|
super fart shooter posted:I started as Brandenburg and formed Prussia, which turned me into a kingdom. Then the league war ended inconclusively with the diet or whatever which made Catholicism the dominant religion, which means I lost my elector status, since I'm protestant. But now I just realized that I also got demoted to a duchy again. (Bohemia's protestant too and they also lost the kingdom rank.) I guess it's not that important since I'm actually pretty close to 300 development, but I wonder if this is intentional, it's a pretty obscure little rule... The only states in the HRE eligible to go above duchy-level are the electors. Not even the emperor himself can (unless they're an elector too, of course). When you lost your elector title, you got forcibly demoted.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Gort posted:What's the issue with states and corruption as a non-European nation? For Corruption in non-Euro land, traditionally the only way you could keep up and not get swallowed whole is to focus on having your military tech up to date at all costs. Because Ideas are relatively fixed cost (400 per) versus tech cost which is based on tech group, you will often be running with your Admin and Diplo techs 2 or more levels behind your Military tech if you want to survive contact against Western or Eastern nations. That's like +.20 corruption ticking constantly. Couple that with the fact that the rest of the world isn't uniformly Catholic or even Sunni and you get even more corruption from religious disunity. You can easily spend upwards of 7-8 ducats per month on keeping corruption at 0 gain if you're regional power size and expanding at any reasonable pace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Note that not everyone starts with 15 states either. If you're a duchy then you dont get plus five for being a kingdom. If you got a nonstandard government like native, tribe or horde then you don't get the plus five. You could start out with a max of five states in an area full of crappy development provinces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I tried a somali game but gave it up, this "gently caress ROTW" patch just makes it unfun. Gonna try a catholic Ottoman game to get Rome and One Faith. Kinda sad that Paradox writes "Corruption solved many balance issues."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Eej posted:For Corruption in non-Euro land, traditionally the only way you could keep up and not get swallowed whole is to focus on having your military tech up to date at all costs. Because Ideas are relatively fixed cost (400 per) versus tech cost which is based on tech group, you will often be running with your Admin and Diplo techs 2 or more levels behind your Military tech if you want to survive contact against Western or Eastern nations. That's like +.20 corruption ticking constantly. It's not that harsh. Diplo and Admin both 2 techs behind military actually doesn't give any corruption at all. As a Central African nation I managed to keep corruption under 5 until I westernized, though I'll admit I got very lucky with my rulers. I just checked with an African nation in 1719 and 1508 and having A&D both 4 levels behind M gives only .12 corruption every month, which seems very low, was it nerfed recently?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
As for corruption, it is a mechanic specific designed to hurt the nations who are already suffering with monarch point shortage. A european nation can keep their rooting corruption slider at zero for the whole game from 1444 to 1821 and they'll end the game with their corruption at <1% for 99% of the game because positive stability gives -0.02% corruption a month and being ahead in admin and diplo tech gives -0.005% each per month. A non European nation will absolutely not be ahead in either tech at any point and those point starved nations will not have the extra admin points to spurge on positive stability above 1. The main contributors to corruption are wrong religion and "unbalanced tech": wrong religion is basically a thing that only happens outside of europe and unbalanced tech is when one tech is 3 levels or more above the lowest level tech. A common strategy as a non european was to forgo investing too much into mil ideas until you westernize since each of the early levels are very, very important to get an edge out of your neighbors. Spending your budget on keeping corruption at a manageable level means budget that isn't going into advisors or advisor singular. So now you have this situation where corruption hurts the nations that are already monarch points starved while being this thing you can ignore and that gives a free +20 prestige or +1 stability every now and then for european nations. Basically it's whoever that designed this mechanic saying to those uppity startity nations around the world reminding them what the title of this game is and to slow down because their snail pace before was deemed unacceptable Vanilla Mint Ice fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Can you still accept religious Rebels demands to convert to another religion? What I'm saying is how to Catholic ottoman
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
I went for a random Castile game to grind out a couple of easy achievements (I'm having a race with someone now) and  I didn't do anything to encourage it at all. 850 hours of EU4 and that's maybe the second time I've ever seen that happen, and it happened to me I guess now I have to try and get Spain is the emperor..
