|
Gort posted:not getting penalised the way everyone else is. sounds like a bonus to me
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:Yeah but why? Europeans helped a lot of Africans travel across the Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Europeans helped a lot of Africans travel across the Atlantic. Instead of outsourcing work, they incsoured workers. Ahead of the times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
How do you dismantle the HRE if you cannot get all the electors and emperor in one war declaration? Is the only way to slowly vassalize electors? If so, I have a problem. A couple of the electors are huge, and will take multiple wars to trim them down to the point where their total warscore is less than 100%. At that point, I will have accrued so much AE that dismantling the HRE will be pointless. I have about 150 years to do it, I'm a Theodoro with the goriest, messiest borders imaginable, with France and Russia as allies. I don't think I am at the stage where I am so powerful that the AI is too afraid to form a coalition against me. I have Influence, and I could do Humanist, but I don't think Humanist will be worth it since there won't be that much time to have AE decay even with the idea to speed it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Yeah they haven't revisited that mechanic since they prevented you from starting HRE wars while already at war with a HRE member, it's pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yeah they haven't revisited that mechanic since they prevented you from starting HRE wars while already at war with a HRE member, it's pretty dumb. I have to agree on this. I'm a monstrously evil foreign force and I want to dismantle the HRE, but some hidden rule that the world has to obey says I cannot declare war on a member of the empire if I'm already at war with the Emperor. Okay. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Node posted:I have to agree on this. I'm a monstrously evil foreign force and I want to dismantle the HRE, but some hidden rule that the world has to obey says I cannot declare war on a member of the empire if I'm already at war with the Emperor. Okay. It would be nice (although possibly abusable) to be able to indicate any elector as a co-belligerent when you declare war on the Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:It would be nice (although possibly abusable) to be able to indicate any elector as a co-belligerent when you declare war on the Emperor. That does seem abusable. What about if instead of getting to pick any elector, you only got an option for including all at once? Pretty much the only use case for that is dismantling the HRE. It might be pretty weird though, since odds are some of the electors hate each other or are at war with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
declare war on all of the electors allies
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
You can dismantle the HRE if you are just allied with an elector. You also only need to occupy their capital. So get 3 or 4 of them to ally you and there's a good chance the rest are allies with Austria anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
You can declare war on an elector and Austria can still be peaced out separately. You sit on the original war, occupying elector's capitals and declare war on another elector drawing in Austria again. Due to alliances it usually only takes 2-3 declarations to end up at war with all of the elector's simultaneously then you occupy their capitals and dissolve the HRE. Zero AE required.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:You can declare war on an elector and Austria can still be peaced out separately. You sit on the original war, occupying elector's capitals and declare war on another elector drawing in Austria again. Due to alliances it usually only takes 2-3 declarations to end up at war with all of the elector's simultaneously then you occupy their capitals and dissolve the HRE. Zero AE required. I managed to get through it and pick off the electors, and disqualifying them from their electoral position by forcing them to Orthodoxy. The Emperor didn't assign new electors, so in the final war it was Brandenemperor, vassal Bohemia, and two other electors. Theodoro is the REAL Emperor of Rome! Now I have about 90 years to deal with 1/3rd of former HRE states and everybody having 200-400 AE towards me. Does anyone know what makes the AI decide to join/leave a coalition, and I don't mean the -50 AE barrier? I've noticed that sometimes (not when truces end) the AI will just dogpile into a coalition. Then sometimes the AI will do a mass exodus of a coalition. Then other times they'll leave one by one. This can be when they're anywhere from -50 to -lots of AE worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Sometimes if the AI thinks you can just kick their poo poo in, they'll leave or not join a coalition that they would totally be in if you couldn't. So if you want to prevent coalitions from making the final stretch hard, just build more troops than you can "afford" and debt finance your way to victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Yeah, in my Kazan WC I eventually broke my coalition by building 200 regiments of infantry, and then just leaving them in central Eurasia not doing anything. The sheer increase in men convinced them I was not to be hosed with, and they all abandoned the coalition, thereby allowing me to conquer them all.  The AI also factors people you're currently at war with into your strength estimate. So in my current game as a custom Indian Ocean power, when I go to war with one of the big European powers, all the Asian minors will join a coalition, and when that war ends, they all leave again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:53
