|
Huh. Checked the wiki and it says to AVOID having trade buildings in regions where you control trade nodes. Doesn't it bring in MORE money to boost your standing in every redirect/collect node? It may be a lower priority, but increasing trade power to monopoly or near-monopoly has never failed me so far.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The only buildings I ever bother with are manpower and force limit upgrades. The money buildings usually take several decades to pay for themselves, and there's no pressing reason to spend gold on them. If a temple gives you +0.1/month it pays itself off in 41 years and will the proceed to make you a net profit of 401 gold the rest of the game (assuming it's built in year 1). That poo poo stacks up so fast, especially since it amplifies once you start pumping development higher. It's a huge boon to being able to actually afford building up to your force limit by midgame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Huh. Checked the wiki and it says to AVOID having trade buildings in regions where you control trade nodes. Doesn't it bring in MORE money to boost your standing in every redirect/collect node? It may be a lower priority, but increasing trade power to monopoly or near-monopoly has never failed me so far. yes Don't trust the wiki, a lot of it is out of date or bad advice. It's an ok resource for some things but strategy definitely not
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Huh. Checked the wiki and it says to AVOID having trade buildings in regions where you control trade nodes. Doesn't it bring in MORE money to boost your standing in every redirect/collect node? It may be a lower priority, but increasing trade power to monopoly or near-monopoly has never failed me so far. They probably mean that if you have sole control of a node it isn't worth building the trade buildings. This is true but it's also kind of pointless because by the time you have any nodes that are truly uncontested you are probably untouchably powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
I've never built a dock since the sailors patch, but other than that I use every building type fairly extensively. Temples, workshops and markets whenever I have spare cash; I always designate a core group of coastal provinces as my shipyards and tend to build all my future ships from those, plus I have them in intervals as repair stops; courthouses on newly conquered high development provinces; barracks on high manpower provinces like everyone else said, and regimental camps occasionally when I remember to. Plus universities in all my big cities because it doesn't feel right to be building a massive empire and neglecting your educational institutions. I generally don't make manufactories unless I've been distracted by something for a while and built up a big chunk of money, since there's nearly always somewhere else I want to build a building. But if you have them upstream on a trade route you have good control over and they'll pay off very quickly. e: the courthouses aren't about the unrest reduction (although that doesn't hurt), it's the autonomy reduction. They nerfed the poo poo out of the passive autonomy bonuses you get out of governments in the Mare Nostrum patch, so -.1 passively is actually extremely significant if you're fighting fairly constant wars. Those are actually a priority building for me whenever I conquer some rich land. new dev diary: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-30th-of-june-2016.953881/#post-21518519 about traits for your generals and admirals. there aren't gonna be any negative ones, which I thought was an interesting choice. Koramei fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
I swear to got monarchs better get portraits in this DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Gort posted:Several decades in a game spanning centuries... on the other hand, if you spend that money on armies that conquer more territory instead, you can get more development plus all the buildings other people built plus weaken or destroy your rivals. It's the same way that internal development is super situational. If you aren't super constrained on expansion by something other than money (monarch points, AE, multiplayer politics?), your money is generally better spent on expansion; if you are constrained on expansion, odds are good you should still be saving up cash to avoid going into loans during your next big war, rather than spending on buildings. (Or you should be building your navy up to the force limit, or...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I swear to got monarchs better get portraits in this DLC. Seriously. Just recycle the CKII base faces and add new clothes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Huh. Checked the wiki and it says to AVOID having trade buildings in regions where you control trade nodes. Doesn't it bring in MORE money to boost your standing in every redirect/collect node? It may be a lower priority, but increasing trade power to monopoly or near-monopoly has never failed me so far. Adding trade power to a node has diminishing returns on trade income. If you've got a node worth 10 ducats and you control 50% of the 100 total trade power, you'll be making 5 ducats a month (before trade efficiency). If you build 5 trade power worth of markets, you'll now control 55/105 of the trade power. Your income will increase by about 0.24. If you add another 5 trade power, you'll control 60/110, and your income will increase by about 0.21. This value approaches zero as you get closer to controlling 100% of the trade power. A good rule of thumb is that if you control less than half of the trade power, you want to add your own trade power, and if you control more than half, you want to take away others' (embargoes, trade transfers, war).