|
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. If all of your infantry are mercs then how are you struggling with manpower? Are you just eating tons of attrition or something? If you're running out of manpower but not money, can't you just shift to a higher merc composition?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
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. What's your army composition looking like? I find it very rare to lose much of my artillery/cavalry in battles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
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? I didn't suggest going tall you ninny, I suggested that gold-producing buildings actually assist you in going wide. You don't buy buildings at the start of a war, you buy a few at the end with some of the extra money that you've stolen from your vanquished opponents. You use that extra income to effectively boost your manpower by fielding additional mercenaries, which allows you to more effectively blob. Note that I am talking about using some of your gold, not all of it, to buy additional income in your highest value provinces. You should still hoard gold, but you should also spend some of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
God, auto ferrying boats are dumb. Lost fifteen ships to attrition sending troops to Europe in my Aztec campaign (luckily they were empty), then later I was moving 30k soldiers to Seville and the AI decided the best way to do that was to drop them in Morocco first and then ferry them again to Seville. I was at war with Morocco. I savescummed that last one  e: Progress so far:   I'm missing London, Madrid and Paris. France is my ally, so I got 105 years to beat Britain + Aragon + Austria, followed by France + Lithuania + Poland. Not looking forward to that. Elman fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Can someone concisely tell me how (in)complete the Europa Universalis IV Collection on Steam is? I liked Crusader Kings II a good bit so I figure it might be a good purchase on this Steam sale but I have a sneaking suspiciob that it's missing important stuff. I just want to know how much important content is included, which can be broadly be defined as "an expansion of gameplay content/mechanics" rather than cosmetics/music. I like Paradox games (I think) but I hate all the loving bullshit they are always pulling with DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
It's from September 2014 so it doesn't even have Art of War, so... yeah, pretty incomplete. It's missing essentially all the important DLC. The things to look out for are Art of War, Common Sense, and maybe The Cossacks. Wealth of Nations, Res Publica, Mare Nostrum, El Dorado and Conquest of Paradise are the B-tier DLC. Most everything else is cosmetic. If you're gonna buy in now it's probably worth getting the extreme edition for $1.25 extra (Star and Crescent DLC has some good stuff for Muslims), and then depending on how committed you are, Common Sense and Art of War too (both have good quality of life improvements). Like CK2, a good chunk of each of the DLC patches is free content, so the game is still pretty huge even in vanilla. Unlike CK2, the DLC isn't generally in the "this unlocks Pagans" "this unlocks Muslims" category- it's usually pretty sweeping, with a couple of exceptions. So there isn't really any major DLC you can totally ignore if you're not into the setting other than maybe Conquest of Paradise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
God damnit I knew it. Thanks for the taking the time to lay it out for me but I'm just going to pass on it. The whole way they handle DLC (selling something called a "collection" which has essentially none of the expansions) just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Funny enough if they had "Europa Universalis IV: Actually Complete Edition" on sale then I'd probably but it even for like $60 or whatever. But getting a game called a "collection" and then having like 3 days to figure out if want the actual content expansions while they are still on sale or figuring how much of the stuff is included in patches and how much is still behind a pay wall is just too much god drat bullshit. gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Personally I actually really like the way Paradox does the DLC, letting you pick and choose and supporting their games way after launch, but I totally agree about the collection stuff. It's especially egregious in EU3, where the "EU3 Complete" is actually totally not complete at all and missing one of the major expansions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Ok, it seems I don't get Wealth of Nations just yet. I started a Denmark run after the DLC invalidated my Castile game, and despite owning Danzig and all the coastal Teutonic provinces, Neva and a couple of other Novgorod provinces by 1490 (just integrated Norway) and being the strongest trade power in Novgorod, the Baltic and Lubeck, I'm still -desperately- poor. My army barely has 18 (no mercs) regiments (enough to not get too big a weak-army diplomacy penalty), and even then it is almost always at below-half maintenance to save cash, and I'm still hemorrhaging money every month. I basically fired all my advisors in addition to the measures above and it just got me a princely income of 0.33 gold a month. It's been bad ever since I started, and getting cash from defeated enemies floated me for a bit, but the deficit and having to pay for random event and loyalist support for Sweden make it melt away really fast. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Personally I actually really like the way Paradox does the DLC, letting you pick and choose and supporting their games way after launch, but I totally agree about the collection stuff. It's especially egregious in EU3, where the "EU3 Complete" is actually totally not complete at all and missing one of the major expansions. Yeah you know I can see it being cool when you buy the game at launch, which I did for Crusader Kings II. Because that way it's like "hey we got this new thing, interested?". But when you are trying to get into the game long after the initial release it's just really asinine because it's super unclear what does what, how much of it requires the actual DLC versus the patch, how "complete" you collection/complete/whatever pack is etc....
