|
TTBF posted:I dunno man, the heavy emphasis on the Ottomans needing buffing kind of borders on the nationalistic fury. I'm not very good at the game yet but the Ottomans haven't needed any buffing from what I've seen while playing as them. A universal change to claims increasing the discount on coring cost, coring time, and warscore cost (and maybe even having claims cut down a bit on overextension) would probably help them expand via their conquer missions faster. With that they'd be able to build up strength faster and then their current settings would be good enough to carry them through most of the trials you've mentioned. Literally every nation is pretty damned strong when someone is playing them. The point of these musings is how to make the AI play up to their historical achievements. Because right now they don't at all.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 03:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
I had a look and there actually are quite alot of events now for the emergence of Persia and for Qizilbash revolts and the Safavids (represented as +5.00 unrest in Ardabil), the problem is if course that they only cause normal nationalist revolts and install a random ruler of a random dynasty. It would be more fun if you could actually play as the Safavids, maybe with an alternate way to form Persia (some of the more fun events require Persia to exist) even without all the required provinces. There's even an event for the conversion of the country, which is a bit weird because they did not change the province religions in the 1444 start date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Dude if you want to play the Safavids so bad why don't you just start in like 1450 instead of 1444?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Dude if you want to play the Safavids so bad why don't you just start in like 1450 instead of 1444? Persia doesn't exist until 1501 in the game and by then they already own all of Azerbaijan, so that takes some of the fun out of it. Just gonna make a mod for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Literally every nation is pretty damned strong when someone is playing them. The point of these musings is how to make the AI play up to their historical achievements. Because right now they don't at all. Which is why I then proposed a way to change a game mechanic that would help the Ottomans achieve their historical heights without directly buffing just them. It'd also help other countries that expand via the conquer missions. I don't have enough knowledge of the game to state with certainty that it's a great solution but it's the one that I've thought about while playing as them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
So yeah doing a Brandenburg game and having Poland get a PU over Bohemia and Austria is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
I'm getting owned in Europe with some ill-timed wars but at least my Balkan holdings look like a chode  
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No it doesn't. Option A: Whoops, you're right, I forgot. Well, less amusingly, it rhymes with faults/malts/Balts. Option B: It does now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
I've done 2 persia games right in a row. what's the problem people have? If you form it as Qar whatever you become the Safavid, baring any tribal succession crises. The first one I got real real lucky and the Ottomans didn't rival me at the get go. the second one I had a storyline I wanted so I removed myself from the Mamluk rivals list ala console and now it's 1600ish and we've destroyed the ottomans The Antolian/Iran area is one of my favorite geographic areas. Qar whatever is a really great start cause you can eat up most of the caucaus with like no AE and no one wants to help georgia and the 2 shia Caucasus states are real eager to be your vassals. Beating up the Timurids after that is real easy and you can get most of the provinces needed for Persia in 1 war. the glories a Mamluk/Persian alliance can do  PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I've done 2 persia games right in a row. what's the problem people have? A fun Persia game is Tabarestan > Persia then do the This Is Persia achievement. Good combo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Emperor of Cornwall? Oh lmao 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Kersch posted:Emperor of Cornwall? "Succession war between Great Britain and Wales." Well, I know who I'm rooting for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:A fun Persia game is Tabarestan > Persia then do the This Is Persia achievement. Good combo. Ironman doesn't want to work for me so no chievos . also i cheated to change Erzurum province to azerbaijani when i was still Qar whatever cause I thought it was kinda silly that even when they were shiite that the turks wouldn't azerify cause the ottomans existed
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's just your home brew and nothing on Steam right? I'd be really curious to see what you've done if you think it's ready for the light of day at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Dei Gratia. The guy who makes it is a pretty good dude too. It was an excellent for EU3, I'd consider it essential along with SRI (which expanded the HRE), though I haven't tried the EU4 version. A balanced, working version of some of the SRI mechanics (imperial reforms that make sense, the westphalian peace conference, the german peasants war) would be pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"Succession war between Great Britain and Wales." How does Cornwall even get into the HRE?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
My game as France is funny because I curb stomped the nations that had a mind to colonize N. America so that part of the world is all but bare by 1752. I don't know who else does this but before waging a big war to release a nation (like Naples from Spain) I will ally myself with everyone I can think of and demand that everyone join in on the war days later - either destabilizing them (good for me) or bringing more cannon fodder (not as good but good for me) Poor Portugal has not wised up to this yet. Also - I turned the Pyreneese into Mordor with a 6 level 4 forts and each time I war against Spain I get to sit back and watch the Spanish armies break upon the mountains from attrition. What I will say is the last war had Spain just sit back and stare at the mountain line from Girona almost as if it was saying "I remember what happened last time I tried that, and hell no." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