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I did it. One of the funnest achievements I've done yet. It was difficult from start to almost the very finish. And check out those gory as gently caress borders. I definitely made a highway out of the Commonwealth. Doing this achievement makes me think that if you control all, or maybe 90%, of a culture (example German, not Austrian or Hungarian,) you should get a partial tolerance to it. Or maybe that'd be overpowered. Node fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Just realized how badly this patch is going to hurt QQ. They were already in a tough spot, now they're going to get -25% shock damage in their own territory since it's mostly mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Ok, so I'm a decent sized Empire. I have 15 loans out ranging from 700-1000 ducats. With everything cut back to the bone I make about 15 ducats a month. Interest alone is about 35. Should I just sit back and try paying this all off or should I intentionally auger the finances and go into default? It's about 1680 so there is a high chance of going Revolutionary if I time it correctly. This game has not been going in my favor for sure. I just lost a coalition war and had to release a few OPM in the Balkans, Tunis and release Trebizond. http://i.imgur.com/UUHRunn.jpg Edit: I suppose I could demo a bunch of forts in the interior of the Empire since I'm not really at risk of Naval invasion but that only would give me something like 7 ducats more. YouTuber fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:Ok, so I'm a decent sized Empire. I have 15 loans out ranging from 700-1000 ducats. With everything cut back to the bone I make about 15 ducats a month. Interest alone is about 35. Should I just sit back and try paying this all off or should I intentionally auger the finances and go into default? It's about 1680 so there is a high chance of going Revolutionary if I time it correctly. This game has not been going in my favor for sure. I just lost a coalition war and had to release a few OPM in the Balkans, Tunis and release Trebizond. Any small trade rich country pinatas you could beat up nearby? Thats what I tend to do
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:Any small trade rich country pinatas you could beat up nearby? Thats what I tend to do I just lost a coalition war so I'm on cooldown with most of Western Europe, the only potentials would probably be Kaffa and Hejez. That would maybe wipe out one or two loans but probably incur a few since Persia is allied to some of those states and they seem to punch quite hard in the past few Eastern games I've played. Edit: Started a war, and leader dies and huge pretender revolt begins  Ok I checked and it would take me 57 years to pay off the loans at full stop cutbacks and no war.
YouTuber fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:I just lost a coalition war so I'm on cooldown with most of Western Europe, the only potentials would probably be Kaffa and Hejez. That would maybe wipe out one or two loans but probably incur a few since Persia is allied to some of those states and they seem to punch quite hard in the past few Eastern games I've played. What's your autonomy situation? With constant warring and little peace, you may have a number of highly profitable provinces at high autonomy that would help your situation if their autonomy was reduced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Dunno if it's intentional but I don't seem to build any Trust with PU subjects? Making them permanently higher Liberty Desire. I'm playing an England game, fought a couple wars with France to weaken them and then enforced the PU. I've gotten to where it's pretty stable, but I have a +18% Liberty Desire penalty for low Trust from them and it hasn't changed in decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
So this is probably a stupid question but why is my army retreating across France when it's defeated? I'm playing as England at War with Burgundy and allied with Aragon and Brittany. I get defeated in Caux and am forced to retreat to Gascogne through French Territory. I own Normandy right next door, my allies have closer provinces it doesn't make any sense. Plus France is neutral in this war and I don't have military access yet I can walk all over their territory? Is it suppose to work this way? I'm starting to think that playing as England as a first country was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Army retreat paths are dumb and gay. They always seem to choose a destination very far away -- one time my dudes retreated from the Congo to Cairo. At least this way they won't get ping-ponged to death, since they can't engage armies for a month or more while retreating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Shattered armies try to retreat far from where they were defeated, specifically to make it harder for enemies to immediately squash them again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
sloshmonger posted:What's your autonomy situation? With constant warring and little peace, you may have a number of highly profitable provinces at high autonomy that would help your situation if their autonomy was reduced. Autonomy is good. It's the loan interest literally cutting my income in half then army, navy and forts reducing the remainder down to 1/4th. 17 ducats a month trying to pay off about 11k in loans. I crushed a few small nations and looted them and made them pay war reparations but that removed 3 off the ledgers. Milan just war decced and they're marching a 60 stack into Italy so I'll be forced to run up more debts to win the war. It's rather hilarious that the AI can detect how lovely my situation is and exploit it. It's what keeps me interested in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
