|
Yeah something like that would be better. Still I'd take the exclaves over having to take a huge hunk out of a country.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
ThePutty posted:
Friendly Humour posted:Bedcause obviously cities should be tiny provinces unto themselves Jeoh posted:Well you see one day in 1642, $city in $province was an exclave of $nation, so it should be a separate province to simulate that. Well... consider how exclaves like Ceuta, Melilla, or Tangiers get represented in EU by giving their conqueror control over the whole province. You end up with North Africa being a patchwork of European provinces when, historically, it was 99.5% controlled by the Berbers and Europeans held a small number of heavily fortified ports that they used for logistics. This game doesn't have a good way of representing a country only owning a port somewhere. If it were possible to add sub-province-level entities (holdings?) to certain provinces (like ceuta, melilla, tangiers, macau, etc.) then you could have a scenario where that was owned by a different state than the province owner. Until then, though, you get this disconnect. Personally I think that the best representation is to just give it all to the Berbers and, I don't know, allow the European states to enforce basing rights as part of a peace treaty, then change those missions to have that as their goal. The same thing with Macau. e: if you look at West Africa you see exactly the same thing going on: little enclave spots for Europeans to set up ports. It's a solution to a problem that the game doesn't handle well. I think the cure is worse than the disease but I agree with the idea in principle. The Age of Exploration is much better served by a representation involving minimal European territorial holdings, strong forts, and strong navies than it is through what are essentially overseas European land empires (which really are only appropriate in Vicky). e2: their HRE changes only really make sense if the engine were to support aggregating small, lovely provinces into larger provinces so you could start in a state of border gore decentralization but once you conquered all of the little shitlets that make up a province they turned into a non-stupid province. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
You already can enforce basing rights as part of a peace treaty. It's just not ever worthwhile, barring some extreme niche case situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I'm starting a Ceylon game; any advice on starting moves and ideas? I'm thinking since the main Ceylon achievement involves converting India, do you think I should have Religion as my first or second administrative idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:You already can enforce basing rights as part of a peace treaty. It's just not ever worthwhile, barring some extreme niche case situation. It also only lasts 10 years and you pay basing rights I think
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:It also only lasts 10 years and you pay basing rights I think Doesn't it eat a diplomatic relations slot too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
It does, it's super useless.MrBling posted:
Check out your policy options. That combo gives you some absolutely crazy ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:It does, it's super useless. they should change it so that enforced fleet basing/mil access/trade power/etc don't eat a relations slot. it's way too high a cost and ends up punishing you, instead of the loser of the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:they should change it so that enforced fleet basing/mil access/trade power/etc don't eat a relations slot. it's way too high a cost and ends up punishing you, instead of the loser of the war. Okay, maybe that would be a bit harsh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Do the permanent loyalty bonuses, like the bonus for the nobility when you have high legitimacy, actually do anything now? They don't seem to make loyalty recover faster or decay slower, or change the resting point like I'd think they would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
axeil posted:they should change it so that enforced fleet basing/mil access/trade power/etc don't eat a relations slot. it's way too high a cost and ends up punishing you, instead of the loser of the war. Same with transfer trade power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Make it cost a relationship slot, for the one being enforced on. i thought the ai mostly ignored relation slots or is that just for military access:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
It'd be nice if Transfer Trade Power was like War Reparations. And Military Access / Fleet Basing Rights shouldn't take up a diplomatic slot and definitely shouldn't cost money, what the hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one  Here are my requirements, in order: -Challenging -Minimize the blobby if possible -It would be cool if it was outside Europe -It would be cool if I didn't have to take over 3/4 of the world So are there any runs that are fun and challenging but the hard part is not the tedium of managing two continents worth of crap?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ImPureAwesome posted:i thought the ai mostly ignored relation slots or is that just for military access: The AI gets to ignore relation slots for military access, but not other relations. The AI also reserves a free relation slot for the player; I think this is done as an 'extra' slot that the AI will not normally fill. You can see this at work for nations like Burgundy or Denmark, which start with 3 subjects. They only pick up one non-player alliance at the start, and if they pick wrong (like Burgundy picking Savoy over Castile), they tend to get wiped out quite early.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one In any case, I just started playing Ironman and really enjoyed doing an Ethiopia "Prester John" run. I only had to 'blob' East Africa, Arabia, and nab some valuable provinces in India and Indonesia to get rich and powerful enough to watch the Ottomans all of a sudden get steamrolled by Europeans enough for me to grab the provinces I needed in two short wars (got the achievement in 1705ish) and I did not have to fight any huge coalition wars, invade Europe, or take over another continent. I am in the middle of a game as Majapahit trying to form Malaya and it has been quite enjoyable thus far. I have also heard the Ayutthaya "White Elephant"(?) achievement is fun to do. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one Bengal Tiger is cute and not really hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I've been watching the general Paradox thread and havent seen a date posted for Stellaris - have I missed it? Brad Wardell, who is apparently the CEO of Stardock, said that Stellaris would be H1 2016, and that an as yet unannounced Civ6 would be H2 2016. Take that for whatever it's worth (not a lot). https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/3zbzoo/civilization_vi_to_be_released_in_2nd_half_of/ The linked thread has a pretty good paragraph in it: quote:But now there’s a lot of fear about making game changes that I think are objectively good. Let me give you an example: "If we balance the game, you idiots will all downvote this on Steam and gently caress us over." PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Brad Wardell, who is apparently the CEO of Stardock, said that Stellaris would be H1 2016, and that an as yet unannounced Civ6 would be H2 2016. Take that for whatever it's worth (not a lot). PittTheElder posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/3zbzoo/civilization_vi_to_be_released_in_2nd_half_of/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Is the entire losing side of a peace deal supposed to get revanchism, even if only one country lost territory? I'm playing as custom-Japan in a random new world + randomized countries games. I was allied with some Chinese country, A, and got called into a war against another Chinese country, B. I spent the entire war chillin' on my island, letting A get it's rear end kicked. When the war ends, B took a nice big chunk out of A in a peace deal, and I lost nothing. Both me and A ended up with 52% revanchism, so essentially I got some nice bonuses in exchange for letting my ally die. It wasn't a one-off thing either, because the two other times I've remembered to check other countries after their wars, the entire losing side always has equal revanchism, even if only one person lost territory. This can't be WAD, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I have seen that posted, I thought maybe something else got posted about it or the date. Well they originally announced it as feb 2016 release, and it has a march timeframe going by the steam releases window, and brad wardell threw out that tweet, so I feel that's enough pieces of corroborating evidence to say "Oh hmm I bet they're aiming for April/May," The other scenario is that when Paradox uploaded they accidentally set a release date of Feb 2016 just because they were pushing buttons while uploading. The fact that it shows up on the steam list when it does is just a quirk because they hid the date and pushed it back to march 2016 or whatever, but that's not at all what they are aiming for. And Brad could be an idiot, spreading bullshit about his competitors, even though he loves to talk business and steal thunder. I don't see why people think the latter is more likely than the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one Albania or Iberia is fun and requires you to kneecap two world powers but doesn't get too tedious. Byzantium is another obvious choice. I've heard a Japan game can be good. One night in Paris is particularly fun although it may be trivial now that you can just take Paris in one war. Do it the hard way where you have to PU France. Sweden is not overpowered is a fairly leisurely game too. You can do a Malacca game if you want to try for the trade income related ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed a bug where countries get a penalty to wanting to join wars against their rivals? I am England, allied to Castille and Savoy. Savoy has France as a rival, Castille does not. Castille will join a war aginst France, but Savoy will not due to a -60 modifier from "attitude towards enemies". It's really annoying, especially in the early game when allies are especially important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
axeil posted:Albania or Iberia is fun and requires you to kneecap two world powers but doesn't get too tedious. Sweden is not Overpowered is great for a fast game and the recent changes to straits and buffs to Denmark has made the early game a lot more challening which is good. You will end up butting heads with Poland, Muscovy and the HRE which usually means some good fights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Speaking of it, I went Exploration first as Majapahit and it is working out well for me so far. I was thinking I would go Expansion second for the extra Colonist, extra Merchant, and extra Colonial growth, however, after those the idea group is pretty milquetoast. I could go Admin instead for all of its great bonuses and still get a policy that increases my ability to colonize, though not nearly as effectively as an extra colonist. I guess it would depend on if I wanted to go for extra achievements once I form Malaya, hrmm. Now I guess I am just thinking out loud  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:Has anyone else noticed a bug where countries get a penalty to wanting to join wars against their rivals? Savoy has France as a rival in the early game? Can you post a screenshot? I usually see the -60 modifier when they like the other country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Training people to hold their ground is incredibly hard, which is why cavalry survived as an institution for so long. But this was definitely the beginning of the end. The square formation caused the cavalry calculus to go from (almost) always being a good choice to being a situational choice. It would still be situationally valuable until the Crimean War, when it would become clear that increased infantry firepower would generally reduce the use of cavalry to screening or reconnaissance. Cavalry played almost no shock role in the American Civil War, which foreshadowed the First World War. The fact that any cavalry were present in the First World War was only evidence that military leaders in Europe discounted the American experience, rather than that cavalry still had legs (hyuk). Yes but those were all cases of 19th century warfare. Literally none of them other than the very last few years see that point in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
All these Paradox games.... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1i1e6h_watch-as-1000-years-of-european-borders-change-timelapse-map_travel
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:All these Paradox games.... ...World War 1 looks different. EDIT: Pretty much the entire 20th century is Off, actually. Freudian fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:All these Paradox games.... That date is so off
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one The Buddhists Strike Back, No Trail Of Tears, Back to the Piast, Albania or Iberia, A Manchurian Candidate, and Je maintiendrai are the ones I can vouch for personally that are challenging (moreso the earlier ones in the list) and not too blobby. Could also try Venetian Sea, Switzerlake, or Terra Mariana - the last of those is probably the next one I'm gonna try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I'm doing Prester John right now. I got an alliance with the ottomans who I'm currently using to smash the mamluks. Feels good..
