were many. It was kinda dumb that forts just meant "get some decent stacks of infantry and cannon, click assault" and you'd be able to bulldoze a smaller more developed country in no time. Given the way development works in CS and that small countries with high level forts are meant to be a tough nut to crack, it seems like being able to bypass them for some manpower would be undesirable. If I could snipe a key central fort without having to wait for the walls to breach it would simply make forts less useful. I suspect they wanted to make them hard to cheese in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
It should let you assault and then just face horrifying losses only to end up not taking the castle anyway and then it would be historically accurate.  The ability to build tunnels or whatever to make the sieges a little bit more interesting would be cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:aaaaaaaaaaa It seems like bullshit that a castle with 1/10th the normal garrison can hold out like that! Do undermanned forts get a penalty to defending or anything? edit: Gort posted:Do you know any particularly egregious examples of this? Glory (1989) Vivian Darkbloom fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It should let you assault and then just face horrifying losses only to end up not taking the castle anyway and then it would be historically accurate. Do you know any particularly egregious examples of this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
I tried Sons of Carthage a few months ago and hosed it up by waiting to become a merchant republic before expanding and then getting murdered by the Ottomans. So I'm giving that a shot again: Manage to ally the Ottomans and kill the Mamluks early on while giving the Ozzy's a nice lengthy peace deal with the Mamluks anatolian allies. Their staggering losses on my behalf led to multiple european invasions that took years to fend off. Morocco and Tlemcen allied and rivaled me at start and decided to invade a few years into the war, with the Ottomans telling me to deal with it on my own. Ungrateful bastards. But I reupped our alliance immediately.  By the time everything was said and done, I'd vassalized Tlemlen, the Ottomans were my eternally grateful allies (and like 3000 ducats in debt) and had yet to expand outside of Greece, and I still have all my money and manpower. I feel good about this run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:It seems like bullshit that a castle with 1/10th the normal garrison can hold out like that! Do undermanned forts get a penalty to defending or anything? Forts lose defenders with each siege tick. Should their number reach 0 the fort falls regardless of siege progress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:Do you know any particularly egregious examples of this? The only thing that comes to mind was a siege during an English war ~1265. Henry III and his son laid siege and it was the largest siege in terms of manpower ever in England. They tried to assault a couple times with all kinds of siege weapons but were unable to succeed and ultimately had to wait until the defenders surrendered. For reference the defending garrison was ~1200 men (which wasn't necessarily small for the time) and the castle itself was a pretty heavily fortified castle. Here's another one (more EU4 style ~1600), a force of ~15k men under Poland besieging a fortress/monastery garrisoned with ~2000 men. They tried assaulting a few times but took huge losses and ended up in a 16 mo. long siege (which ended up failing when the Russians sent troops to relieve the place). The attackers had cannons, even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Troitse-Sergiyeva_Lavra The problem is records aren't exactly the best so usually you get 'we took HUGE losses' instead of any exact numbers and huge could be anything from 10% to 50% or whatever. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Sons of Carthage Just be careful about how you finish off the Mamluks. You need to make sure the Ottomans don't get the Conquer Egypt and roll you. Since that mission requires them to hold Jerusalem and for the Mamluks to exist, make drat sure that's the last province that the Mamluks ever own. Bort Bortles posted:So for Noble Republics every option is always going to be a 4 a 1 and a 1 in whatever order based on the type of guy? Then I need to re-elect them to give a +1's across the board? That's how all election-based Republics work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can anyone explain why vassals cost a relation slot to maintain but colonies and protectorates don't? All that does it make it so every vassal is someone you end up wanting to diplo-annex, there's no benefit for a long-term vassal. Sometimes I just want basically a big client/puppet state or what ever. It's like the whole vassal system is built around the assumption that they are just temporary until you annex them. I find with CS that holding onto a few mega-Marches is a really great strategy. Expansion by vassal feeding and integration is way slower than previously. Marches no longer lose their bonuses after reaching a certain size (they keep them forever) and with the new vassal interactions you can change their religion, build forts for them, funnel manpower, all great. It's certainly not the same thing as having an HRE vassal swarm, but I'd very much recommend building up a couple marches in off-culture areas with a decent NI set. Bort Bortles posted:aaaaaaaaaaa Bort Bortles posted:I'm at miltech 4 otherwise I would have cannons :\ I might dig through the event files in a bit to find specifics, but I was corrected earlier in the thread and there's apparently a "sweet spot" between ~50-60 RT where you get +10 RT events. I think going below 40 is the danger zone where you're at risk of collapsing into a dictatorship. But there isn't much penalty to tanking your RT to 50 or so for good rulers, I wouldn't go lower than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
