|
I like generals being tied entirely to army tradition and you just getting screwed sometimes; if you let people pick, then they'll always just pick the best one. Why even let us choose at that point. What needs changing is army tradition- right now it's hard as gently caress to influence unless you railroad yourself into picking very specific idea groups every game. Also I don't like Random New World 'cause the tiles are all too small, the native ideas are boring as hell and the flags are universally weird. I've yet to find a random new world that's actually as interesting to look at as the real new world, past the novelty of a couple of funny tiles. The system it's tied to is really robust now though and I think they've specifically said they're gonna fix those issues, so in the future it should be great.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Hordes really need a nerf if only because it's dumb as hell that you unequivocally weaken yourself by reforming unless you never intend on taking any more provinces after that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Is CK2 bad these days or something? People keep saying they don't want EU4 to end up like CK2 but I thought people were pretty happy with most of the expansions there. The last one I played was Way of Life so maybe Horse Lords sucked? Has there been one since Horse Lords? Just curious. CK2 hasn't been a tight and focused game since Old Gods was released. The nice thing about EU4 is that every mechanic works together pretty smoothly and deliberately to create a certain game balance. CK2 was never about that in the same way, but it had more of that quality originally than it does now. CK2 really needs a set of big patches to rebalance the game and fully develop some of the half-there religions and features that have been added over the years. It's still fun though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Hordes really need a nerf if only because it's dumb as hell that you unequivocally weaken yourself by reforming unless you never intend on taking any more provinces after that point. This is the only reason I would nerf/change hordes. I think it's fine that they're strong when played by a player. It's nice to have more options if you feel like playing a huge blob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I guess they can't really advertise a new DLC as "this fixes all our old systems but adds nothing new", but they can't really spend the time they need to on doing that when they can't sell it. Sure they can, a lot of devs do that all the time, only they usually call such a release a "patch" and they're generally free
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I like generals being tied entirely to army tradition and you just getting screwed sometimes; if you let people pick, then they'll always just pick the best one. Why even let us choose at that point. What needs changing is army tradition- right now it's hard as gently caress to influence unless you railroad yourself into picking very specific idea groups every game. Mostly agreed, but I suspect the main thing that should change with army tradition is increasing the amount you get from battles/sieges. Possibly also tweaking the bonus for fort maintenance. Small balance adjustments with a big impact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
I bought Cossacks and I'd do it again I tells ya.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Didn't Uzbeks get a buff? Or did I imagine that. This is probably baseless conjecture, but at least in EU3, Paradox kept piling new features on until they started to lose coherence. Then they did a post-mortem, grabbed everything that worked, and put it into EU4. Now they're piling features onto EU4. At some point, maybe it will lose enough coherence that they'll do a post-mortem and rlease EU
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
1.14.4 just went live. Bunch of crash fixes, but also Native Assimilation should actually work, Greenland isn't part of the Canadian CN anymore, and the disappearing UI bug is maybe fixed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
So I'm doing a Manchu game, and I don't have Cossocks, yet I keep getting events that add or remove horde unity (Manchus shouldn't be treated as steppe hordes at this point in history but whatever). This shouldn't affect anything right? But I had a huge uprising anyways, and the "Warriors Don't Read Books" event popped, even though I was at war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Warriors don't read books is from vanilla. And yeah there are some things like that; merchant republics get +/- things for estates in events even though they have no estates, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
I don't think it should be possible to get a pretender uprising after a different pretender has already pressed his claim. The event window's flavor text talked about the pains of succession, I guess, but that seems kind of covered by the Civil War that preceded it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
VDay posted:and the disappearing UI bug is maybe fixed? Oh, whoa, was that happening to other people? I assumed that was just a Mac thing. (And took it as my sign to stop playing, since it only seemed to show up after I'd been running the game for some time...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Yeah it got worse the longer your game ran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
On the other hand, it was a good sign you'd been playing too long.  e: Disappearing interface still happening. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Question: Should I be converting province cultures and if so, when? Also, some more questions. Should I be concerned when I have a choice between new units as I advance my military tech? What should I go for? How should I be building my armies? As in, ratios between infantry/cavalry/artillery. I've seen mention of replacing infantry with mercs, which I will try when I have the money. Also, does Land Maintenance reduce the maintenance cost for mercs, or is it just standing armies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Question: Should I be converting province cultures and if so, when? The only time you should culture convert provinces is if you are trying to get a majority of a culture to swap over so that you can eventually form one of the larger nations. So almost never. Unless you are just raining diplo points, but even then, raising your development is a better investment. I really like the Cossacks expansion and find the estates to be a fun and powerful addition. But I like managing fiddly stuff, so your mileage may vary. Also I love steamrolling with the new hordes. Never not war!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:On the other hand, it was a good sign you'd been playing too long. I'm glad I'm not the only one who used it as a sign to take a break.