|
I always just imagined the clergy estate as well your basic clergy who hold no real titles but are the ones who influence and interact with the people
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Node posted:I've seen The Papal State lose to the disaster where the clergy take over the state. The silly thing to me is that if you give the clergy 27% of your total development as a monarchy you're fine, but if you give them the same percentage of your land as a theocracy it's a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The silly thing to me is that if you give the clergy 27% of your total development as a monarchy you're fine, but if you give them the same percentage of your land as a theocracy it's a disaster. Imagine giving parish priests a third of the power in the Vatican. You might wind up with an Argentinian Pope pursuing a radical social justice agenda!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
My Theocracy game is actually one of the reasons why I dislike the estate system so much, you have almost no control over them and all it takes is two bad events and you're hosed for 20 years. Same with the tribes. The best solution to me would be that you can disable estates with a decision or by removing all their lands. This should just result in no estate modifiers being around, no lovely penalties, losing out on the, apparently numerous, positive options from them should be enough. Also taking Naval is bad, especially if you already have Maritime, it wont win you any wars. Way easier to just bring a bigger Navy than your enemy instead of wasting a Mil Idea slot on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Naval is really strong, but it only matters if you are shooting up, if you just cannot achieve numerical superiority. If you are for instance a middle power in Italy and want to compete with the Ottomans in the Med. Then once you are built up properly it just becomes kind of obsolete. But it definitely will make your fleet a loving beast while you have it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Naval is really strong This is a troll free forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
So, I saw some people asking for tutorials and stuff before, would it be ok to post a link to my latest let's play series? I play as Sweden and basically try to explain everything I do and why I do it. I have a first video that's just me going through the UI, and I will have a seperate video once I unlock ideas to give a brief overview of all the groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
New DD on changes to hordes, spread of discoveries and some UI changes https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-january-14th-2016.902300/ Looks like decent changes to the horde mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:This is a troll free forum. Yeah, everything Naval does for you Maritime does way better. Navies are a pure numbers game and Maritime gets more boats and +2 Maneuver. It also unlocks Thassalocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
^ You know, it is totally true that naval manoeuvre is super important in naval combat, but light ships loving suck for it and are more like damage sponges that are there for your heavies to do the work. Maritime helps you build up a large navy, but it doesn't turn the one you already have into a sledgehammer like Naval does.Average Bear posted:This is a troll free forum. I don't remember what it used to be like, but last time I checked it (after Cossacks released) it looked like its combat ability bonii had been buffed. 25% galley combat ability and 20% heavy ship combat ability are kind of insane. The main problem is just how circumstantial it is. Something like 90% of wars can be won purely on land, and of the ones that rely on naval action naval is only legitimately helpful vs the opportunity cost if you are outgunned. But I've actually been in that situation before, and let me tell you, having a navy that isn't garbage was really loving helpful. YF-23 fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
A navy blockade is also a cheap way to pick up favors with allies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
If I need to win a Naval battle I'll use actual useful Mil Ideas to conquer more coastal lands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Also that wasn't even the clergy in that screenshot. It was the freaking burghers. The clergy had 3 or 4 provinces but were only sitting at 45 or so influence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Also that wasn't even the clergy in that screenshot. It was the freaking burghers. The clergy had 3 or 4 provinces but were only sitting at 45 or so influence. It seems correct to me that merchants will have some influence despite not being mayor of any territory (or whatever giving them a province is supposed to signify).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
cool and good posted:It seems correct to me that merchants will have some influence despite not being mayor of any territory (or whatever giving them a province is supposed to signify). They shouldn't have 78% though
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
What is the "correct" way to deal with the Natives in Africa and Asia? Trade companies boost the amount of goods produced by non-western nations, so to get the maximum amount of goods/cash out of Asia and Africa, do you protectorate every native country and keep your trade companies as small as possible, or is it still more profitable to use Religious/Humanism to grab and convert it? I usually tend to leave them alone, but Castille just ate up all of East Africa in one fell swoop and I really want those gold mines...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