One more example of a failed assault assault, hopefully you don't mind:quote:The Great Siege of Gibraltar was an unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France to capture Gibraltar from the British during the American War of Independence. This was the largest action fought during the war in terms of numbers, particularly the Grand Assault of 18 September 1782. At three years and seven months, it is the longest siege endured by the British Armed Forces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:The glib answer: Because it's a castle with walls and that's a real bitch to get into when you don't have cannons, this is why they built Castles even though they were monstrously expensive. edit: should have updated the page before responding PittTheElder posted:That's how all election-based Republics work. Pellisworth posted:I might dig through the event files in a bit to find specifics, but I was corrected earlier in the thread and there's apparently a "sweet spot" between ~50-60 RT where you get +10 RT events. I think going below 40 is the danger zone where you're at risk of collapsing into a dictatorship. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Another horrendously failed assault: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)quote:The last act of the drama was played out in the Jewish quarter of the city. At dawn on 27 July the Turks launched a vigorous offensive and their vanguard of around 2,500 janissaries managed to take the tower of Italy and enter the city. A frenzied struggle ensued. The grand master, wounded in five places, directed the battle and fought with lance in hand. After three hours of fighting the enemy were decimated and the exhausted survivors began to withdraw. The Knights´ counter-attack caused the Turks to beat a disorderly retreat, dragging along with them the Vizier and commander-in-chief. The Hospitallers reached as far as his tent and took, along with other booty, the holy standard of Islam. On that day between three and four thousand Turks were slain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I might dig through the event files in a bit to find specifics, but I was corrected earlier in the thread and there's apparently a "sweet spot" between ~50-60 RT where you get +10 RT events. I think going below 40 is the danger zone where you're at risk of collapsing into a dictatorship. Is there any way to dig through the event files / game files and figure out the way the extra risk for monarch death is generated? Is it when you simply make him a general? Or is it when he is actively commanding an army? I know there's a separate chance to die when fighting in a battle, that one is only going to apply when he's leading. I'm curious about the extra chance of natural death though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
VDay posted:Going to play devil's advocate a bit on this and say that I think it'd be pretty reasonable for you to quit this run. You don't have your armies in the sidebar, but based on your manpower and money I don't know if you have the resources to be as ridiculously aggressive as you'll need to to get the achievement on time. It's not even about having to fight the bigger powers, that might actually be the easy part if you can make some strong alliances (which it seems like you have). The hardest part is going to be taking all of Mali and Ethiopia's lands. There are a ton of provinces there and even though most of them are trash it's still probably going to take 3-4 wars each to grab them all up. Since you're going for max conquest every time it also means that you're going to have to eat 14-15 year truces, which means of your remaining 110 years about half are going to be spent just sitting and waiting for truces to expire, because as I'm sure you've learned by now rebellions in a country that huge and spread out are a gigantic pain in the rear end so taking a truce-breaking stab hit isn't an option. Then there's the time to fabricate claims, core your lands, convert them so everyone doesn't rebel every 10 seconds, etc, and suddenly your timeframe to actually expand looks very limited. I tried to attack the Ottomans but got greedy (I figured I needed to!) and used the imperialism CB instead of just a claim. No way the Ottomans with low manpower can stop France+Commonwealth+Portugal from taking Constantinople, right? 10 years later I had no manpower and I was forced to white peace despite winning the war, and that was that  But yeah, it was a good run anyway. I'd never tried a hard achievement as a lovely tech group country before, so this helped me realized a bunch of stuff I was doing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Well, I imagine it's largely for balance reasons. Colonies don't really contribute to continental fights so they're less valuable in a direct military sense than vassals or Marches. Protectorates are really far from other subjects in that they don't even have independent governments or produce their own units. It's 40-50 and IIRC there are some bad events which start happening below 70 so ideally you want to spend as much time at 40-50 RT as possible or be near 100. Never go below 40 though. If anyone wants a fun "Republic super rulers" game then I strongly suggest Milan or Hamburg (start as Hansa, immediately release Hamburg and play as them). Hamburg is definitely going to be my first game with the new patch since the Hamburg province as a capital has some of the best -development cost you can get on a single province, though IIRC they don't get any NIs to help with that. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