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Ok, it seems I don't get Wealth of Nations just yet. I started a Denmark run after the DLC invalidated my Castile game, and despite owning Danzig and all the coastal Teutonic provinces, Neva and a couple of other Novgorod provinces by 1490 (just integrated Norway) and being the strongest trade power in Novgorod, the Baltic and Lubeck, I'm still -desperately- poor. It's hard to say without a look at your finances. What's your army force limit? Are you using lots of artillery? That can be expensive at the start of the game. Make sure you moth-ball all your forts at peace and get rid of any you don't need. You likely don't need any in Norway, unless you're keeping them there for rebels or Sweden is disloyal. If you're the strongest trading power in Lubek you should be raking it in. Advisors are expensive and not really something you should expect to have all the time. Especially not +2 or +3 ones. Some of this is obvious, but I have no idea what you are familiar with already. Are you making territories into states?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I'm converting territories into states, very much within my army limit, and never hired an advisor above +1. The only non-shabby thing i have is my navy, which is 2 heavy ships, 10 light ships and 8 galleys, as well as some mothballed transports. Even that is well within my naval limit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I'm converting territories into states, very much within my army limit, and never hired an advisor above +1. The only non-shabby thing i have is my navy, which is 2 heavy ships, 10 light ships and 8 galleys, as well as some mothballed transports. Even that is well within my naval limit. You should be making money hand over fist! Post some screenshots of your army, econ screen, army screen, and trade screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Ok, it seems I don't get Wealth of Nations just yet. I started a Denmark run after the DLC invalidated my Castile game, and despite owning Danzig and all the coastal Teutonic provinces, Neva and a couple of other Novgorod provinces by 1490 (just integrated Norway) and being the strongest trade power in Novgorod, the Baltic and Lubeck, I'm still -desperately- poor. The 1400s and early 1500s are rough as a Baltic power since Lubeck is not yet receiving sweet New World cash and Sweden is sitting there eating a lot of the Baltic trade. The best way to remedy this is usually to just colonize yourself - work backwards from Canada to the Caribbean in a few hops, take all the trade centers on the east coast of North America and as many in the Caribbean as you can (Havana's usually uncolonized for a long time), and start redirecting trade up to Canada and then to Lubeck. This sounds like a very expensive process in itself and it kind of is, but you'll have a rough time affording enough of a military to contend with the big nations of Europe and HRE coalitions otherwise. Try to get as much territory in the Caribbean as you can and ramp their tariffs up at least three or four times when you get the events - while most colonial nations don't provide you with appreciable income in a timely manner, a Caribbean colonial nation gets lucrative quickly. In the mean time allying Austria to beat up Poland, Brandenburg, and Bohemia (and provide insurance against Sweden) is the best course forward if you can manage it. More territory is the only way to get the inland nodes flowing to you after all. Additionally, you've been expanding fairly quickly and your provinces probably have high autonomy, so time will help too. You may need to just hold the line and focus on stuff other than painting the map for a while. West Africa is a good target too, by the way, since if you control that node you can direct the wealth of Africa and Asia to the Caribbean and then onward home. I usually find that my European ambitions are way too expensive as a medium power until I build an overseas empire. Edit: Also, develop your provinces. You are never actually stuck at the income level you are currently at because development is solely dependent on monarch points, not income, so there's always room to improve. The Baltic area has a lot of provinces with good trade goods (salt and such) that are basically undeveloped. Developing poor provinces up to the next building slot cutoff is usually not all that expensive and can be quite beneficial; provinces with bad trade goods should get military development and those with good trade goods, diplomatic. Danish provinces might be worth burning admin points on if you have an excess of those, but save them for better uses otherwise. If you are doing everything right then your financial situation will just kind of resolve itself into infinite riches around 1550, but the trick is to hold on until that happens. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