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
I really wish they would rebalance military tech levels, that would solve one of the issues Corruption tries to fix in such a hamfisted way while also not making some early game wars kind of dumb. Castile and Poland/Lithuania, for example, seem to fall behind in Mil tech in the early game. Being behind even just one tech level in the first century or so of the game means you'll get shitwrecked by similar-sized forces. Paradox should do what they did with Production/Trade Efficiency bonuses and spread out the Tactics and Morale bonuses more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:Can you still accept religious Rebels demands to convert to another religion? What I'm saying is how to Catholic ottoman You can, but they need to be the majority religion, so either go Otho-Ottomans, or you'll need to get those Catholic rebels to spread it out all over the place. Probably easiest if you just delete all your forts in Anatolia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Allyn posted:The only states in the HRE eligible to go above duchy-level are the electors. Not even the emperor himself can (unless they're an elector too, of course). When you lost your elector title, you got forcibly demoted. Yeah, I just figured it out. I still think it's dumb that it can downgrade you though. Pellisworth posted:I really wish they would rebalance military tech levels, that would solve one of the issues Corruption tries to fix in such a hamfisted way while also not making some early game wars kind of dumb. So true. Why, in a game with slow incremental tech progression, did they decide that MIL 15 is the level where you just totally destroy everybody who's not level 15? And why level 15? What's the significance of that? Who even came up with these arbitrary bonuses? It's like the EU equivalent of beelining for tanks in a civilization game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
It's actually just social commentary about how the white man is naturally resistant to corruption
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
super fart shooter posted:Yeah, I just figured it out. I still think it's dumb that it can downgrade you though. 15 is the only really problematic one, I think. That +1 to morale should probably be chopped to +0.5, with the other +0.5 relocated somewhere between 10 and 15. This is actually kind of a funny reenactment of a real debate in military history circles centered on the Maurician infantry reforms, which used to be considered far more revolutionary by military historians than we understand them to be today with our greater understanding of what developments had actually taken place before Maurice. It really isn't that arbitrary that mil 15 makes your armies crazy good - just kind of an outdated take on infantry history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
I haven't played much until recently, but I kinda want to try a game where I make England into a continental power. Is it better to go for broke and try to win the 100 Years War, or let Normandy and Gascogne fall, then take them back later when I have more military ideas and more territory in the British Isles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I haven't played much until recently, but I kinda want to try a game where I make England into a continental power. Is it better to go for broke and try to win the 100 Years War, or let Normandy and Gascogne fall, then take them back later when I have more military ideas and more territory in the British Isles? Right now France has a habit of crushing the Iberians and becoming particularly terrifying, plus I think someone mentioned they had their development boosted recently? Don't give up your continental possessions, but you'll probably want to do a couple wars against them and break them up some before you enforce the HYW personal union. Otherwise they'll be super rebellious forever. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I haven't played much until recently, but I kinda want to try a game where I make England into a continental power. Is it better to go for broke and try to win the 100 Years War, or let Normandy and Gascogne fall, then take them back later when I have more military ideas and more territory in the British Isles? Ally Austria and if possible Castile, and you'll crush France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I haven't played much until recently, but I kinda want to try a game where I make England into a continental power. Is it better to go for broke and try to win the 100 Years War, or let Normandy and Gascogne fall, then take them back later when I have more military ideas and more territory in the British Isles? You should retain your territory. You don't start out at war anymore, so you have time to ally Austria and Castile and start cutting up France. Honestly, the biggest problem I faced was that I didn't vassalize Scotland before their development was over 100% warscore and it