wow war enthusiasm on shields will actually make a pretty big difference, I'd never thought it was something I wanted but that's actually really cool. on the other hand I think they went way too far with razing, but I guess we'll see. "burn and return" sounded cool but in practice I don't think it was ever going to be something people were gonna do regularly. especially if it becomes steadily shitter over time. calling now that razing will occasionally be a thing when someone wants to get mil tech 4/6/7 faster than their enemies, and will otherwise be forgotten about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Star posted:New DD on changes to hordes, spread of discoveries and some UI changes https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-january-14th-2016.902300/ In particular, the ability to stick multiple mapmodes on a single of the main buttons and then cycle through them sounds brilliant, especially since many of them do group together naturally. Looks like a good patch all around. This will probably mean the end of crazy Horde WCs, but this looks like a decent way to deal with things. The change to a flat-land bonus rather than an in-territory bonus is also a really good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
I'm playing a game as Muscovy again, a year hence.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:^ You know, it is totally true that naval manoeuvre is super important in naval combat, but light ships loving suck for it and are more like damage sponges that are there for your heavies to do the work. Maritime helps you build up a large navy, but it doesn't turn the one you already have into a sledgehammer like Naval does. It also depends heavily on what your OTHER Idea Groups are (Including your National Ideas) and how you're playing the country. Idea trees that stand alone are great. Idea trees that play well with others and open up excellent policies are better. One of my favorite Spain games was one in which I chose Expansion, Economic, Naval and Maritime Ideas and issued The Recruitment Act and Naval Infrastructure Acts. I had the largest, most inexpensive, top of the line powerful navy in the entire world by mid 1600's. It's a great way to beat back the Ottomans by sending their monstrous navies to the bottom of the sea, blockade every province and trap them in their eastern lands while lighting Greece on fire. Agent Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
^ This dude knows what's up.Tahirovic posted:If I need to win a Naval battle I'll use actual useful Mil Ideas to conquer more coastal lands. You don't always have the time to do that if there's a big lucky rival a seazone away from you breathing down your neck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
What if espionage mechanics let you align with/manipulate other nation's estates? Like if you support the Burgher's in a rival country it gives you a trade power bonus and/or them a penalty in disputed nodes, and decreases their loyalty/increases their influence. In exchange for supporting an estate you run the risk of being exposed (AE and diplo penalties), or called into a war to support the aims of an Estate revolt, or some other costs and risk/reward consequences. I'd like to imagine the different kinds of estates would each have somewhat different requirements for winning their support, while also being un-supportable if they are sufficiently weak or loyal to the host nation (with espionage modifies factored in). I was also thinking maybe the mission system could be re-worked. Instead of coming out of the ether, what if missions where promulgated by some combination of estates/factions, vassals, or other countries? In addition to some of the traditional bonuses, it'd give you a way to manage relations with or earn favors with any of the above, and some of the missions could be dynamically generated based on cores, claims, culture, religion and desired territories. It'd be a neat way to make missions feel more organic to the game-world and add flavor. I'm not a game designer so maybe these ideas are terrible or unworkable, but it's fun to hypothesize.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
I feel a lot of the people slamming Naval ideas have never actually picked them when they were in position to actually get mileage out of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I've played for 200 hours which I realize is not much by thread standards but I haven't actually really looked at policies that much. It costs a MP so I've had this natural tendency to shy away from them because a MP is a tangible benefit that's easy to convert to things, while policies are a little more nebulous (and you can't preview combinations and their effects that easily whereas seeing what an idea group does is simple). Are there some clear, good synergestic packages I should keep in mind when playing, like the aforementioned combination of Naval, Maritime, Expansion and Economic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
