|
I probably usually sit at +1 stab or so because the game throws enough positive stability events at you, but the point where I'm willing to pay out admin points is to stay at 0, not at +1. Have I been playing incorrectly all these years?
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
I do go for +2 whenever I'm ahead on tech and don't have urgent expenses like cores to create. It's rare to get multiple +1 stab events without either offering a juicy alternative (like +50 prestige) and without randomly losing a point inbetween. I'm guessing that the folks who never splurge for +2 stab also a fortiori never ever bother with province development?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
If you take religious ideas you get lots of +1 stab events to the point where you're almost constantly sitting at +3 stab.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:I do go for +2 whenever I'm ahead on tech and don't have urgent expenses like cores to create. It's rare to get multiple +1 stab events without either offering a juicy alternative (like +50 prestige) and without randomly losing a point inbetween. i feel like a lot of it depends on whether you're playing in western/central europe or not. most of my games are outside there, which means i don't have the mp to spend on vanity stuff like +2 stab or province development or whatever. you only really have the monarch points to spare for that when you're expanding slowly & have western tech, in my experience also, +50 prestige is rarely something i would describe as 'juicy'. maybe if it was the difference between keeping your subjects below 50% liberty desire and not? but i'd take +1 stab over it 99 times out of 100.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
FadingChord posted:I probably usually sit at +1 stab or so because the game throws enough positive stability events at you, but the point where I'm willing to pay out admin points is to stay at 0, not at +1. Have I been playing incorrectly all these years? If you're feeling strapped for admin at any given time then 0 is fine. Usually the game is not so generous as to give you 3 positive stability events in a row without any negatives, so going to +1 will rarely be wasted and makes it easier to get to +3 for a while randomly. I would prioritize staying at 0 above any use of admin points other than coring, while going to +1 is more akin to running a policy. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
I like to sit at +1 wholly for the psychological angle that it feels better to get a negative event down to 0 and pay for +1, rather than getting a negative event down to -1 and need to pay for 0.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I usually wait until I get a +1 event and use it to get to +2 on a discount.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
So I'm France, and I got PU'd by a massively ovetbloated Spain (that I fed and then rivalled me, whoops). Their King dies, and they get a regency while I get a new Emperor. Except I'm still under a PU. Then the kid comes of age and suddenly I'm under Spains king again, still PU'd. Is this WAD? Do you normally get a new monarch for the duration of your overlords regency? Or is that a bug?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
I just started a game as Austria to learn the HRE mechanics, it was all going smoothly, inherited Burgundy (including Holland) and PU'd Hungary, but all went to hell when I declared on Poland to liberate an imperial territory, didn't realize how many vassals, marches and personal unions they had, and how horribly powerful they allies of Bohemia where. gently caress the HRE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:gently caress the HRE. The actual HRE only ever managed to conquer the Baltic coast and bully fractured Italy for a few centuries. The HRE was just the German branch of fight club on a provincial scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
zedprime posted:I like to sit at +1 wholly for the psychological angle that it feels better to get a negative event down to 0 and pay for +1, rather than getting a negative event down to -1 and need to pay for 0. I've always operated under the assumption that there were good events and such that only fired at +1 and above*, so generally try to stay at +1. I almost never buy up to +2 and basically never buy up to +3. * I'm probably wrong? Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:I just started a game as Austria to learn the HRE mechanics, it was all going smoothly, inherited Burgundy (including Holland) and PU'd Hungary, but all went to hell when I declared on Poland to liberate an imperial territory, didn't realize how many vassals, marches and personal unions they had, and how horribly powerful they allies of Bohemia where. When did EU4 add always-online multiplayer? I didn't realise there was a goon piloting my game's Austria. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I've always operated under the assumption that there were good events and such that only fired at +1 and above*, so generally try to stay at +1. I almost never buy up to +2 and basically never buy up to +3. I remember the case being made that you should be at +1 for the sake of events ages ago. It's probably still true. In any case you'd want to be at +1 stability anyway since it's not like you're paying any less admin if you try to maintain 0 stab over +1 (other than 100 you drop on it initially). There's benefits to being at +1 stability in itself, and if you're having an ADM crunch later on in the game a -1 stab event is less catastrophic if it brings you to neutral rather than negative stability (pretty sure there's a bunch of bad stuff involving negative stability, more than just the effects of +1 stability reversed). It just generally makes a good amount of sense to stick at +1 over 0.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:(pretty sure there's a bunch of bad stuff involving negative stability, more than just the effects of +1 stability reversed). In particular, Peasant's War and Internal Conflicts won't start ticking unless you have stab -1 or worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