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Sucks when I get it in multiplayer and have to make everyone else restart though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I've been worried about feature bloat making EU4 a lot more like CK2 in the vein that others have mentioned - CK2 has a ton of 75% implemented features that would be really awesome if they were given a good detailed balancing/improvement pass (as they stand right now they are good but I find some of them lacking). However it seems Wiz and co have been doing a great job keeping EU4's new stuff tied into the existing game rather than just sticking new features on because they sounded neat and wanted it in however they could. I do agree that the new Diplomacy menus and everything are a bit obtuse and I've simply avoided using them because they are hard to access and not explained well (as far as I can tell). I feel like the premise of Development is good but could have been implemented better; it could be a bit more intuitive and useful if it factored into a bit more kinda like how Gold mines work. I would have liked it if Admin = Production (how productive a province was), Diplo = Trade (Provincial roads and harbors), Mil = Mil (pretty much as is), and the sum of those three = Base Tax. With changes like that you could have events or features that affect those things (so they change naturally over time; stuff based on your ideas or the direction your country is heading). As it is right now it is a neat feature in concept but does not seem to add much, at least to me? I also really like the fort changes but find the random pathing issues to be infuriating, and I wish a simpler system that let you build a line or system of forts to defend a certain area was in place rather than the bizarro fort movement rules we have right now. I would really love to see something make Monarchies better - there is a reason Monarchies dominated Europe in the game's time period yet they seem to me to be one of the worst government forms in the game because you can do NOTHING to affect your stats, your heir/succession, or regencies. The best part about this is that EU4 is a great game either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
deathbagel posted:The only time you should culture convert provinces is if you are trying to get a majority of a culture to swap over so that you can eventually form one of the larger nations. So almost never. Unless you are just raining diplo points, but even then, raising your development is a better investment. That's straight up wrong btw. Yellow or red cultures give reductions to manpower, taxes, goods produced, etc on that province. Unless you're playing one of the two or three nations that can get below 0% cultural acceptance and accept every culture, you should be converting small lovely cultures to neighboring larger ones that you do have accepted. It's also much cheaper than it was before
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Should I be concerned when I have a choice between new units as I advance my military tech? What should I go for? Short answer: Unit selection doesn't matter. At this point I'm barely even sure why multiple unit selections exist. Long answer: Attack pips means you damage the enemy more, Defense pips mean you take fewer casualties. Both are used in every fight, regardless of which army walked into the other. If you're going for stackwipes, pick units with loads of offensive pips. If you are trying to conserve manpower, choose defensive pips. Both offensive and defensive pips are multiplied by your fire and shock modifiers for your respective unit types, which are shown in the military screen. Cavalry have bad fire multipliers, so you want to pick whichever has the highest shock, but it's rare to get more than one choice anyway. Artillery have terrible shock multipliers, so you want to prefer fire pips. Infantry are a mix of both; mostly shock in the early game, then about even through the middle, with a slight preference for fire during the last few decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
You make a lot of good points but please tell me why you think monarchies dominated Europe. Regencies are very lovely but you get PUs and royal marriages, and most monarchies get decent government form bonuses. They're the most common government in the game so being a little generic seems appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:
I feel like the "education of a monarch" events are the seed of something really great. Not with CK2 levels of heir farming for eugenics or anything, but if monarchies would get event chains when they generate a new heir to choose between younger heirs who with lower base stats who can be educated, or to pick another dynast with fixed stats to avoid a regency. Estates could be a factor if a strong noble demands to be made heir, or using the nobles trust to secure a better but unpopular heir. Ideally it'd also clear up Personal Unions instead of just being a lotto you pay into with royal marriages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:You make a lot of good points but please tell me why you think monarchies dominated Europe. Regencies are very lovely but you get PUs and royal marriages, and most monarchies get decent government form bonuses. They're the most common government in the game so being a little generic seems appropriate. They are bad because of regencies, utterly random 0-18 stat rulers you can't control at all and PUs are something you get every 5th game, not to mention only Christian nations can get PUs (patch 1.3 or so). Royal marriages are overrated because your allies will rival you with or without them, they have very little influence on my games. An other thing are the plutocratic ideas, to me they are pretty much the best ideas for a first mil pick. Personally I think they whole Aristocratic vs Plutocratic idea sets is wrong to begin with, they shouldn't be there based on your government form but should let you influence your government form. Remove Naval ideas from the game, allow Plutocratic and Aristocratic idea sets for everyone and add some government reform/change decisions based on those two idea picks. If it wasn't for that lovely 20 province limit I would end up as Merchant republic in every game I play (especially right now with them not having the lovely estates).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Jihad might finally be a possibility. 100 years into the game, 82 provinces, I'm busting my way into India and getting those delicious trade nodes. Definitely taking Trade as my second idea set, with Admin as the first. Ottomans are my bros, my dynasty even, and once they recover from debt they accrued from a civil war we're going to beat up Persia some more. Not sure how I am going to westernize early, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Really simple, you take Exploration instead of Trade as your second idea set and race to the Cape, then steal some CNs land in SA or take a European colony at the Ivory coast. It's been explained in this thread before, colonizing the Cape gives you easy access to Mutapas gold/ivory while creating an easily dominated trade node to collect all the trade from India/Oceania. That colonist also allows you to jump to Indonesia and beat up all those weak nations for their production/trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
I'm always afraid the western nations will kick the poo poo out of me, even in their colonies. That's a new thing to me.