If they did anything with Espionage and Estates it might just be an addition to the rebels you can support, since the estates are tied to certain rebellions if they're unhappy enough to cause trouble. Like "Support the Burghers" or something. Espionage in the hands of a player is one of the most broken idea trees available already though, so it probably wouldn't be anything more than maybe a tacked on addition to its pre-existing options. That's what's weird about Espionage, it's either the shittiest idea or the most broken to the point of verbal agreements between players NOT to use it against each other (Else it induces table flipping) depending on how you play. I agree about missions though. Nothing worse than being a German Prince in the 1600's, having the spice islands discovered and then having your mission tab fill up with nothing but "Establish a foothold in the spice trade!". Antti posted:I've played for 200 hours which I realize is not much by thread standards but I haven't actually really looked at policies that much. It costs a MP so I've had this natural tendency to shy away from them because a MP is a tangible benefit that's easy to convert to things, while policies are a little more nebulous (and you can't preview combinations and their effects that easily whereas seeing what an idea group does is simple). Are there some clear, good synergestic packages I should keep in mind when playing, like the aforementioned combination of Naval, Maritime, Expansion and Economic? Totally depends on playstyle and sometimes what your national ideas are when it comes to policies. It also greatly depends on your monarch. If you've been blessed with amazing Administration for generations and are ahead of the game in Admin tech, don't be shy about looking at an admin policy. I usually only ever take one or two policies in my playthroughs though, because yeah, monarch points are super important, and I don't really recommend doubling up on ones that eat the same points. Generally when choosing idea trees I look at what other groups it synergizes with, especially in the policy department which often helps me decide which tree to pick and when. Edit: Though any combinations that ultimately end up making things cheaper, like land maintenance, and larger like force limits are a good start. Cheaper + Larger usually amounts to an overall benefit. Agent Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
i didn't even notice it before over my utter outrage at the razing change, but the change to how shock works for hordes is really good, that's a heck of a lot more intuitive than how it works right now.Hambilderberglar posted:What is the "correct" way to deal with the Natives in Africa and Asia? Trade companies boost the amount of goods produced by non-western nations, so to get the maximum amount of goods/cash out of Asia and Africa, do you protectorate every native country and keep your trade companies as small as possible, or is it still more profitable to use Religious/Humanism to grab and convert it? I usually tend to leave them alone, but Castille just ate up all of East Africa in one fell swoop and I really want those gold mines... You can get a full 100% trade power from any team you can protectorate, but they weigh every protectorate's power against yours in their liberty desire, so you just need to balance your own size against all of theirs. Personally as any reasonable sized European power this tends to mean I eat every small team (so usually everything in Sub-Saharan Africa, everything in Indonesia) and then protectorate the big ones that would take a huge number of wars to eat otherwise. If it looks like they're getting too rebellious, take more land for yourself. And always use the subject interaction to take 100% of their trade power, if you don't do that then there's hardly any point in even using protectorates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Antti posted:I've played for 200 hours which I realize is not much by thread standards but I haven't actually really looked at policies that much. It costs a MP so I've had this natural tendency to shy away from them because a MP is a tangible benefit that's easy to convert to things, while policies are a little more nebulous (and you can't preview combinations and their effects that easily whereas seeing what an idea group does is simple). Are there some clear, good synergestic packages I should keep in mind when playing, like the aforementioned combination of Naval, Maritime, Expansion and Economic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
okay so thinking about horde changes a bit more I think I've come up with an idea that's not as poo poo as my "just take out all the later units I guess" that I arrived at last week. So my assumptions are:
Horde unity kind of works like this already, but I think more fun than amorphous rebels starting to sprout up past a certain number would be: When your Khan dies, if your horde unity is too low, your country gets split in half. Paradox has done a lot of work with dynamic countries ever since El Dorado came out; they're in disasters for Cossacks and the Dhimmi now too, and steppe empires splitting up seems like a natural (and extremely historical) place to add them in too. I'm thinking something like 80 horde unity is the breaking point- like prestige decay etc, it'll have a cap, so for smaller teams (say, Kazan sized) horde unity never even naturally goes below 80- we shouldn't be finding fractal steppes that perpetually splinter into smaller and smaller tags as the games go on. But for larger hordes- which will hardly ever occur without the player intervening, there should come a point where it is nearly impossible to keep your unity above 80 and avoid your country fracturing. It'll mean that while you're a horde, you can blob like a 1.14 horde again. But then you get to, say, Oirat-sized, and then the cap that keeps you from going below 80 unity drops to 50; it's fine for now, your unity is dropping faster, but you can keep it up by razing. Then you eat the Uzbeks, the cap drops again; it's hard to keep your unity up, but you can still do it. But then you eat the Jurchens, and