|
Bort Bortles posted:Yeah I stayed at war with Castille and POrtugal with Cueta, Mediera, the Azores, and the Canaries occupied...the warscore even after it finished ticking was around 40%, maybe? They ended up going to war with other people and got trashed (well, Castille did) so I eventually peaced out with a ~10 year truce and they never explored. I have no idea how it would work these days, but I am tempted to try it again. My favorite thing to do is to actually let the Europeans colonize and then just bully the poo poo out of them and take all their colonies every 10-15 years. It just takes one solid war to cripple the bigger powers enough that you can then spend the next 100 years declaring wars the day your truces end, at which point there will be anywhere between 3 and 6 colonies ready for you to grab.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
VDay posted:My favorite thing to do is to actually let the Europeans colonize and then just bully the poo poo out of them and take all their colonies every 10-15 years. It just takes one solid war to cripple the bigger powers enough that you can then spend the next 100 years declaring wars the day your truces end, at which point there will be anywhere between 3 and 6 colonies ready for you to grab. To add to this, provinces that were colonized, not conquered from natives, provide 0% overextension, so you can often feed most of north or south america to your colonial nation in a single war. You still get some separatism, but without the overextension it's nothing you can't just patrol until it goes away. In my Ottomans WC I ate all of North America (minus ~30 provinces necessary to create a colonial nation in each region) in about 50 years (some trucebreaking was required).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Does anyone else every accidentally start wars? Sometimes I'll click on declare war to see if my allies will join and if the target's allies will join then I'll get a pop up and without thinking I will hit enter and start the war, most of the time when I'm at a great disadvantage. Happened a few times now...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Does anyone else every accidentally start wars? Sometimes I'll click on declare war to see if my allies will join and if the target's allies will join then I'll get a pop up and without thinking I will hit enter and start the war, most of the time when I'm at a great disadvantage. Happened a few times now... Just that I forgot we had a truce: Allies will join: check Their big allies will not join: check My navy in place to decapitate their navy on day one: check Quickly send a diplomat for forging a claim on that last province that you may or may not take: check Enough mana saved for war taxes, reducing war exhaustion and voring: check. Ahead in military tech: check LET'S GO Bam, minus 3 or 5 stability. Fuuuuuuu
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Just that I forgot we had a truce:
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Can someone please teach me how to utterly destroy Bahmanis please thank you (India is far more awesome than I initially thought - sure I am making things harder by selecting a releasable nation which may break me sooner or later)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
So I ended up converting my Latin Empire game to EU4 and now im just like wtf lost. I know itd be easier to start as a newbie country in normal EU4 but I don't want to/ the same poo poo confuses me. Should I just focus on learning war and then having the natural "WELL YA DIDNT DO THAT RIGHT HEYOOO" event diplomacy stuff to pop up or just work on stabilizing my Empire? There is just soooo much going on per area compared to CK2 i feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Chickpea Roar posted:I just accepted Orthodox rebel demands and I kept the statute in restraint of appeals gently caress first I find out I missed out on the venetian +2 tolerance +10% RU event and now I missed this one
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This would have been a great post if not for the mana reference. Or am I just being a snob? You are not. Transmetropolitan posted:Can someone please teach me how to utterly destroy Bahmanis please thank you I wish I knew. I'm trying to get an Orissa game rolling, and I'm doing OK; conquered Bengal and most of Jaunpur, but I just can't stand up against the Muslim alliance that is Bahmanis, Malwa and Delhi. The other Hindu polities on the continent are weak as hell, and probably wouldn't even still be around if I wasn't propping them up all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:48
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Bort Bortles posted:This would have been a great post if not for the mana reference. Or am I just being a snob? No. It's a rather tired meme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Transmetropolitan posted:Can someone please teach me how to utterly destroy Bahmanis please thank you Sometimes they just collapse and they also occasionally become diplomatically isolated due to being Shia. If they retake their cores and start blobbing they can get pretty scary, nobody is really going to stop them from eating the entire of South India. If this has already happened then you just need to get huger and beat them up enough that they start to get rebel problems. If you're warring them early then your best bet is to try and take their gold province, without that they will be unable to spam crazy amounts of mercenaries. My usual method is to just ignore them and dominate the North first, at which point you should be strong enough to fight them face on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
My Orissa game only got off because the Timurids stayed strong for 50 years and hosed with all the alliances. Admittedly it took me 3 or 4 restarts as well, I don't think there's a fix strategy for Orissa, the start is simply too weak with all those strong nations around you. I think I've hardly been as opportunistic before as in this game tough, just wait until someone fucks up then jump on them to grow. I also used two early colonies to grab lands in Indonesia to get some more power, that seemed to help with forcelimits and manpower too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