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. Isn't that how base EU2 worked too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
I mean thats sort of how CK2 works, although I think they hosed it up in the last DLC?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I didn't suggest going tall you ninny, I suggested that gold-producing buildings actually assist you in going wide. You don't buy buildings at the start of a war, you buy a few at the end with some of the extra money that you've stolen from your vanquished opponents. You use that extra income to effectively boost your manpower by fielding additional mercenaries, which allows you to more effectively blob. my vague feeling is that you get better returns from building manpower buildings (to reduce the # of mercenaries you need) & trade ships, but i can't say i've done the math on it. obviously there are diminishing returns on both, so it'll depend. StashAugustine posted:I mean thats sort of how CK2 works, although I think they hosed it up in the last DLC? there's no cost to raising levies in ck2 (whereas in eu2 i think you pay to create a regiment, just like in later eu games?), so it's gonna be a bit different. fair point, though. Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Isn't that how base EU2 worked too? i've never actually played any paradox game older than eu3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:my vague feeling is that you get better returns from building manpower buildings (to reduce the # of mercenaries you need) & trade ships, but i can't say i've done the math on it. obviously there are diminishing returns on both, so it'll depend. You do all of the above. Temples on primary culture and accepted culture provinces, workshops almost everywhere, manufactories on trade goods of value 3+, manpower on high military development provinces (the return is kind of poo poo below 3 or so, you might as well just build the +force limit building instead) and as many trade ships as possible. Cash reserves are the devil unless you're threatened by or planning to attack a nation substantially stronger than you, the sooner you spend money the more cash you get total from your provinces. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Isn't that how base EU2 worked too? It's so weird to hear people talking about EU2's core mechanics as if they're this odd and experimental idea. I'm an old now.  Yes, this is how EU1 and EU2 worked - the idea is that it's more realistic(because, well, it is) to actually raise and send reinforcements to your armies to reinforce. However the micromanagement just made it the worst thing in the world. I don't think EU3 always had reinforcement costing money (I didn't have a computer strong enough to run it til halfway through NA's cycle before IN) but one of the things people always wanted to return is "traceable" and "costly" reinforcements. EU4 is a relatively happy medium, but I'll always miss being able to intercept reinforcements like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The 1400s and early 1500s are rough as a Baltic power since Lubeck is not yet receiving sweet New World cash and Sweden is sitting there eating a lot of the Baltic trade. The best way to remedy this is usually to just colonize yourself - work backwards from Canada to the Caribbean in a few hops, take all the trade centers on the east coast of North America and as many in the Caribbean as you can (Havana's usually uncolonized for a long time), and start redirecting trade up to Canada and then to Lubeck. This sounds like a very expensive process in itself and it kind of is, but you'll have a rough time affording enough of a military to contend with the big nations of Europe and HRE coalitions otherwise. Try to get as much territory in the Caribbean as you can and ramp their tariffs up at least three or four times when you get the events - while most colonial nations don't provide you with appreciable income in a timely manner, a Caribbean colonial nation gets lucrative quickly. In the mean time allying Austria to beat up Poland, Brandenburg, and Bohemia (and provide insurance against Sweden) is the best course forward if you can manage it. More territory is the only way to get the inland nodes flowing to you after all. Additionally, you've been expanding fairly quickly and your provinces probably have high autonomy, so time will help too. You may need to just hold the line and focus on stuff other than painting the map for a while. This is great advice. I picked Influence as my first Ideas group, though, to help digest the other Scandinavian countries. Guess a restart is in order?