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:That date is so off VE Day: 1958. Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Any tips for starting off as the GH? This is my first game in Cossacks so I don't really even know what the expansion does. Right now it's 1460 or so and while I've beaten Muscovy in two wars and taken little bits of land they're just getting scarier. Both wars I got insanely lucky with how they handled their troops, I don't think I can win again. Everything down to Qara and Georgia is vassalized, Ryazan is vassalized, but I'm worried if I take much more of Crimea I'll piss off Poland/Lithuania. Is it worth it to head south into Qara Qoyunlu or should I be looking east into Kazan and Nogai? I want to put myself in the best possible position when my truce with Muscovy is up. Any new Cossacks mechanics I should be aware of? The horde unity thing is pretty self explanatory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:Any tips for starting off as the GH? This is my first game in Cossacks so I don't really even know what the expansion does. Right now it's 1460 or so and while I've beaten Muscovy in two wars and taken little bits of land they're just getting scarier. Both wars I got insanely lucky with how they handled their troops, I don't think I can win again. Does Poland have a PU with Lithuania? If so I wouldn't worry about them getting mad for taking Crimea. Ottomans are a good ally and sometimes want parts of Crimea, so I would get an alliance with them and make sure you're not eating too much vital-interest territory in Crimea. I would most likely first head North-East and take out Kazan. They have some good provinces, but you also don't want Muscovy to eat any and grow more powerful. Cut them off there and they won't have a lot of room to expand. Definitely go south eventually. You're going to want all of Persia, maybe India depending what your goals are. Skirt around the Ottomans until you're tough enough to take them, because there aren't really any other great allies for GH. Wait until Muscovy is weak and keep beating them up. They should get involved in a war with Lithuana/Poland or Sweden at some point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
See if you can buddy up with the Ottomans. Together you'll be an unstoppable wrecking crew. Then go southeast, into Nogai, Timmy, and then into India. Above the Himalayas and into China is also an excellent option if Ming collapses. Be sure to take Admin ideas, especially because you don't have to pay extra for reinforcing mercenary. Merc inf you don't have to pay for make excellent damage sinks. Do be aware that Hordes now get a combat bonus on any flat land, so you'll want to always fight on the plains. Since you can now double up map-modes, putting simple terrain underneath terrain is a no brainer. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Is razing worth it? I'm maxed out on relations and married to the ottomans and I'm still -7 from an alliance. Poland has the PU but not thr PLC. My first war with Muscovy was an opportunistic one because PL had attacked them and sieged a bunch of stuff. I figured it would be safe to jump in. I snagged a couple provinces after a long slog during which Muscovy managed to beat PL back. During this time Kazan also declared war on Muscovy and invaded with a 20stack. Muscovy absolutely annihilated them while holding me off, while they were less than a year past a devastating war with PL. I am very scared of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Speaking of it, I went Exploration first as Majapahit and it is working out well for me so far. I was thinking I would go Expansion second for the extra Colonist, extra Merchant, and extra Colonial growth, however, after those the idea group is pretty milquetoast. I could go Admin instead for all of its great bonuses and still get a policy that increases my ability to colonize, though not nearly as effectively as an extra colonist. Keep in mind you will be westernizing pretty early if you play things right and getting Expansion's CB on basically everyone you want to fight when you do, if you finish out that idea group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Achievement Chat: I've been backburnering EU4 so I'm ready to dive into Paradox stuff when Stellaris comes out, but it looks like that will be a month+. I'd like to do an achievement run or two, and I'd like suggestions since folks here seem to have done just about every one Venetian seas comes to mind, you need to control trade in the med without blobbing. vvv That's not the spirit of the achievement tough! Tahirovic fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Venetian seas comes to mind, you need to control trade in the med without blobbing. Actually the easiest way is to blob like a madman and 400 years later once you control everything just give all but 9 provinces of yours to a client state/vassal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 09:03
|
|