In honour of EU4 breaking a million copies sold, they're giving away a music pack until July 4th. Claim it on the steam page, http://store.steampowered.com/app/486970/
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:In particular, Peasant's War and Internal Conflicts won't start ticking unless you have stab -1 or worse. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Remember how they said they'd be talking about a famous dynasty this week for the dev diaries? I wasn't expecting this. Unique gov form announced and the ability for a ruler to step down and give the country to an heir at the cost of prestige and legitimacy. I'm actually really interested in 1.18 now. It's going to be a big mess but I want to mess with the expansion features.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Mysticblade posted:Remember how they said they'd be talking about a famous dynasty this week for the dev diaries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
I'm glad they finally got around to giving us that ability. I've always had the worst luck with rulers. Even when I got a super-heir he'd die in an event before the current as the usually rubbish leader hangs around. That double whammy of losing a great heir and being replaced by one with a weaker claim always hurts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
I have a good feeling with Jake at the helm
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
I'm most excited about the Osmanoglu stuff because I'm a pedantic bellend who gets irrationally annoyed at seeing the Ottoman Empire without an Ottoman ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:I'm most excited about the Osmanoglu stuff because I'm a pedantic bellend who gets irrationally annoyed at seeing the Ottoman Empire without an Ottoman ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:I'm most excited about the Osmanoglu stuff because I'm a pedantic bellend who gets irrationally annoyed at seeing the Ottoman Empire without an Ottoman ruling. This seems like it should be solved more generally though. Should the Timurids be ruled by someone who isn't a descendent of Timur?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
The Timurids should be gone within 6 decades anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:01
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
they currently have an unfortunate tendency to stick around much longer, often as a rump state in central asia, but i agree that they really shouldn't. mughals or bust!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Hope they add a Turkey tag if I become an Ottoman republic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:This seems like it should be solved more generally though. Should the Timurids be ruled by someone who isn't a descendent of Timur? CK2 has the Arabic realms automatically named after the ruling dynasty. IMO they should straight-up copy that feature for EU4 and have it apply it to all Sultanates with a sufficiently multicultural population (so that Morocco stays Morocco).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:CK2 has the Arabic realms automatically named after the ruling dynasty. IMO they should straight-up copy that feature for EU4 and have it apply it to all Sultanates with a sufficiently multicultural population (so that Morocco stays Morocco). Eventually I'd like to see a distinction between dynastic states and nation-states. Dynastic states should be highly ruler-dependent and vanish irrevocably if their line dies out or is sufficiently discredited. It doesn't really make sense to claim the title of "Sultan of the Timurids" they way it makes sense to claim the title of "Sultan of Egypt".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Eventually I'd like to see a distinction between dynastic states and nation-states. Dynastic states should be highly ruler-dependent and vanish irrevocably if their line dies out or is sufficiently discredited. It doesn't really make sense to claim the title of "Sultan of the Timurids" they way it makes sense to claim the title of "Sultan of Egypt". This would be really cool and a more elegant way of modeling things like the Burgundian succession or the collapse of Mamluk power than the current system, but is probably too much work for Paradox to actually attempt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I'm kind of amused a side effect of every district in Scotland voting remain is that they are colored yellow just like in EU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
