|
true that's a pretty good reason actually. I mean at the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you like as the Ottomans, it's why they're so great, they can suit any playstyle.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
Quorum posted:Admin side, Administrative (for hilariously low coring costs) or Humanist (for accepting everyone's culture and religion). Diplo, look at Influence to up your vassal feeding game. I wouldn't take an early military idea personally, those first few mil techs are very important. You wouldn't take an early military idea? But the first few military tech's are very important? I'm a little confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
My go to opening for Ottos is Administrative first, but only up till the coring discount, Influence, then Offensive and grabbing the remaining five Administrative ideas(sub-ideas?). Going religious is worthwhile, but I find that you will usually be more constrained by monarch points than CBs in the early stages of the game as Ottos, especially with all the vassaling you can do. Edit: The first Military techs are important. Picking up a Military Idea group early means you can have issues keeping current on Military tech, which can get you all kinds of slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Agree that Humanist is convenient but almost never an optimal grognard powergaming pick. I would probably go Admin (first 2-3 ideas), Influence or maybe a military idea if I'm flush with points, Religious. If you're expanding at any decent rate, you're going to need a CB better than fabricating claims. Religious also gets you the conversion bonuses obviously, and long-term it's simply better to convert. Ottoman +3 Heathen Tolerance helps with that because hey, less revolt risk and Religious Unity issues while you convert the heathens. Having tons of accepted cultures is not terribly helpful for an expansionist nation, at some point you're either braking your expansion to maintain culture threshholds or pouring a lot of resources into maintaining them. It just so happens that the Clergy estate exactly offsets the most significant penalties for off-culture Fister Roboto posted:I have a massive hardon for siege ability bonuses. me2 but I like Morale better early game once you start getting higher level forts siege ability is the best Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Another gimmicky idea is take Quality, Defensive, and Aristocratic, with any two non-military ideas in between them. The reason for this is to stack as many army tradition bonuses as you can get, to try to stave off the Janissary disaster as long as possible. With the maximum fort bonus and all those ideas, your AT resting point should be 75, which is just above the 70 you need to keep the disaster from progressing. If you take Espionage, the Espionage-Quality policy will set the resting point to 100.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Going religious is worthwhile, but I find that you will usually be more constrained by monarch points than CBs in the early stages of the game as Ottos, especially with all the vassaling you can do. Serious question, have you played large expansionist nations much in the most recent patch using only claims? It is poo poo. 1) it is usually most efficient and effective to snake your way through nations to control the map and get access to other nations to continue conquering, and you can't fabricate on non-bordering provinces 2) if you take non-claimed provinces with a Conquest CB, you pay a higher AE and warscore cost in addition to the diplomatic points for unreasonable demands 3) if you get caught fabricating a claim, which you will quite a bit if you're doing it with any frequency, you eat a fairly significant AE penalty AND your progress is now slowed down 3x (?). it takes a lot longer and is really annoying to fabricate claims now because your diplomats are tied up for years on end. If you're constantly fabricating claims because that's your only CB, how are you maintaining and integrating vassals? Having a good all-purpose CB like Holy War or later Imperialism saves you warscore, DIP points, AE, and diplomat time. I think you're underestimating just how much your diplomats will be tied up fabricating claims if that's what you're relying on for CBs. Edit: the best idea picks for any nation wanting to go pure blobbing are imo Admin Influence, Exploration, Diplomatic, or a military idea depending on situation Religious <mil ideas and whatever> With a tiny bit of management the Clergy estate helps a ton with early game conversions and revolts so I don't think taking Religious first is all that necessary over Admin. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I've never been constrained by monarch points as the Ottos. In fact, if Mehmed II lives for any decent amount of time, as he has a tendency to do so, I have the exact opposite problem of not having enough things to spend points on. It's really funny when you get into the mid game and you start seeing a -10% tech bonus not as a way to save monarch points, but as the ability to grab a tech level 1 year earlier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Serious question, have you played large expansionist nations much in the most recent patch using only claims? I totally agree with you. I love religious. However, these days you can rely pretty heavily on your vassals to fabricate any adjacent provinces...if you're really opposed to taking religious. The religious CB early in the game is just so good, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I totally agree with you. I love religious. However, these days you can rely pretty heavily on your vassals to fabricate any adjacent provinces...if you're really opposed to taking religious. The religious CB early in the game is just so good, though. Your vassals' CBs only let you declare a war, they don't give you any benefit for actually grabbing those provinces when crafting a peace; you're still paying Diplo points and eating a big AE penalty unless your vassal somehow controls the province, which never ever seems to happen. Having your own claim on a province is the only way to not have to eat the Diploa+AE penalty when acquiring new provinces in a Conquest war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I totally agree with you. I love religious. However, these days you can rely pretty heavily on your vassals to fabricate any adjacent provinces...if you're really opposed to taking religious. The religious CB early in the game is just so good, though. I think it's hard to overstate the advantage of being able to carve up an enemy as you please rather than being constrained by claims. You want to split your enemy into isolated chunks, cut off their allies, take their forts, get access to new conquest targets for chaining wars. There's also the war goals, in many cases it can be easier to rack up a lot of warscore by winning fights rather than sitting on a bunch of forts. The better CBs give you a strategic advantage in addition to warscore/diplo/AE discounts. Also, didn't mean to rant at you Cynic Jester. I'm just a little bitter about a really good Bahmanis game I had going where I didn't take Religious and can't convert poo poo or do much because I'm reliant on claims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your vassals' CBs only let you declare a war, they don't give you any benefit for actually grabbing those provinces when crafting a peace; you're still paying Diplo points and eating a big AE penalty unless your vassal somehow controls the province, which never ever seems to happen. Having your own claim on a province is the only way to not have to eat the Diploa+AE penalty when acquiring new provinces in a Conquest war. Why not...transfer control to them then? What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Why not...transfer control to them then? What am I missing? poo poo, you can do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:poo poo, you can do that? Yes, can't remember which expansion did it, but you can transfer control to most people in the war in the province screen. You can't change it back once you've transferred, so you want to be sure. edit: Keep in mind if you transfer it to an ally and they don't actually have an interest in it they won't take it, but your vassals/PUs will take anything they can core.