Node fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
You don't have to actually fight the Europeans. You just put a colony next to one of theirs in South America (Africa won't work for this because they add their colonies to trade companies which you can't Westernize off of), westernize, then sell them the province and never worry about it again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:They are bad because of regencies, utterly random 0-18 stat rulers you can't control at all and PUs are something you get every 5th game, not to mention only Christian nations can get PUs (patch 1.3 or so). Royal marriages are overrated because your allies will rival you with or without them, they have very little influence on my games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Phew! One-tag, one-faith, zero revolt risk the three mountains. I didn't have time to colonize all open provinces because colonist travel time bugged out to 1000+ days everywhere, but oh well. Hinduism loving rules and leveraging it well really propels you forward. It took some time to figure out how to get a strong opening in 1.14 but after 2 practice runs into the 1500s I finally got a strong game going. I used a combination of vassals and overseas coring to overcome the core creation cost of the developing-like-crazy old world. No exploits but a lot of early luck. Ideas were Explo-Admin-Influence-Religous-Diplo-Quantity. Making a WC work is all about building up as much power as you can as fast as you can and then eating the world as mana-efficiently as possible. I like the new Cossacks mechanics but they are more work getting used to than they probably should be. Clicking that button for 150 paper mana feels good but until you 'get' estates it's easy to paint yourself into a high-influence low-loyalty corner and there should be an easier path out of that corner. Hordes are amazing, the RNW is a lot of fun. Cossacks isn't as good as art of war or common sense, but then those 2 expansions really kicked this game up from pretty good to a classic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Non-sapient posted:Phew! Yashichi posted:You make a lot of good points but please tell me why you think monarchies dominated Europe. Regencies are very lovely but you get PUs and royal marriages, and most monarchies get decent government form bonuses. They're the most common government in the game so being a little generic seems appropriate. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
mana is a little tired but that's a bit of an overreaction dude  especially considering he just did an insanely impressive run, wow. did you try to get the full 150 monarch points every single time? did you westernize?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Paper mana = admin monarch points, mana efficiently = efficiently with regards to monarch points. Didn't mean to be unclear, sorry! I used the estates to farm for 150 points every 20 years like clockwork. It got me really close to the disasters firing a few times but the points are crazy valuable. Just removing all clergy land clears the disaster pretty much at the cost of loyalty. Getting as many admin points as possible and spending them on coring land with the Shiva Deity bonus from Hinduism and Claims with Admin ideas is the name of the game in the 1400s. I was in no rush to westernize and only started it in 1544, off a colony in Brazil. Building early strength is first priority so long as you've caught up completely in technology by tech level 17. Europe is easy to conquer when you can blanket the continent in 30-stack armies, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This has nothing to do with why I think Monarchies dominated Europe. It is a fact that they did, yet as others have pointed out, it is better to be a Merchant Republic/different government form because of 14 year regencies, being stuck with 0/1/0 rulers for 50 years, stability loss on succession, ect Bort Bortles posted:I would really love to see something make Monarchies better - there is a reason Monarchies dominated Europe in the game's time period yet they seem to me to be one of the worst government forms in the game because you can do NOTHING to affect your stats, your heir/succession, or regencies. I know they're not the best government in the game but since almost every nation is a monarchy it would be weird if they were also unusually powerful compared to republics or theocracies. If the heir/regency system was changed a bit they would probably be about even, have you seen the PU-based Three Mountains run on the Paradox forum?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Non-sapient posted:Paper mana = admin monarch points, mana efficiently = efficiently with regards to monarch points. Didn't mean to be unclear, sorry! He knew what you meant, calling monarch points 'mana' is considered uncool/irritating on these forums, that's all. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:He knew what you meant, calling monarch points 'mana' is considered uncool/irritating on these forums, that's all. Really? huh. In any case, using monarch points efficiently and getting as many as possible is the key to fast growth. It's why the Religious+Influence combo is so good. Really, if you ever find yourself wondering which idea group to take and you plan to add more provinces to your empire, Influence is a great idea group to take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Honestly I can't think of a situation where you don't take Admin/Influence within your first three picks, the points you save long term on coring and annexations are way too good to put off. Plus the policy for another 20% off on annexations when you have them both done. Disclaimer: I'm bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:What is this reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
In Europe: Republics are too stable in EU4. Monarchies dominated in large part because they made who held executive power unambiguous, and they provided for a succession mechanism. The scariest thing that could happen during this time period was a disputed succession. Republicans suffered from this because there was no ethic of democracy during this time period, e.g. cheating in an election was entirely fair game. Your opponents also can't run if they're dead, and the whole election may not matter if you can simply stage a coup. In contrast, there was an ethic of hereditary monarchy that granted undue legitimacy to "rightful heirs". This is the time period that sees the establishment of values and institutions that create or persist very long-lasting autocratic dynasties, such as the Tudors, Romanovs, Bourbons, and Habsburgs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:18
|
|