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Seriously. Just recycle the CKII base faces and add new clothes. Jesus, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:on the other hand, if you spend that money on armies that conquer more territory instead, you can get more development plus all the buildings other people built plus weaken or destroy your rivals. It's the same way that internal development is super situational. If you aren't super constrained on expansion by something other than money (monarch points, AE, multiplayer politics?), your money is generally better spent on expansion; if you are constrained on expansion, odds are good you should still be saving up cash to avoid going into loans during your next big war, rather than spending on buildings. (Or you should be building your navy up to the force limit, or...) I don't think it's a binary thing of "pursue wars" or "spend on expansion" though. Unless you're using your funds to constantly buy over force limit or something bizarre like that, there comes a point not long into the game where you won't need to be going horrendously into debt in every single war you go into- either you'll have snuffed out all your clear competitors, or you have minor states to carve out in between you and them, or you went colonial and are expanding outside the continent- and in wars that aren't against a peer, usually your budget doesn't even begin to get strained. In fact, especially when I'm playing outside of Europe, I usually find that the times after I've just been in a war are the times when I have the most money, since my attention was diverted away from spending it on buildings/ ships etc. The reason development is insanely situational is because monarch points are used for so many things, you constantly need them for all parts of the game. Money, on the other hand- once you've maxed out your force limit and met army maintenance, extra income is surplus that you really don't need for anything. Set aside some for bad events/ bad wars if you like, but the surplus after that, there's no reason to not be making buildings. TBH your argument is IMO actually a very clear indicator that you should be making buildings. I dunno if you constantly do world conquests as OPMs or something, but in my games it's very rare for me to be sweating about money very much after about 100 years or so. Buildings provide stability that makes future conquests significantly easier. Flip Yr Wig posted:I swear to got monarchs better get portraits in this DLC. All I see us getting with this is every single Asian/African/Indian country having about 3 portraits to choose from between them. Please no. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I'd rather have a lot of money on hand than a large income. The latter won't protect you from bad events that cost you a year of income, or help you if you gently caress up and lose half your army.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I swear to got monarchs better get portraits in this DLC. Koramei posted:All I see us getting with this is every single Asian/African/Indian country having about 3 portraits to choose from between them. Please no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I'd rather have a lot of money on hand than a large income. The latter won't protect you from bad events that cost you a year of income, or help you if you gently caress up and lose half your army. On the other hand, a large income helps you get a lot of money on hand, so you can have both. And yeah, a large income will help you if you gently caress up and lose half your army, as you can use it to both recruit and support mercenaries. I get that spending money on buildings is an opportunity cost that should be judged against other things, but the idea that you should never build buildings that increase your income is foolish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Well then it's a good thing nobody said you should never build buildings!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Just chill out, roleplay a little, and do what feels right/fun.  That way the game stays entertaining and challenging forever, instead of min-maxing and breaking it over your knee. /my philosophy
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Just chill out, roleplay a little, and do what feels right/fun. I build temples in every province so that the peasants may feel the light of God upon their faces. It's the only reason I need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The only buildings I ever bother with are manpower and force limit upgrades. Gort posted:the idea that you should never build buildings that increase your income is foolish. Fister Roboto posted:Well then it's a good thing nobody said you should never build buildings!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Those are entirely different statements, but if you want to have a pedantic argument over what I said, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
OK