mod talk: Is there some good things that add some ahistorical events and missions for like a surviving mameluk? Basic like flavor stuff, things to do when not at war or colonization?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
TTBF posted:Which is why I then proposed a way to change a game mechanic that would help the Ottomans achieve their historical heights without directly buffing just them. It'd also help other countries that expand via the conquer missions. I don't have enough knowledge of the game to state with certainty that it's a great solution but it's the one that I've thought about while playing as them. The problem with that is that the Ottoman take over of Egypt was pretty damned unique, and there is very little in the period that comes close to it. The only thing that comes close is the ridiculous inheritances of Charles V. The Ottoman takeover of Egypt should really be a DHE where, if the Ottomans hold Cairo, they just snap inherit the Mamluks, but have to accept a hefty autonomy penalty in Egypt proper. I mean, quite literally everything owned by the Mamluks in 1444 was effectively conquered by the Ottomans in less than 3 years. Nothing short of a heavy-handed DHE will ever come close to that. Once you give the Ottomans their big boost in the East, they're free to ravage Hungary and threaten the Empire, with naval supremacy in the Eastern Med. e: If anything, I'm starting to think claims might be better off gone anyway. They just seem to mess up the AI by accruing a bunch of AE they don't seem to know how to deal with. I'm amazed by how many European minors seem to think it's a good idea to rack up 60+ AE with all of Germany. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The problem with that is that the Ottoman take over of Egypt was pretty damned unique, and there is very little in the period that comes close to it. The only thing that comes close is the ridiculous inheritances of Charles V. The Ottoman takeover of Egypt should really be a DHE where, if the Ottomans hold Cairo, they just snap inherit the Mamluks, but have to accept a hefty autonomy penalty in Egypt proper. I mean, quite literally everything owned by the Mamluks in 1444 was effectively conquered by the Ottomans in less than 3 years. Nothing short of a heavy-handed DHE will ever come close to that. PittTheElder posted:Once you give the Ottomans their big boost in the East, they're free to ravage Hungary and threaten the Empire, with naval supremacy in the Eastern Med.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
The Ottomans have been consistently conquering both Syria and Egypt in my games as of the latest patch and the beta, though obviously not as quickly as in reality. But they don't seem to have a problem there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
At least Persia forms by rebels a lot of the time now, still almost never see Mughals. Can we just have the Persia and Mughal decisions reforming government back? Just disallow Timurids from using either. We got it back for Qing at least. Having to pay an extra 400 admin power and 3 stability just to change tag makes it a lot less fun
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:At least Persia forms by rebels a lot of the time now, still almost never see Mughals. Can we just have the Persia and Mughal decisions reforming government back? Just disallow Timurids from using either. We got it back for Qing at least. Timurids should be allowed to form Mughals though, seeing as though the Mughals were Timurids. e: But, yeah I don't think I've ever seen Mughals form in any patch. Persia does in fact often form as of the latest patches, as there are now some nifty events that add unrest in Persian core provinces and then some more events that spawn nationalist rebels aligned with Persia if it exists. Which seems to allow Persia to violently erupt from Timurid territories and then rapidly absorb the remaining Persian provinces. Currently making a mod for myself that involves the Safavids more directly in that they are a country in Ardabil in 1444 (might make it 1448 though, since I can't use ironman when using a mod anyway) and will tune the events so that they are likely to benefit from the unrest in the Timurid Empire. e2: I'm not really sure what you would do for the Mughals though. Maybe it would be more likely if you made the missions "Riches of India" and "Conquest of Delhi" available to any Altaic culture muslim country with its capital in Central Asia or Afghanistan, rather than just the Timurids? Those missions are essentially what you need to take in order to do it as they give the necessary claims and award admin points. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Timurids should be allowed to form Mughals though, seeing as though the Mughals were Timurids. Not really. Timur had been dead for more than a century before Babur's victory at Panipat. Babur certainly claimed legitimacy through his relation to Timur, but nearly every ruler around did. The polity that Babur ruled (his control was loose at best) had no direct political lineage to Timur's empire, and would be better described as an Emirate of either Ferghana or Kabul, if you wanted to stick a name on a map. As it is, you would never ever see the historical formation play out in EU4, and making it work would be loads of effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Not really. Timur had been dead for more than a century before Babur's victory at Panipat. Babur certainly claimed legitimacy through his relation to Timur, but nearly every ruler around did. The polity that Babur ruled (his control was loose at best) had no direct political lineage to Timur's empire, and would be better described as an Emirate of either Ferghana or Kabul, if you wanted to stick a name on a map. Well, I didn't mean Timurid as in country "Timurids" in EUIV I meant as in part of the Timurid dynasty. But really part of the problem is that only the Timurids get the missions that give claims on the provinces necessary to form Mughals, and even in past patches where they survived and held onto Persia the AI always seemed more interested in expanding into Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Those missions should be made available to other countries that have rulers that resemble the historical Babur in broad strokes; Turko-Mongol Muslim, militarily skilled, located in Central Asia or Afghanistan and descended from Timur (that last one should only increase the acquisition chance for the mission). That likely won't be enough but it might do something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Qing takeover of China is pretty similar. Obviously it took longer, but China is also a far far bigger prize. In both cases, a(n equally heavy-handed) decision could work too I think. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Poil posted:No, no, no, no, NO! It's already painful enough to deal with Muslim provinces as it is without adding more crap. If the Iberians had been able to conquer the North African coast as thoroughly in real life they would probably had managed to converted them. The whole area living under Catholic rule for a few generations with an active inquisition is likely to be successful (and quite inhumane). Just changing some of the +missionary strength that catholics have access to to +missionary strength against heretics though would not really be tacking on stuff. It's just that as far as I have experienced it seems that the AI for Castille and Portugal is way too successful at conquering the entirety of the Maghreb and turning all of it into catholics. Spain actually did rule over a substantial part of Morocoo for quite a long time though and won very few converts historically. They quickly erased Islam in Granada because those who did not convert were exiled, that's a bit harder to do in a large foreign country that's mostly deserts and mountains. Also the Inquisition would have been very little help as they were in fact not at all involved in converting people to Christianity, they only had jurisdiction over Christians and their efforts against Muslims and Jews was pretty much entirely dedicated to making sure that those that had already been converted stayed converted (also worth noting that Inquisitors were jurists, not priests, theologians or missionaries). The real problem anyway is that the hugbox allows the Iberians to dogpile the helplessly outnumbered Bebers. So this is pretty much a side note.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Just changing some of the +missionary strength that catholics have access to to +missionary strength against heretics though would not really be tacking on stuff. It's just that as far as I have experienced it seems that the AI for Castille and Portugal is way too successful at conquering the entirety of the Maghreb and turning all of it into catholics. Spain actually did rule over a substantial part of Morocoo for quite a long time though and won very few converts historically. They quickly erased Islam in Granada because those who did not convert were exiled, that's a bit harder to do in a large foreign country that's mostly deserts and mountains. Also the Inquisition would have been very little help as they were in fact not at all involved in converting people to Christianity, they only had jurisdiction over Christians and their efforts against Muslims and Jews was pretty much entirely dedicated to making sure that those that had already been converted stayed converted (also worth noting that Inquisitors were jurists, not priests, theologians or missionaries).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:e2: I'm not really sure what you would do for the Mughals though. Maybe it would be more likely if you made the missions "Riches of India" and "Conquest of Delhi" available to any Altaic culture muslim country with its capital in Central Asia or Afghanistan, rather than just the Timurids? Those missions are essentially what you need to take in order to do it as they give the necessary claims and award admin points. Poil posted:The Manchu never gets strong enough to take on Ming. Ming just has way too much armies, manpower, money and military tech for Manchu to even stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:I've done 2 persia games right in a row. what's the problem people have? I'm honestly more impressed by AI Italy in 1553.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I'm honestly more impressed by AI Italy in 1553.  I don't think I've ever seen the AI form Italy, even if a huge Italian blob forms they usually ignore Rome.Randarkman posted:Timurids should be allowed to form Mughals though, seeing as though the Mughals were Timurids. I think that the way that this was handled in MM was one of the best possible solutions; basically the Timurids couldn't form Mughals (on the basis that they already had a great capital in Samarkand and were plenty prestigious) but they had a special tribal succession event that happened if the new ruler had lovely stats which would basically force you to tag switch to one of a few successor states and then release all of your other provinces outside of a certain region. Then you could either go ahead and try and reform a true Timurid (successor) Empire by owning Samarkand and some of the other major cities in the Persia region, or go into India as Babur did and form the Mughals. Forming Timurids was way harder but you got a ton of prestige and poo poo for reforming the tag. Usually one of the Azeri tags in the region would get fat and conquer enough stuff from the successors to form Persia (they got events to help) or occasionally one of the successor states would 'go native' and form Persia itself. It was a really fun region to play in and it avoided stupid issues such as the easiest way to form Mughals being to start as an Indian sultanate, annex Baluchistan, and culture shift, or Timurids and/or the Turkomen hordes living forever and Persia never forming, though EU4 does seem to have solved a decent number of those issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