11k in loans?  I don't think I've ever had more than six loans at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:11k in loans? That makes my skin crawl. I remember when I had to take out a dozen or more loans in my Byzantium game to make enough galleys to beat the Ottoman navy block the strait (before they made the change) and I felt so god drat uncomfortable until I paid them all off. It's like a mark of shame on your entire campaign that never goes away, even though one Master of Mint will probably get rid of all that inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Loans really aren't that big a deal, especially because you can just take somebody elses money and use that to pay it off. Use the ledger to see who has the largest treasuries accumulated, and go bash them. New Worlders often have hilarious amounts of money saved, so if that map knowledge has spread to you, consider a no CB war with a poo poo load of cobelligerents to go take it all. Or if there's cash closer to home, just do that. How big is your army otherwise? You're not over your forcelimit are you? It very well might be worth it to draw it down in size for a few years to start paying off some of that, assuming nobody is going to kick your teeth in right this second. And hows the trade situation looking? 35 ducats from Constantinople with that much territory seems really low. Also, destroy all your forts except the one on your capital if it's cramping you that badly. That's 18 ducats/month right there. Just build em back up later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I'm finding it difficult to wage war on anyone because everyone has a <3 attitude towards me and I just can't find it in me to break it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I'm finding it difficult to wage war on anyone because everyone has a <3 attitude towards me and I just can't find it in me to break it. It's better to be feared than to be loved. Unleash your inner Machiavelli.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
If they really love you then they'll have no problems being your subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:Autonomy is good. It's the loan interest literally cutting my income in half then army, navy and forts reducing the remainder down to 1/4th. 17 ducats a month trying to pay off about 11k in loans. I crushed a few small nations and looted them and made them pay war reparations but that removed 3 off the ledgers. Milan just war decced and they're marching a 60 stack into Italy so I'll be forced to run up more debts to win the war. See if you have any policies available that reduce interest. If you're about to unlock a new idea group pick economic (alternatively trade might be good but you don't look like you've expanded much in the east to take advantage of that). If you are not, consider ditching an earlier idea group for economic (if you'd taken religious, while still good it's probably not quite as useful now as it was early game). You should not be reducing your naval maintenance unless you're running no light ships/a shitton of heavy ships. Naval maintenance affects light ship trade power, so it almost always pays for itself. Do not default, it will gently caress you up too bad for too long. Repaying loans works fine because you'll be typically getting yourself in a progressively better situation to pay the remainder off in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Off a fresh install of EU4 on a different computer and I can't start an Ironman game. Anything I can try to fix this? No mods or anything installed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Okay, so opinion time. I am playing a fair bit of multiplayer right now, if you don't play MP then this definitely will not be in your interests so skip past this post. Victory cards do not work right now. Why? EUIV is a game about choices and decisions, or at least it is to me, and this is doubly so in MP, where you are more likely to meet harsher competition on all fields. However, victory cards do not lend themselves to choices and decisions very well. Right now we are playing an MP goon game over in PGS (which you should totally join, it is very fun and good) and I just got my first victory card as Bulgaria. It is on the Ottomans. I also got my second victory card (we turned up their spawn rate to see them a bit earlier) and it is also on the Ottomans. But the Ottomans has been my ally since day 1, and we have a very good relationship and understanding with one another. And I have 3 rivals, all of which border me and are of reasonable size. So, why does my victory card always land on the Ottomans? I have no ambition of going East, and yet the game is telling me I must if I want to get the highest score. Instead of encouraging me to dissolve the alliance and attack him, instead it has convinced me that I do not care about score, because score does not care about my ambitions, or really, the ambitions of any player who does not intend to conquer and rule a wide expanse. So, we come to the first issue with victory cards. It lacks choice. I have 3 rivals, 2 of which are players, yet it gave me a card on my ally. Why is this? I border both of them (one via strait, another via sea tile - but the two cards I have on the Ottomans are also via strait or sea tile), so why do they not qualify as valid targets? Both are incredibly valid targets, and one even has land within my culture group which is accepted, giving me greater advantage to holding the land than the Turkish culture land of the Ottomans. Surely that would make greater sense? Right now, because of this system of the game just picking a neighbour, it feels arbitrary, and like something that would run contrary to the interests