took me forever to form GB. This was before France was buffed but honestly I doubt that they can handle that strong of an alliance now either. You will have to be careful though, because the Iberians and Austrians will aggressively expand into a weakened France and take territory that should, of course, be yours. I wouldn't bother with the PU, just vassalize Brittany and feed them French cores if you're not feeling like spending the admin yourself. Also, a continental England benefits hugely from supporting Sweden's independence and then separate peacing out with Denmark to get Holstein as a vassal early on. This is a big deal since it gives you an angle in Europe to expand in that isn't France or the HRE. Just as a tip, don't neglect colonization just because you are taking territory in Europe. You are going to need massive trade income to support big enough armies to be a real contender on the continent and the best way to get that is by funneling trade from the rest of the world back home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
  France has a PU over austria and has somehow kept it for ~50 years. History page shows that Tlemcen somehow got that portuguese province from rebels? Despite never owning the province in the first place? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
What is "unbalanced tech" even supposed to represent? Why does it increase corruption? Does discovering the musket before the plow somehow make your ministers more susceptible to bribes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Just as a tip, don't neglect colonization just because you are taking territory in Europe. You are going to need massive trade income to support big enough armies to be a real contender on the continent and the best way to get that is by funneling trade from the rest of the world back home. If i'm playing continental games as england, i'll tend to just end up stealing the iberian colonies eventually anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What is "unbalanced tech" even supposed to represent? Why does it increase corruption? Does discovering the musket before the plow somehow make your ministers more susceptible to bribes? I don't think we need to read too much into the historicity or logic here, Corruption is a fun and interesting mechanic without necessarily being 100% historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I don't think we need to read too much into the historicity or logic here, Corruption is a fun and interesting mechanic without necessarily being 100% historically accurate. My friend, 'fun' may be a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:My friend, 'fun' may be a bridge too far. That was pure sarcasm, I don't have a problem with mechanics that play loose with historicity as long as they're contributing something fun and engaging. Corruption is a band-aid for balancing the RotW instead of addressing the perceived root issues. It takes up UI space and player attention while adding nothing enjoyable or interesting to the gameplay. It's pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Does anybody know what they were trying to achieve by punishing religious disunity with corruption? Is that supposed to balance something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
super fart shooter posted:Does anybody know what they were trying to achieve by punishing religious disunity with corruption? Is that supposed to balance something? expansion Corruption is basically a tax on expansion (it increases from Overextension and religious disunity) and falling behind in Adm/Dip tech to prioritize Mil, which was a favored tactic for high tech penalty nations. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Despite its flaws and annoyances I still like corruption more than protectorates.super fart shooter posted:Does anybody know what they were trying to achieve by punishing religious disunity with corruption? Is that supposed to balance something? 
Poil fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
One nice thing I've noticed about corruption is that it's a good replacement for all those nasty "lose 1 year of income" event options, since 1 point of corruption costs 1 year of income to get rid of. So it's the same cost, but you don't have to pay it instantly, quickly, or even at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:15 is the only really problematic one, I think. That +1 to morale should probably be chopped to +0.5, with the other +0.5 relocated somewhere between 10 and 15. 22 and 25 both give +2 artillery fire, which is essentially a recipe for stackwipes against anyone who falls behind at either of those critical techs. I kind of miss EU3's military tech - the tech that gave you your first gunpowder units, miltech 18 (eu4's miltech 12) was absolutely insane, and if you got it first you could win a war with essentially anyone until they caught up. 5-10 years of rampaging around europe with impunity, conquering away - those were the days......