I've run three games to ~1500 AD from the 1453 start (because of the countries present) now on observer to test out if making the Indian conquest missions more available might make it more likely to see Mughals. For the moment the answer seems to be no, especially as I've been seeing the same pattern emerge in all of those. That being that while it this does succeed in more countries receiving those missions (which should be obvious unless there was a syntax error in the .txt file) they don't really seem to act on their claims at all, the closest was one failed attempt by Khorasan on Multan as Multan was being invaded by Delhi. As for why they are not declaring war for their claims I think it is because the countries you see in this area tend to be weaker than the countries on the other side of the Hindu Kush, especially Delhi which has a tendency to quickly gobble up Multan and other nearby minors and becoming a mighty obstacle to someone who just rules in Khorasan, Transoxania or Baluchistan. Also the Indians have lots of nearby alliance partners who can help them in defensive wars and will often aid in offensive wars as well, due to the short distances involved, meanwhile the "prospective Mughals" tend to rival each other and ally with far-off Hordes or the Ottomans or the Mamluks, who will not join an offensive war due to distance, but they will drag their alliance partner into costly and destructive wars far away in Russia or the Balkans. So, yeah, if you want to see Mughals form I guess it will have to be somewhat more involved than this simple little "fix". Requring either the AI to operate differently or some DHE ala the one mentioned from MM. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I've run three games to ~1500 AD from the 1453 start (because of the countries present) now on observer to test out if making the Indian conquest missions more available might make it more likely to see Mughals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Seems a general issue that some countries ally with people from way too far away, which sorta also plays into the problem of not being able to beat one of your neighbors because they're friends with some major power half a world away who is perfectly happy to expend the same effort fighting you as they do fighting a coalition rampaging through their lands. Except when I ally Castille as Brittany they can't get off their rear end to take the long, arduous hike through Navarra and help me with France. Assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Except when I ally Castille as Brittany they can't get off their rear end to take the long, arduous hike through Navarra and help me with France. Assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
I think my game got bugged. I am playing as Hungary, did the own the Hapsburg lands achievement and then I kicked the Ottomans out of the Balkans for fun. Got elected emperor by pure chance since the electors liked me and thought that I might as well kick off the league wars since it looked like the catholic league would win quite easily. So I declared league war against Bohemia and well... This is how the HRE looks  I don't get why no one joined in. This game is pretty much hosed, thank god I finished the achievement in time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Star posted:I think my game got bugged. I am playing as Hungary, did the own the Hapsburg lands achievement and then I kicked the Ottomans out of the Balkans for fun. Got elected emperor by pure chance since the electors liked me and thought that I might as well kick off the league wars since it looked like the catholic league would win quite easily. So I declared league war against Bohemia and well... Did you make sure to select the League War CB? iirc, any war you declare against the enemy leader calls in their league, but only the League War CB calls in yours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
It's not that hosed, just give in and let protestant be the league religion and convert to protestant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:There's so many things I'd like to tinker with if, with varying degrees of possibility. In no particular order: PittTheElder posted:
Isn't Muscovy weak enough this patch already? They seem to get stomped into the ground by Lithuania + hordes nearly every game, it's embarrassing. PittTheElder posted:
Why, specifically, do you want to remove a colonist from Expansion? I agree with slowing down colonization, but idk what Expansion is if it's not the compromise half-trade half-exploration group. (And I don't see how giving more colonists to the historical colonizers would help anything - they're the ones who are colonizing too fast already!) PittTheElder posted:
The thing is that there's such a large 'overhead' to wars, in terms of the initial costs of fighting an enemy who has healthy armies, that it simply does not make sense for anyone (AI or human) to end a war for minor gains. Since war in EU generally involves wiping out your opponents armies, the cost of getting the latter 75% warscore is much, much lower than the first 25%. Forts and shattered retreats have both tried to mitigate this, but it might be a fundamental flaw in EU's combat model - the ability for armies to stay in action for year after year, occupying entire countries with only a very tenuous respect for 'logistics' and 'supply lines', allows for this kind of total war in a way that period armies rarely could. Agreed with most of the points I didn't quote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Poil posted:I see. And I completely agree with the hugbox. But if the Iberians don't always manage to dogpile the Berbers there's no need to screw with missionary stuff. Absolutely. Just because two nations occasionally manage to convert some ahistorical area doesn't mean you need to go mess with fundamental game mechanics like making Muslims harder to convert - mechanics which also affect the other 200-whatever nations as well. If you want to model the reconquista/inquisition as an Iberia-only thing that's all well and good but you also run the risk of getting back into an EU2-esque "history's on rails, lads!" situation which, frankly, was not nearly as fun as the open-ended gameplay we have now. The ability to do wacky poo poo in new and interesting places is what gets people come back to these games again and again - how many times am I seriously going to play in Iberia if I look at North Africa and "meh, effort" and do yet_another_game_of_colonization?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 15:44
|
|