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Man I hope Arumba, Quill, NorthernLion and Mathas will be playing some EU once Mare Nostrum is out. Coldwar-game between Arumba and Quill is the best, with NL being the dicky opportunist that he is, and Mathas just being the real victim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Why not...transfer control to them then? What am I missing? Then you aren't getting the province, the vassal is. It sucks when you're trying to do a peace deal and get stuck in a situation where you have to give an important province to a vassal that you were not planning to annex right away. Eating a ton of AE and paying a ton of points to take it yourself simply because you used the vassal CB also sucks. Religious takes care of all these issues. Religious lets you say "Oh right, who cares about claims, HOLY WAR" and do that pretty much all game long, until Imperialism comes along. The diplomat fabricating claims and getting caught thing made it even more useful than it was before, and it was real useful before. Finally I felt that people were overstating the whole "You don't need religious with development to convert just do some decisions" thing. If you're doing any serious religion changes or conquering off religion provinces at a good pace, Religious is still very relevant. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Then you aren't getting the province, the vassal is. It sucks when you're trying to do a peace deal and get stuck in a situation where you have to give an important province to a vassal that you were not planning to annex right away. Eating a ton of AE and paying a ton of points to take it yourself simply because you used the vassal CB also sucks. Religious takes care of all these issues. Sure, I agree that religious is great. If you're trying to conserve admin points and are vassal feeding then I am just outlining an alternative. Especially if you're in the middle of Europe or something. I am one of the people that is surprised that the religious CB is disregarded by some people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Zotix posted:You wouldn't take an early military idea? But the first few military tech's are very important? I'm a little confused. Idea's compete with tech for monarch points. if you're investing your MIL points in ideas, that's less points you're spending on increasing your military tech
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Sure, I agree that religious is great. If you're trying to conserve admin points and are vassal feeding then I am just outlining an alternative. Especially if you're in the middle of Europe or something. I am one of the people that is surprised that the religious CB is disregarded by some people in this thread. Usually if I'm conquering faster than I can claim in Europe it means I have fallen victim to terrible hubris and will be taken out by a coalition or something, so I don't find it to be all that valuable. I'd rather take Expansion and get a good CB against most of the world plus better ideas within the group than Religious has. Might as well grab Mecca with that CB for a second missionary, too. If it wasn't for the tolerance of the true faith idea Religious would be pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Do I want to vassal I've everything? I started the ottomans last night and in my first war I took 2 or 3 provinces. Then in the next war I vassal iced two nations. Do I just vassal I've most things and integrate when I can?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Any advice on how to catch-up / wrap my head around the new mechanics? Haven't played seriously since last summer and Common Sense. Should I pick up Cossacks and Mare Nostrum? I'm wary of more complicated mechanics that don't add to fun :-S And is there a good summary of what changed in the free patches since Common Sense, from a player's perspective? (Basically I have the feeling that a bunch of mechanics have changed since I last played and I am worried my old understanding of the game is now out of date and I have to re-learn it again). .. Relatedly, I tend to have a bit more fun when, like in CK2, I can create a custom nation. A few questions around this: - Any tips on creating a good custom nation or good places to create one? - Tips on ideas to select for a custom name? - Is there an easy way to mod leader / general names and anything else to make my custom nation feel more custom? alcaras fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Not sure how useful this is, but my most fun custom nation run was as a Taino High American Dutch Republic starting in Cuba and Hispaniola. Pretty overpowered and silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Is there any way to tell the AI "no, really, you're super nice and all but I really, really, really don't want anything from this war." I participated in the Protestant League war (on the Catholic side) and the emperor decided to feed me a high development province from France, as well as two provinces to my marches. Due to my vassilization of electors, I was managing my AE very carefully since it was sort of this, but this made a coalition. It was, admittedly, a tiny coalition, most of whom I could remove just by improving relations, but it could have been much worse if I had been given that land earlier before some of my AE decay. (Also, the emperor decided to say in the war for way, way too long. I think I had 16 war exhaustion just from Call For Peace because they just HAD to full occupy the Ottomans).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Can't you just transfer all the provinces to the war leader? Then they can't give you the province's since you don't occupy them. They probably took so long to peace out because you were holding the land they wanted, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I've been catching up on what the new dlc will bring and uh apparently the english channel will be a strait now. It's too bad the fleur-de-lis will still never fly in london because the ai would probably never consider the english isles as a priority. I'm guessing there will be alot of scotland formed GB because of england suiciding their land army into france 7 out of 10 times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
So, how do you figure the optimal ratio of Inf/ Calv/ Arty?