Gort fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:on the other hand, if you spend that money on armies that conquer more territory instead, you can get more development plus all the buildings other people built plus weaken or destroy your rivals. It's the same way that internal development is super situational. If you aren't super constrained on expansion by something other than money (monarch points, AE, multiplayer politics?), your money is generally better spent on expansion; if you are constrained on expansion, odds are good you should still be saving up cash to avoid going into loans during your next big war, rather than spending on buildings. (Or you should be building your navy up to the force limit, or...) It's not an either-or situation though. You can use war to extract huge amounts of gold + land from rivals, which lets you build some gold-producing buildings, which let you maintain a larger army, which lets you better extract huge amounts of gold + land from rivals. Saving up a big gold reserve can be helpful, but a better income helps you do that. Gold-producing buildings are what you should build right after a war in order to prepare for the next war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
The issue with income boosting buildings is that while I can only get more manpower from expansion and buildings, money is trivial after the first 50 years. Between trade, beating up minors for their lunch money and national income, ducats are very easy to come by whereas manpower generation has been nerfed repeatedly to make it more a more valuable resource comparatively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:The issue with income boosting buildings is that while I can only get more manpower from expansion and buildings, money is trivial after the first 50 years. Between trade, beating up minors for their lunch money and national income, ducats are very easy to come by whereas manpower generation has been nerfed repeatedly to make it more a more valuable resource comparatively. Mercenaries let you turn your money into manpower, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Manpower recovers so slowly that I couldn't imagine using an army not mostly composed of mercenaries, at least infantry wise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Elman posted:Mercenaries let you turn your money into manpower, though. All my infantry is mercs. But the cost of artillery mercs is awful enough that you usually get more milage out of regular artillery. An all mercs army is pretty much unsustainable, especially if you want to get anywhere near your force limit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:All my infantry is mercs. But the cost of artillery mercs is awful enough that you usually get more milage out of regular artillery. An all mercs army is pretty much unsustainable, especially if you want to get anywhere near your force limit. Does anyone use merc artillery? My artillery rarely, rarely takes casualties. It's hard to imagine it being worth the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not an either-or situation though. You can use war to extract huge amounts of gold + land from rivals, which lets you build some gold-producing buildings, which let you maintain a larger army, which lets you better extract huge amounts of gold + land from rivals. Saving up a big gold reserve can be helpful, but a better income helps you do that. Or fight a war with somebody else and take all their money in the process. A big gold reserve at the beginning of the war is worth way more than a bunch of buildings that haven't paid themselves off yet, and by the time they would have otherwise paid themselves off I now own a bunch of land that makes up for it. So forth and so on until the game ends. I get what you're trying to say but do you really have any evidence that playing a tall game in EUIV is an effective strategy compared to playing wide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Manpower recovers so slowly that I couldn't imagine using an army not mostly composed of mercenaries, at least infantry wise. As someone who barely uses mercs, I'm curious how this works. Do you maintain merc infantry up to your force limit in peace time? Do you maintain a full force limit of cav/art to deter the ai and then go into massive debt to maintain mercs during war? Or do you maintain an undersize army of enough cav/art to fill out your merc army, and doesn't this tiny army embolden to ai to attack you at annoying times?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:As someone who barely uses mercs, I'm curious how this works. Do you maintain merc infantry up to your force limit in peace time? Do you maintain a full force limit of cav/art to deter the ai and then go into massive debt to maintain mercs during war? Or do you maintain an undersize army of enough cav/art to fill out your merc army, and doesn't this tiny army embolden to ai to attack you at annoying times? Personally I use maybe 50% merc infantry, maybe a bit more if I can afford it. I generally try and maintain full force limit, and I usually don't lower military maintenance. During wars I'll do war taxes which give a lot of money if you're already spending a lot on a big army. If/when I am around 100k manpower I don't really care about mercenaries anymore, but by then you are often rich enough to pay for more. The exception is if I am facing someone who has a similarly sized army to me, I might make a stack of ten merc infantry that I send into battles right before my army to take all the casualties. Which I will often disband once I am gaining the upper hand because it can take a lot of money. I definitely agree having a few hundred gold(or more) saved before any war is very useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