If you're playing a country with +1 tradition (almost essential for a republic) you can pretty much keep electing the same guy until he dies and you'll hover around 55-65 RT. Sometimes a ruler lives a bit too long so you need to retire him early though. How much does it cost exactly to re-elect someone or does it depend on the length of terms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
If your nation has +legitimacy as an idea, and you switch to a republic, do you get +tradition instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Is there any way to dig through the event files / game files and figure out the way the extra risk for monarch death is generated? Is it when you simply make him a general? Or is it when he is actively commanding an army? Probably, though I doubt it's in the events files. I'm not really sure, there's probably a post on it on the pdx forums somewhere. I do know that the higher stats for a ruler/heir, the higher risk of him dying. Baronjutter posted:If you're playing a country with +1 tradition (almost essential for a republic) you can pretty much keep electing the same guy until he dies and you'll hover around 55-65 RT. Sometimes a ruler lives a bit too long so you need to retire him early though. Arrhythmia posted:If your nation has +legitimacy as an idea, and you switch to a republic, do you get +tradition instead? Nope, they're different things. Some ideas give both legitimacy and RT so benefit you either way, some are strictly one or the other. Mostly it's Legitimacy bonuses and those do nothing for RT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Probably, though I doubt it's in the events files. I'm not really sure, there's probably a post on it on the pdx forums somewhere. Well that was the clue I needed. Here's what I found from Reddit, it's a year old, and I'm going to use this until I get evidence to the contrary: http://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1wkete/making_a_general_does_raise_death_chance/ quote:Quoted from TheBloke, posted on ParadoxPlaza forum:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Well that was the clue I needed. Here's what I found from Reddit, it's a year old, and I'm going to use this until I get evidence to the contrary: I looked through on_actions and didn't see anything for ruler death, I'm guessing that stuff might be hardcoded somewhere. Looks like most of the events for having heirs die and special new ones born are in Dynastic
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
So my computer started lagging something fierce, I open task manager and shut down a few programs and killed EU4 while I was at it (really don't want the game to use processor/RAM time saving that I need finding the culprit) and somehow my ironman save was disabled. Bwuh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I completely understand the gameplay perspective, but at the same time that fort had been in enemy hands for a month or two (thus it likely would not be fully stocked with food, water, and other war materials). There were less than 200 men guarding a whole castle that likely had more than a kilometer of walls, with (at one point) 20,000 angry vikings sitting outside the walls. Beyond a certain point even simple ladders would be enough to assault the walls. I do not have a good concise solution, but I found it super frustrating and I am sure something reasonable could be done without breaking the game. Yeah I agree with that though and think it's reasonable. The highest walls are useless if there's no one to man them. I'm unsure how the mechanics in EU4 work but if an invader can take a fort over and have it reset to 0 status and be fresh for another siege then yeah that's kind of dumb. An easy balance tweak (well easy to describe at least): If a wall breach is necessary to assault then wall breaches should remain until the occupant repairs the fort. Like damaged buildings in Total War. You can take a city over but if you thrash the walls doing it you can't exactly rely on them a month later. Or have like a stockpile that wears down and then takes time to replenish between sieges. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Unfortunately there aren't that many nations with RT bonuses. Venice gets a couple from events, Novgorod has the largest bonus as far as I know. Venice has the strongest RT bonuses. After 100 years you should have +0.6 RT/year from two permanent event modifiers (Some time after 1520.) Since I don't think anyone else gets permanent RT modifiers from events. It's possible (I think?) to get to 0.8 RT/year, but that requires taking a -0.3 hit to your RT/year for ~100 years (~1550-~1650.) And it's not guaranteed to happen since it's a MTTH of 10 years and can only fire within a 20 year span, which would leave you stuck with +0.3 RT/year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
My Fylkirate gets +1 RT/year right from the beginning  And for some reason it gave me the Anatolian ideas instead of the Jomsvikings ideas during the conversion. The first two of those give -20% core cost, +5% discipline, and -1 national unrest so I'm not complaining  Although thinking about it does that mean it also gave me the Anatolian tech group? Hm. e: CK2 to EU4 conversion is OP as gently caress Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
 Why the hell does this drat centre of reformation keep targeting my provinces instead of the million other non reformed provinces around it. They haven't stopped since I gotten the provinces, it's like, wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:25
|
|