OH COME ON!!  10 YEAR REGENCY AND THEN THIS?! gently caress this game seriously. I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This would have been a great post if not for the mana reference. Or am I just being a snob? Maybe just a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
double nine posted:OH COME ON!! Always remember: Your current heir is only a suggestion. Anticipating their succession is the path to tears and pain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Started as Ardalan, the Kurdish OPM vassal of the Timurids, now around 1600 I'm Persia and own almost the whole Arabian peninsula. Kurdish starting thing gives you an extra diplomat, also an early one gives tolerance of heretics, awesome for expanding amongst Shia and Sunni. I picked up Humanism, Quantity and Trade. Any ideas for what other stuff I should be looking at? Also, not sure how to westernize, or if it's worth it, I would need to conquer myself through Mamluks (my ally) or Ethiopia to get to france/portugal. Of couse the Otomans lost the whole western side of their country, wish that had happened when I was the Knights or Byz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
New dev diary. Discount for developing capitals in big states, revanchism that makes it a bit easier to bounce back from defeats, and some ironman changes, including:Wiz posted:We're changing Ironman to be quarterly.  also steppe stuff next week I'm not sure how I feel about revanchism; aren't countries pretty drat stable already? I guess it's good if it stops little-medium countries getting chain-DOWed and obliterated so easily, but on the other hand having Russia or Ming go from taking like 5 doom wars to break to 10 sounds like a huge pain in the rear end. Maybe if it had a lessened effect at higher development or something. OTOH I haven't actually tried it out yet so in practice it could be totally different who knows Koramei fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not sure I'd describe death spirals as a problem. Seems like yet another thing that will need to be balanced and sort of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenario. But who knows, maybe it's cool in practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Goddammit WHAT, you need to be Western to use the Overseas Expansion casus belli?! I JUST WANT TO UNIFY AFRICA UNDER A PLURALIST MUSLIM STATE
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Western, Eastern, or Ottoman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
I mean, I'm mainly vassalizing-annexing the African states to expand so I guess I don't really need it...but I still ended up maxing out my first Idea slot for a colonist and some income boosters! I could've used those ADM points on base tax development and Administrative instead so I could resort to dumping mercs on everything forever 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Is EU 4 now at a state that it isn't broken? After every major DLC it takes a couple patches to fix things so I just want to check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is EU 4 now at a state that it isn't broken? After every major DLC it takes a couple patches to fix things so I just want to check. The hotfix came out like 2 days after the patch launched and was fine from then on out you whiner-baby
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Just that I forgot we had a truce: See I've done this too, and it's not my fault it's Paradox's fault.  It's a UI issue. Lots of times there is enough information in that tiny little box that the huge stability hit is 'below the fold' and requires scrolling down. It should really be promoted to the top of the list!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is EU 4 now at a state that it isn't broken? After every major DLC it takes a couple patches to fix things so I just want to check. It's been fine for weeks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is EU 4 now at a state that it isn't broken? After every major DLC it takes a couple patches to fix things so I just want to check. EU4 has been generally fine for a while. The number of issues always spikes a bit after a new release, but Wiz's team has apparently paid down their tech debt aggressively enough that these spikes have gotten pretty small. I'm confident about playing each new DLC on release day now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Revanchism looks good from a gameplay perspective, but it feels a bit out of place historically. Does John Q. Serf really care if he's ruled by a German king rather than a French one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Paradox Plaza posted:While I like the idea of Revanchism, two things worry me greatly about it. Oh you guys. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:The hotfix came out like 2 days after the patch launched and was fine from then on out you whiner-baby I haven't played since prior to Art of War so I don't loving know. But if its all good cool, I'm gonna reinstall it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
horselords part 2, please come with a formable Turkestan/Tatarstan or something like it I've only played one mod with altaic and tatar cultural unions because most modders are too busy with their Angevin Unions and various Romes to bother
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Revanchism looks good from a gameplay perspective, but it feels a bit out of place historically. Does John Q. Serf really care if he's ruled by a German king rather than a French one? I think the opposite. It makes sense for a beat nation to get nationalistic and build up to get back. Maybe later in history though, I guess, since nationalism wasn't really a think before a certain time period?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