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Poil posted:Despite its flaws and annoyances I still like corruption more than protectorates. Protectorates owns, it's like having the HRE vassal swarm without being the emperor AND no matter how big a country is you can still force protectorate them Corruption on the other hand is a mechanic that exists to punish and the only reason it is called corruption is because 'Here is a tax on non europeans because someone playing as a filthy non european beat me in the office multiplayer session' is a bit too wordy Vanilla Mint Ice fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Advice about For Odin! Thanks for the advice about the achievement. I let Portugal and Spain continue to colonize South American, only about 20% left. I just completed my first expansion war against Portugal, taking about 1/5 of what they had, but mainly breaking their military, economy their alliance with The Papal State. Not sure if AI cares about money or not as I saw Great Britain was ~5900 in debt when they backed out of defending Portugal. I took Cuba and some of French Canada from France, but I can release Cuba as a vassal. Playing as a Ambrosian Republic, so not sure if that affects that or not. Seems I can only release native South/North american civs and they stay non-westernized. Dumped ~1100 gold into the Iroquois, and they just sit there in their 4 provinces mocking me. Are generals tied to Tradition? The Papal States were rocking a really nasty one that was kicking my rear end for a bit. North American should be interesting. Great Britain has some of Texas, Holland has Florida and some Caribbean islands, and France has Canada. Might not be able to get For Odin! and First Come, First Serve this game as Sweden is wrecking everyone in their path. They conquered Finland and Norway, and are now pushing Muscovy back. Denmark is a tiny island now. Year is like 1645 now, so getting a little worried I won't have enough time to finish my push for the Americans. *edit - I'm amazed that the AI doesn't care about you burning their colonies to the ground. Redchaostry fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
A few questions from the latest build. I realized I haven't played Ottomans ironman, ever. I start as ever swallowing Byzantium and the local cores, vassalize Persia to feed them Timurid land, and even join a big war and manage to split the Poland-Lithuania PU. Things look grand. Poland swallows Bohemia, Austria breaks um into Styria while I grab Mecca and the Timurid coast. I see Poland is in a long war with Norway and its cronies, and decide it's time to hit them hard. However, the poles allied a large Brandemburg and France, so its chancy. I decide to attack Lithuania instead, who is allied only to Poland and some tiny HRE nation. I have an army of 170k, full manpower reserves of 115k, and a good navy. Also one military tech level ahead. The war starts...and it goes awful at once. Despite being at war in the North, they had 90+ regiments just by the border. They also immediately peace out their war. Even when I attack close to 2-1 advantage to my side, I keep getting utterly trounced (most battles already start with my morale a third down). My level 6 fortress in the border is taken in barely a year and then stops all my invasion moves, and when i try to retake it attrition bleeds me ridiculously fast. My ally Sain send only the occasional 20-stack to be eaten alive while besieging some random province. I hired a ton of mercenaries and manages to get a few victories, but my manpower was down to zero before 2 years. I open the military tab and see that just Poland still has over 50k manpower, and give up. Has there been any changes to Poland/Lithuania? I've been able to crack them reliably, though with a lot of work, as Scandinavia or Austria before. Also, have there been changes to troop movement through other nations? I rarely grant access through my lands, but seems that there are always tons of units strolling through my provinces to fight somewhere. I also noticed that my 40-ship blockades didn't stop England from moving troops between the isles, but I saw that now you need to control at least one side of the strait in question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
I see a lot of people posting about Poland falling apart and just had two straight games where they refused the union with Lithuania
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:A few questions from the latest build. Before warring somebody under the pretense that they're busy fighting somebody else, check to make sure they are actually fighting. If you look at their ledger and nothing is going down then they're not very likely to be actually participating in the war. If you look at their diplomacy map and see there's no natural border between them and their enemy, and none of the nations inbetween them are granting military access to anyone in the war, it is highly likely they are not actually participating in the war. As for why you're losing, that's easy: you're already identified the problem yourself when you said you started each battle with morale down, that is a sign that the other side has a higher max morale. Whenever you fight someone pause the game and look the battle screen of an ongoing fight and mouseover all the numbers and icons to see what you and they have. The Ottomans are an absolute beast because of their national ideas but in terms of military bonuses they have a little more discipline than most other people (unless you rejected the janissary) and that's it. On the otherhand Lithuania gets a +1 leader shock and Poland gets the amazing +15% morale bonus. If either of them have more military ideas, especially Defensive and you don't, than you then you're pitching out of your league. All the changes have slowly made morale to be more important than any other combat stats which somehow made the Defensive idea group the best offensive idea group