of my nation. I have a great deal of trust built up personally with the Ottomans, as well as systematically, as we have been partners in a fair few wars. And yet the game picked him anyway. This weird system of just forcing you to hate your neighbour, ally or enemy, is just a bit too silly and arbitrary for me, and it doesn't really fit in well with the choice that the rest of the game gives you. Why don't I get a choice to place my victory card, as the leader of my nation, on Jerusalem or the Papal States? That is my first issue, choice of conquest. Without choice, the system is too arbitrary and gives the player a choice between being regardless as untrustworthy on a grand scale, or just opting out of the points system altogether. I know Paradox play for prizes, but not everywhere else does, so the incentive of points is just much smaller to begin with, and going for them is only reduced when the game delivers to you illogical sources of further points. Okay, so choice was my first issue. What is my second issue? It is also choice. I know, yeah, this sounds like it is going to be the same argument but I swear it isn't. Alright. So I am a monarchy sitting in the Balkans. To my East is the Ottomans, who have become a merchant republic. To my distant West are the Iberians, the Brits and the French. Meanwhile to my North East is a big horde. Would all of these nations in all of these different locations and circumstances have the same goal of simple conquest? Not really. Right now the game only really gives you the choice of conquest to gain further points, and I think that is a flawed way of looking at the game. You should be able to set an interest for your victory cards, as 'winning' is something that is not determined by an impersonal system, but it is something determined by people. What I call winning in the Balkans is not remotely what England might call winning. Likewise, a merchant republic's ambitions are definitely not going to be the same as mine. And yet the greatest way for us all to gain points is by simple conquest of 3-4 provinces. Basically, what I am going to suggest now is a radical overhaul to the victory card system. Victory cards right now are meaningless. They are ignorant of grander strategies and ambitions, and reject choice outside of the simple decision of "Do you want to stab your ally? Y/n?" Basically they are somewhat limited in what ideas of 'victory' they can really reflect. Instead of presenting this false choice to the player (because unless you are playing for prizes or are an idiot who wants nobody to trust you ever, the answer is going to be 'no'), the game should instead present great choice through a greater victory card system. The player should be able to set once every 100 years what I am going to call a "Grand Ambition", which works somewhat like a mission, which is to say "Colonise the Americas", "Gain trade dominance", "Conquer great swathes of land", "Enter into a golden age of culture and wealth", but is much greater in scope. Then, when you are ready (mechanically speaking - since victory cards require 300 dev) the game will present you with a victory card tailored to that ambition. Conquest might work like the victory card system already works (adapted to be a bit more logical maybe). A colonial victory card might ask you to get 20 colonial provinces up and running in a certain region/s and to be the sole coloniser in that area by pushing others out. A trade victory card might ask you to hold over 50% trade power in multiple nodes leading towards your trade capital for a certain period of time. A golden age of culture and wealth might set a high development goal for the player to achieve. Basically, what is needed is a diversity of choice in how victory cards work, instead of the current mono-choice of 'kill dudes'. In an MP game you will find radically different ideas of what one player conceives as a victory. One player might consider their victory to be the king of the new world. Another ambition might be to just be the bank, who can finance hell wars singlehandedly. That was my ambition last game (until I died). The current system only really incorporates personal ambitions if that personal ambition is 'blob big'. Right now victory cards are very limited in their scope. I know from talking to a fair few players in my current game that they view them as largely arbitrary and something they will not be playing for, because they do not take into account their actual choices and what it is that they intend to do in the game. A change to the system somewhat similar to this might encourage players to interact with it more. I really like the idea of victory cards, but right now they really are just too arbitrary for me to want to bother with. It seems the idea of victory cards was to try and make players care more about score. Well, I feel like it is only a half success at that aim, because it only accommodates what some players will care about and not all. If the system could be adapted to greater reflect player choice, then I feel like it could work to a much greater degree. Anyway that was my big fuckoff nerdpost about score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