Zotix fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Somewhere deep within Paradox's office dungeons, the rattling of chains and screams of Groogy echo. What is this referring to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:What is this referring to? Groogy famously claims to hate all things Romans and refuses to implement Hellneic religion in CKII among other things. Thus Roman Empire in EUIV is a betrayal of his very nature. (He's secretly the lead dev on Rome 2)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Zotix posted:So, how do you figure the optimal ratio of Inf/ Calv/ Arty? Combat width as the common multiple, depending on tech and where you are expecting to fight. Width-(2 to 4) infantry 2 to 4 cavalry Width artillery More cavalry if you are in whatever unique situation where combined arms bonuses and the budget lets you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
So how do I figure that out exactly? My current width says 24 on the military screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Zotix posted:So how do I figure that out exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Okay, so in an optimal situation and I have 24 width, what would my ratio be? Like 3 :3 :1? So would I do something like 10:9:4?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:I've been catching up on what the new dlc will bring and uh apparently the english channel will be a strait now. Actually it won't. Wiz said they had to take it out precisely because the AI couldn't deal with it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/mare-nostrum-without-the-kent-strait.917505 Zotix posted:Okay, so in an optimal situation and I have 24 width, what would my ratio be? Like 3 :3 :1? So would I do something like 10:9:4? Depends on the army you're fighting. Ideally, enough infantry to match their complete front line (inf+cav), enough cavalry to get full flanking bonuses going (depends on tech level, never more than 10), enough artillery to form a complete backline. If you're fighting a peer level army, throw some reserve infantry regiments in there too. But now you're likely way over the province supply limit. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Also if you're in a situation where their front line is maxed out for width, like attacking into mountains, you want to drop your cavalry because they'll get shredded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Okay, so in an optimal situation and I have 24 width, what would my ratio be? Like 3 :3 :1? So would I do something like 10:9:4?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Yeah, so I don't think I can do that, if only for the reason I couldn't stack that much on a province. Do you just split into two stacks, and attack at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Yep. Which feeds into the other (absurd) key to battles. All units in a battle lose morale every day they're in a fight, even if not actively engaged in battle because of insufficient combat width. So rather than pushing all of your armies into a fight immediately, what you want to do is have a few armies converge on the first day to form an 'ideal' army specifically for the fight, then move in replacement armies every 5 days or so after that, so that you always have fresh units rotating into the fight and doing maximum damage, and keeping your morale up. It's like a god damned Noria from Verdun, ca. 1916. The current battle meta is dumb as poo poo, and I don't know why people think it's any better than naval battles. Superior numbers is the overwhelmingly most important attribute in nearly every case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yep. Which feeds into the other (absurd) key to battles. All units in a battle lose morale every day they're in a fight, even if not actively engaged in battle because of insufficient combat width. So rather than pushing all of your armies into a fight immediately, what you want to do is have a few armies converge on the first day to form an 'ideal' army specifically for the fight, then move in replacement armies every 5 days or so after that, so that you always have fresh units rotating into the fight and doing maximum damage, and keeping your morale up. It's like a god damned Noria from Verdun, ca. 1916. until mid-late-game, you're generally not going to have enough men to pull that off (in my experience), and getting men to the right places to fight the right battles is a fun challenge. naval combat is fundamentally much more 'fiddly'. faster movement, less constraint in terms of terrain, more ways for enemies to seemingly pop out of nowhere - constant vigilance is required, which is extremely tiring. the new naval orders system probably isn't going to fix that, since i think you'll still be able to order ships around directly, so it'll be just like the transport system - just not as good as doing it yourself, so only useful in situations where you can afford to be extremely lazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
tbh, i enjoy the noria-from-verdun gameplay, but it does make a lot more sense in vicky 2 than here. i haven't really used it in eu4 - i suspect shattered retreats would make it much, much less reliable. (though probably even the worst-case battle in eu4 won't last as long as vicky 2 battles can, so i guess you won't have to worry about feeding rested armies back into the same fight they left earlier...)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
The thing about the new expansion is that they've totally reworked how naval battles actually work. Positioning is gone (good, because it did nothing), and now there's a reasonable cap to the number of ships that can meaningfully be involved in a battle, based primarily on admiral maneuver. A little back of the envelope math when I read the DD suggested that fleets of more than 20-30 ships will be overkill. Which is still pretty high for the early game, but it's better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The current battle meta is dumb as poo poo, and I don't know why people think it's any better than naval battles. Superior numbers is the overwhelmingly most important attribute in nearly every case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:48
|
|