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Yeah, I would love to see tactics and other bonuses go up much more incrementally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What is "unbalanced tech" even supposed to represent? Why does it increase corruption? Does discovering the musket before the plow somehow make your ministers more susceptible to bribes? Vanilla Mint Ice posted:All the changes have slowly made morale to be more important than any other combat stats which somehow made the Defensive idea group the best offensive idea group
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Yeah, I would love to see tactics and other bonuses go up much more incrementally. I am not sure tactics is in a bad position at the moment. 6 and 7 both having a tactics bonus might be a little much, but I feel like some of the unevenness in the importance of mil tech levels is dramatically appropriate. If you're fielding cannons and your enemies just figured out the whole "early modern army" thing, you should be able to inflict serious casualties. Timing conquests to align with important tech levels is also one of the significant advantages of a player over the AI, and the AI is better than it used to be so removing another player advantage will have significant repercussions in terms of the total momentum you can build early on. The way morale and pip modifiers are distributed doesn't make much sense, though. Vanilla Mint Ice posted:All the changes have slowly made morale to be more important than any other combat stats which somehow made the Defensive idea group the best offensive idea group Morale's always been the best combat stat since EU3 and probably before. Military Drill's always been the best idea in the game, too. Discipline was very strong in early EU4 but it's definitely taken a back seat to morale now that more AIs are picking Defensive early.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I am not sure tactics is in a bad position at the moment. 6 and 7 both having a tactics bonus might be a little much, but I feel like some of the unevenness in the importance of mil tech levels is dramatically appropriate. If you're fielding cannons and your enemies just figured out the whole "early modern army" thing, you should be able to inflict serious casualties. Timing conquests to align with important tech levels is also one of the significant advantages of a player over the AI, and the AI is better than it used to be so removing another player advantage will have significant repercussions in terms of the total momentum you can build early on. The way morale and pip modifiers are distributed doesn't make much sense, though. This has always felt kind of gamey to me though, wait until you can jump a tech level on the AI then declare war. Maybe dramatic jumps are realistic, I am not certain, but you could get a similar effect between a European nation and somewhere less advanced if the European is 5 techs ahead in Mil tech and there was an incremental tactics increase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:A few questions from the latest build. In addition to what others have said, it also sounds like you're moving around giant doom-stacks instead of keeping armies that are combat-width-sized + artillery and then reinforcing. There are two good reasons to do this 1) The entire army in a fight takes morale damage, but only a number of units equal to your combat width is actually engaged in the fighting. Ignoring cavalry and artillery, if you have 60k infantry and a combat width of 25 then you should have a primary stack of 25k infantry and one or two additional stacks that periodically reinforce the main stack. If you have them, add artillery to the main stack up to your combat width (aka 25k artillery + 25k infantry). If you have cavalry, then replacing a few infantry with cavalry can be a good boost (the optimal number of cavalry depends on tech level, but say maybe 19k infantry, 6k cavalry, 25k artillery). This allows you to stretch your manpower and your morale a lot further than keeping all of your men + reinforcements in one big stack. 2) The entire army takes attrition damage, so during a siege you should just leave enough units to keep sieging. Try to split armies in order to keep under the supply limit in each province. If the enemy moves towards the fort, then you can push your own units into the region as necessary. This minimizes overall attrition damage and allows you to stretch your manpower a lot further. If you let your army stray too far from the siege force then you run the risk of a bad loss, so don't stray too far away and keep those reinforcement stacks around if you think your enemy has a big stack of dudes nearby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
I see the AI is still a cheating bastard when it comes to fort ZOC. Pictured: Bosnia, Bavaria and Brandenburg, arriving from Postdam, moving through the fort I occupied in Niederlausitz and into Sternberg. Yes, the fort is maintained and has a (now bewildered) garrison. I don't feel bad at all for stranding Bohemia's whole army (42k) over in Ezel now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
The ideal situation is to pretend to be Napoleon and fill your entire combat width with artillery but if you can do that and not go bankrupt your country is probably already in a very good position to kick anyone in the teeth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 10:22
|
|