I use about 1 infantry merc:2 regular for the early game, usually getting closer to 1:1 as time goes on. The maintenance cost can mostly be defrayed by lowering maintenance unless you're about to be in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:As someone who barely uses mercs, I'm curious how this works. Do you maintain merc infantry up to your force limit in peace time? Do you maintain a full force limit of cav/art to deter the ai and then go into massive debt to maintain mercs during war? Or do you maintain an undersize army of enough cav/art to fill out your merc army, and doesn't this tiny army embolden to ai to attack you at annoying times? generally i run some fraction of a full army during peacetime; cavalry, artillery, plus some mix of regular & mercenary infantry. at least enough to get a decent rebel-fighting force with. when and if my manpower fills up, i'll start 'banking' it with into regular infantry, but once war starts, i aggressively merge damaged stacks of regulars & replace them with mercenaries. i don't generally run that much below my forcelimits, so i don't find i have that much in the way of problems from ais declaring on me (moreso than i would with a hypothetical all-regulars strategy, anyway). it feels like more of a strategy of necessity than of choice; i really don't know how you'd get away without using a heavy mercenary complement, if you're not a great power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I'll lower military maintenance at the start of the game, but once wars start going on and I have rebel potential, I'd rather not risk taking extra separatism years when a rebel sieges a province successfully. There may be a more optimal strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
I usually try to run as close to force limits as manpower allows. When a war starts I'll buy some mercs, and then as battles finish I'll often consolidate regiments and replace with merc infantry since it is quick to build. The only building that isn't at least occasionally useful is the sailors one. Sailors are a rather meaningless resource right now except in edge cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:Or fight a war with somebody else and take all their money in the process. A big gold reserve at the beginning of the war is worth way more than a bunch of buildings that haven't paid themselves off yet, and by the time they would have otherwise paid themselves off I now own a bunch of land that makes up for it. So forth and so on until the game ends. I get what you're trying to say but do you really have any evidence that playing a tall game in EUIV is an effective strategy compared to playing wide? It isn't playing tall though. You can build buildings and expand at the same time. You can have a gold reserve and build buildings at the same time too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I'll lower military maintenance at the start of the game, but once wars start going on and I have rebel potential, I'd rather not risk taking extra separatism years when a rebel sieges a province successfully. There may be a more optimal strategy. Really wish you could mothball individual armies like you can fleets. It would make much more sense from a mechanical point of view as well as verisimilitude. In fact I could have sworn they mentioned something like that in a dev diary at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I'll lower military maintenance at the start of the game, but once wars start going on and I have rebel potential, I'd rather not risk taking extra separatism years when a rebel sieges a province successfully. There may be a more optimal strategy. my practice is to keep milmaint just above 0% during peacetime until rebels reach 80% progress, when i raise it to 50% milmaint, or 90% progress, when i raise it to 100%. exceptions are when i'm about to declare war or when i'm trying to knock some specific provinces' revolt chance below 0. requires paying attention to rebel progress, but saves a very large amount of money. skasion posted:Really wish you could mothball individual armies like you can fleets. It would make much more sense from a mechanical point of view as well as verisimilitude. In fact I could have sworn they mentioned something like that in a dev diary at some point. apparently, eu2: for the glory just made armies never reinforce. raised regiments would attrit down to nothing eventually; you wouldn't really have 'standing armies' for most of the period. it's a cute idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:apparently, eu2: for the glory just made armies never reinforce. raised regiments would attrit down to nothing eventually; you wouldn't really have 'standing armies' for most of the period. it's a cute idea. I could never play that game, which is a shame because I played the poo poo out of EU2. It all seemed way different from how I remember EU2 being
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:my practice is to keep milmaint just above 0% during peacetime until rebels reach 80% progress, when i raise it to 50% milmaint, or 90% progress, when i raise it to 100%. exceptions are when i'm about to declare war or when i'm trying to knock some specific provinces' revolt chance below 0. requires paying attention to rebel progress, but saves a very large amount of money. That sounds like a decent idea. I'll give that a try, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Pedantic bullshit arguments about what I may or may not have said are what keeps this thread alive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:apparently, eu2: for the glory just made armies never reinforce. raised regiments would attrit down to nothing eventually; you wouldn't really have 'standing armies' for most of the period. it's a cute idea. If the milhist thread has taught me anything it's that this is the most historical of mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:05
|
|