your cap is totally gone- your unity will plummet, there's no way you can keep it up, even when you're razing constantly. This means that you know this Khan is your last- fortunately, he's only 20 now. He'll live for another 30 or 40 years right? Your horde unity quickly plummets to 0 (this would have no other adverse effects); if you don't reform, your country is guaranteed to splinter when he dies, but you have decades of growth ahead of you. Or do you? Life on the steppe is rough, even for Khans. So this would mean you'd weigh the option of when to reform against your last Khan. You could wait a few more years and finally eat into China with your powerful horde CB and core it easily with razing, but if you wait too long, and your Khan's horse trips? All that hard work, gone. Additionally, reforming would be way easier. No need to get certain idea groups, just pay, say, 200 admin and 1 stability or something. It should be something you can do on an impulse. Both you and the splinter tribe would probably get cores on each other's land too, so it's not completely game ending to have it happen. All the numbers I came up with had about 1 shower's worth of thought put into them so they're obviously not gonna be perfect, but I'm really happy with my idea. Hordes would remain very fun and radically different to every other team, and with occasional horde splintering, the steppes could be way more dynamic and interesting to look at too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:okay so thinking about horde changes a bit more I think I've come up with an idea that's not as poo poo as my "just take out all the later units I guess" that I arrived at last week. It's still a good idea, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I like this from a verisimilitude standpoint but a lot of players would despise this from a gameplay standpoint. I really like Koramei's idea of making it be something to strive for / be exciting / be a relief to reform, rather than "ugh well I guess now is the optimal time".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Internal stability as limiter does not work, really. If it's effective enough to be a serious limiter for an experienced player, players will utterly despise it and complain until it's neutered. External limiters and time based penalties work much, much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Node posted:I've seen The Papal State lose to the disaster where the clergy take over the state. Cardinals decide to have a re-vote. In arms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Is there a good guide to UI modding? All the modding guides I can find are for adding new events and stuff. I'm having a lot of trouble finding where things point. You're looking in the right location for the PEACE_SUMMARY but the localisations are split into a few files for english, depending on when that bit was added. It's likely one of the original parts, so would be in core_l_english or text_l_english probably. As for showing that information, this Paradox forum thread will help you a bit, but you'll likely need to dig into similar UI elements to see how to display the troop numbers, if you even can. Searching in the modding forum can be very helpful, even if the other forums there are less so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
I'm new to this overseas coring exploit crap, which provinces do I give a vassal to make sure a colony? I feel like I should make 2 provinces "deep" from the border in Asia as the vassal, meaning that I take the Asian provinces actually bordering Europe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Donald Duck posted:I'm new to this overseas coring exploit crap, which provinces do I give a vassal to make sure a colony? All you need to do is make sure you don't have a land connection to the provinces you want to have as overseas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:All you need to do is make sure you don't have a land connection to the provinces you want to have as overseas. If you do it wrong you can't core the provinces due to how vassal borders work. Found that out the hard way already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Donald Duck posted:If you do it wrong you can't core the provinces due to how vassal borders work. Found that out the hard way already. Conquer someone who straddles the gap. Core all the way through to the other side. Release that someone as a vassal. Bashkiria is generally really good for this. Conquer them + some non-Baskhiria asian provinces. Core the whole mess. Release Bashkiria.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Star posted:New DD on changes to hordes, spread of discoveries and some UI changes https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-january-14th-2016.902300/ Oooooh. Goody. The discovery spread thing was one of those things which always annoyed me (particularly with custom nations) but didn't really seem worth complaining about. As much as I love CKII, EUIV had definitely become the best and most polished Paradox game. They're just fixing the gently caress out of it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I personally dislike the 50 year slower complete map discovery if your capital's in Africa. Why is that even there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Wiz posted:Internal stability as limiter does not work, really. If it's effective enough to be a serious limiter for an experienced player, players will utterly despise it and complain until it's neutered. External limiters and time based penalties work much, much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:10
|
|