This is probably going to get lost with the megapost about points above mine, but I just started playing Ironman regularly and finally got a Kazan game off the ground! Qasim and Nizhy Novgorod are both my vassals. I am currently dumpstering Muscovy again after annexing what was left of Nogai. The Timurids JUST imploded and let Persia and co out. Uzbek and Timurids are my allies, but I am thinking of dumping the Timurids once I finish and recover from this war with Muscovy. I am debating what to do after I try yet again to smother Muscovy. Any suggestions? I would like to keep my Power Projection high for as long as possible and I am short one rival, but I could rival Uzbek and backstab them. I have pretty much zero achievements so I have been considering what I can do from here to get some nifty achievements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Okay, so opinion time. I am playing a fair bit of multiplayer right now, if you don't play MP then this definitely will not be in your interests so skip past this post. You do understand that Victory Cards exist to shake up alliances, by creating the exact situation you describe? It was created in response to the paradox MP games where long standing allies would have no reason to attack each other. Now they do. You and the Ottomans may be the best of buds, IRL and in game, but now there's a choice between that and getting a victory card. Don't care about the card? Stick with your ally. Don't care about your ally? Backstab them and get the card. To put it in the context of your description of EU4, now there's a decision where there previously was nothing to consider. It's a more formalized way to make backstabbing an in game mechanic (I only backstabbed you for the victory card!) and to create fault lines and divisions in player alliances as the game goes on. Does that change your opinion of Victory cards at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:You do understand that Victory Cards exist to shake up alliances, by creating the exact situation you describe? It was created in response to the paradox MP games where long standing allies would have no reason to attack each other. Now they do. It's meaningless if only some people care about the cards. Yeah, so you "won" your game by collecting the most score, but nobody you play with in the future is going to want to have you anywhere near them simply because they know you as the dick from the last game that would turn on allies literally because the game told them to. Victory cards are literally worthless to anyone that doesn't play with the goal of blobbing hardest in mind. You're Portugal and want to focus on colonization? Hope you're ready to "lose" because all your cards are calling for you to stab Spain in the dick instead. If cards had more general objectives like "gain X development", "increase income by X", "increase forcelimit by X", "gain X trade power in Y node", etc. they'd still serve the purpose of encouraging you to backstab, but also, optionally, give you a way to gain score by a method other than blobbing hard and roleplaying Hitler with your neighbors. It would be way easier to just knock a chunk out of an ally for some development or income, but that should not be literally your only choice in the matter. Elaborate diplomacy is way more compelling than "I'd like to keep being friends to work towards a common goal, but the game is telling me you need to go now."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I can unlock my first idea as Kazan, which I think is going to be Admin, but I dont have the points to get to Adaptability, so how dumb is it to consider using my glut of Diplo points to take Exploration so I could colonize a bit while I build up the admin points?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:You do understand that Victory Cards exist to shake up alliances, by creating the exact situation you describe? It was created in response to the paradox MP games where long standing allies would have no reason to attack each other. Now they do. Unless there is a prize on the line, punching an ally in the dick to get very little reward is just not fun or conductive to survival. Largely arbitrary points are not really a reason to do anything. Victory cards are completely ignorant of player interests, when they should really align with them. Basically what I am suggesting is to make points less arbitrary by lining them up with genuine interests instead of just making them an excuse to break up a nonsense idea of a 'hugbox', as some like to refer to them as. There are no hugboxes, there are instead mutually beneficial relationships that exist as long as both parties remain to see them as beneficial. Trying to break them up through some metagame mechanic with victory cards just isn't cool or fun because it doesn't line up with any of the other elements of the game particularly well. It doesn't make score any greater an indicator of winning, instead it is basically the "most untrustworthy" award. It just feels like a very clumsy mechanic in practice because it ignores every other factor at play. You could fix most of this with a greater modicum of choice, allowing the player to actually do something which is in their interests. Reward me for doing something I genuinely want to do, not for something a system which doesn't understand human reasoning wants me to do, is basically my thrust. Victory cards do not understand the complex reasoning behind an alliance. Trying to tie score in with actions has great potential, but I don't think Paradox have nailed it yet. Another Person fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This is probably going to get lost with the megapost about points above mine, but I just started playing Ironman regularly and finally got a Kazan game off the ground! I was playing a very similar Kazan game recently. I would go for Tatarstan as achievement, that provides you with a lot of goals and it's not too hard. It's going to involve killing Uzbek so you will be rivaling them down the line. I would also suggest continue pushing eastward to get the gold province that Yarkand has, it's a great boost to your economy. Try to be chummy with the Ottomans because if your game is anything like mine, they have a habit of pushing up through the Caucasus and then once they border you their attitude of you really tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:47
|
|