So quick question re: HRE mechanics and Imperial Authority - is it meant to be next to impossible to accumulate authority in the current version of the game? It's 1700 and I've only managed to get one reform passed. Looking at the tooltip, I'm at a net loss in IA every month because there are heretic princes in the Empire. Except religious peace triggered after an extended league war, so I'm not sure why that's happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
skasion posted:This would be really cool and a more elegant way of modeling things like the Burgundian succession or the collapse of Mamluk power than the current system, but is probably too much work for Paradox to actually attempt. i would argue that nearly every state in eu4's period - especially at the start - was some kind of 'dynastic state'. nationalism is not in period! simonwolf posted:So quick question re: HRE mechanics and Imperial Authority - is it meant to be next to impossible to accumulate authority in the current version of the game? It's 1700 and I've only managed to get one reform passed. Looking at the tooltip, I'm at a net loss in IA every month because there are heretic princes in the Empire. Except religious peace triggered after an extended league war, so I'm not sure why that's happening. pretty much, i think. getting IA is a challenge that you have to really work for - it's not something that happened historically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:pretty much, i think. getting IA is a challenge that you have to really work for - it's not something that happened historically. That's fair, I guess! I just remember in previous patches and such, it was relatively common to see at least three or four reforms being passed over the course of the game, and it'd take concerted player effort to get all the way to revoking the privlegia, whereas now it seems next to impossible to accumulate any authority at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
simonwolf posted:That's fair, I guess! I just remember in previous patches and such, it was relatively common to see at least three or four reforms being passed over the course of the game, and it'd take concerted player effort to get all the way to revoking the privlegia, whereas now it seems next to impossible to accumulate any authority at all. It's fairly historically accurate, the Thirty Years War was as much about HRE internal politics (power of the princes vs. the Habsburg emperor) as it was religion, which is where you end up with situations like Protestant Saxony supporting the Catholic emperor. They wanted land held by the HRE princes opposing the emperor. In game, to maximize your IA you want to have many small HRE members and have them all be the same religion. Princes blobbing inside the Empire or converting to heretic religions is what basically happened historically and eroded Habsburg authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
simonwolf posted:So quick question re: HRE mechanics and Imperial Authority - is it meant to be next to impossible to accumulate authority in the current version of the game? It's 1700 and I've only managed to get one reform passed. Looking at the tooltip, I'm at a net loss in IA every month because there are heretic princes in the Empire. Except religious peace triggered after an extended league war, so I'm not sure why that's happening. Basically. You need to be able to effectively enforce a religion on the princes to make any headway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
jfc can we get a fix for AI ending wars when they're way ahead in warscore and racking up huge Call for Peace war exhaustion? I'm at +0.32 WE per month and my ally has had >90% warscore for four years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Star posted:I have a good feeling with Jake at the helm He's not at the helm. I'm still in charge of design, with Anona replacing Wiz as project manager. Jake is junior designer, sitting with the team. His first feature is ruler personalities, and he is working on design proposals for the 1.20 patch. Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, Res Publica & Art of War was my design. El Dorado, Common Sense, Cossacks & Mare Nostrum was design by me and Wiz. 1.18 is 95% my design, and I hope Jake will contribute 50% by 1.20.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Playing Tunis, Tafilalt is my vassal. They've been hovering close to the 50% LD and during a war my king died and before I could remarry and get LD below 50% Spain snuck in a support independence, so now the LD is 100%. What do I do? Do I have to take a war with Spain (allied with Portugal and France  ) or are there peaceful solutions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Hmm, I have bought all of those expansions at full price. Didn't realize it was so many by now. If many people are like me it is no wonder they want to keep developing for EU4. Well worth the money btw. I like Jake. Anyone who streams playing Sengoku Rance is good in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
I'm thinking of starting an Aztec run to aim for the achievement, is that wise? I've never really played Central Americans and I heard they're harder now, with Corruption and everything. I guess I wanna rush exploration and try to reform my religion as much as possible by the time the Euros get there and I westernize?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 11:32
|
|