 My successful Bengal Tiger run. It's the mid 17th century. Eating India was a bitch, and I'm incredibly behind on admin tech because of it. I basically was extremely aggressive in the game. The advantage Bengal has is that it is surronded by 4/5 different religious groups, allowing you free reign to expand once one side has gotten all uppity about your rampant expansionism. Ming fell apart really early, which was great because it prevented an early game bitch slap by Ming. I basically waited patiently for the Hindus and the Muslims to fight each other, at which point I would move in to expand. Eventually, France DOW'd me (Spain also got its poo poo pushed in this game) and took Bengal Delta from me, allowing me to westernize. While that was happening, Yarkand was chewing on Tibet, so I decided to set things to right on the northern plateau and reprettyfy the borders. Eventually, I owned so much of India that nobody could resist me, which allowed me to grab back Samarkand. I ran 100% piety pretty much the whole game in order to convert provinces, which, in retrospect, was an enormous waste of time. I would definitely recommend humanism as Bengal. I also ended up eating a significant chunk of SE Asia, which brought me gold and trade provinces that really made the difference for my war machine. I fought France for my core, a war that was hilariously costly, ran me completely dry of manpower, and ended up being a good way to spend a regency and absolutely not worth it for the Bengal Delta province back. I barely, barely won by getting my core back from France, even with their ally Pasai chunking away at my manpower. Once that occured, the next war with France when they went for a reconquest on me was a slice of cake - I was so strong, had so much manpower, and so much gold that every army they landed in India was quickly destroyed. Then, I decided to finish the achievement by just snaking my way through Bukhara (whch had by the grace of Allah, formed somehow), which turned out to be anti-climax. Now thats done, I think I'm done with this game. Any suggestions on what I should try next? Something that's easy and not gonna require me to perfectly vassal feed would be preferrable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Sistergodiva posted:I think the opposite. It makes sense for a beat nation to get nationalistic and build up to get back. Maybe later in history though, I guess, since nationalism wasn't really a think before a certain time period? It sounds like they're trying to create Joan of Arc style comeback stories, which is certainly historical. That sort of thing was the birth of nationalism, and that makes sense for this time period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm not sure how I feel about revanchism; aren't countries pretty drat stable already? I guess it's good if it stops little-medium countries getting chain-DOWed and obliterated so easily, but on the other hand having Russia or Ming go from taking like 5 doom wars to break to 10 sounds like a huge pain in the rear end. I'm a little hesitant about revanchism because I'm not sure it's needed, but it wouldn't actually change anything about how you fight giant blobs. It doesn't affect war score, it just means that now big blobs might not completely collapse after losing just one big war. But it's not going to suddenly make fighting France, Ottos, Russia, or Ming take twice as long, and completely crushing a country and depleting their manpower/armies is still going to hurt and will still leave them weak. It just, at least in theory, gives them a slight bonus so that they're not sitting dead in the water for a decade after a lost war. I guess we'll see how well it works soon-ish. Mr.Morgenstern posted:Oh you guys. Yeah if there's one thing developers hate it's their games having broad mass appeal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
What causes the trade failure event?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
liveoctopus posted:It sounds like they're trying to create Joan of Arc style comeback stories, which is certainly historical. That sort of thing was the birth of nationalism, and that makes sense for this time period. I would really like to see some kind of system that models complacency, where you gradually degenerate as you succeed and are rejuvenated when you fail. To me, the French Revolution is a really good example of this: the strongest player in Europe doesn't get to go revolutionary - it's always one of the weaker ones, especially one that has just recently experienced a failure. But that's a very specific case, not a generalized mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:
Yeah Bengal is almost kind of a mini-Ottoman empire as far as scenario goes, complete with crazy bonus religious unity and a manpower modifier. They rarely get serious unrest and as you said they can expand in almost any direction. They're a great option for people looking to break out of the standard European game. Even so, vassal strats are the way to go for that achievement. Coring the entire Indian subcontinent takes a terrifying amount of diplo points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
You don't actually need to own most of India for that achievement either though. In my Bengal Tiger run I just drilled through Delhi and whoever else was between Bengal and Samarkand in a long snake and then declared on the Timurids when they were falling apart like they always are and grabbed Samarkand off them. Took like 50 years iirc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Bengal is in a pretty perfect position to do Silk Road though too. I grabbed them both on the same run. e: VV I agree, the Sultanates really are too easy. Bengal is the Ottomans of India. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Playing with the sultanates there is just ~wrong~ you haters of sacred bovines Gonna tinker a bit with Vijayanagar. For those who have 360 noscope mad skills, go Punjab and go Sikh. Your very own religion and you are frontloaded with military bonuses front to back ready to bring a fuckton of tolerance, class equality and free meals to everyone in this damned subcontinent
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:27
|
|