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:This is great advice. I picked Influence as my first Ideas group, though, to help digest the other Scandinavian countries. Guess a restart is in order? I decided to start a Denmark game to get the achievement after you were talking about it, and yeah...you're pretty poor at the start. As a side note for people who haven't used condottieri at all, renting out an army removes it from your vassals's consideration of your power (which is obvious in retrospect). I rented out my army and Sweden went to 70% liberty desire from 40%. Here comes the dog pile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:my vague feeling is that you get better returns from building manpower buildings (to reduce the # of mercenaries you need) & trade ships, but i can't say i've done the math on it. obviously there are diminishing returns on both, so it'll depend. I'm with Jazerus here. Why is this an either/or situation? Trade ships are cheap. Manpower buildings are cheap. Temples are cheap. You get good returns on all of them with wise placement. A big cash reserve is useful when you're about to go to war with a powerful opponent, in all other situations you're just under-utilizing your empire
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm with Jazerus here. Why is this an either/or situation? Trade ships are cheap. Manpower buildings are cheap. Temples are cheap. You get good returns on all of them with wise placement. in my experience, they're all pretty expensive. especially since 1.16, i (and other people i play with) feel that cash has been really scarce, with very limited opportunity to invest in much of anything. i don't think i've played at all in 1.17, though, so maybe that's changed things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
I didn't find 1.16 to make cash much scarcer. Corruption eats at you a bit but not cripplingly so, and with how generous small teams are when you're fighting their rivals these days it pretty well balances out. Money doesn't come as easily as it used to back before the massive trade nerf in Common Sense (I think it was that patch? it was a while ago now though wow), but after 50-100 years or so stuff like buildings and trade ships shouldn't be cripplingly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
So does anyone else in the thread find Sailors and the Mare Nostrum naval missions to be largely useless? I'm not really intending to poo poo on EU4 because obviously I've spent a ton of hours on it and still enjoy it, it's just the more I've been playing recently I find the most recent DLC rather pointless. Sailors might as well not exist as a resource because they're only relevant in edge cases. If you just acquired some coastline, your Sailors will limit your ability to build ships for quite a while. If you're a nation with any significant coastline already, they're totally forgettable and something you never need to worry about. Similarly, I don't really see much benefit from the new naval missions and I just ran into a case where they're actively detrimental. I started a game as Venice since I haven't played a Merchant Republic for a while. Declared a reconquest war right away against Albania, beat their army and blockaded them for a siege easy peasey. Except for the fact that my trade ships will not loving protect trade in Ragusa like I tell them to. Instead, they return to port and enter "Hiding" mode, because I guess Albania's two galleys are extremely scary despite my overwhelming naval advantage and the fact they're completely blockaded. "Currently hiding from enemy fleets that are too strong." The tooltip tells me to change mission settings to more aggressive so they're willing to take on larger fleets, so I do that. No change. It's a minor thing but really aggravating me. I have "Go home at war" toggled off and max aggressivness in mission settings, yet my trade fleet refuses to do anything but hide and there is no manual way to get them to do their job. The two mighty Albanian galleys, blockaded in port by my huge fleet, are enough to force my trade fleet to sit in port hiding and there is nothing I can do to change that. loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:So does anyone else in the thread find Sailors and the Mare Nostrum naval missions to be largely useless? I'm not really intending to poo poo on EU4 because obviously I've spent a ton of hours on it and still enjoy it, it's just the more I've been playing recently I find the most recent DLC rather pointless. I haven't looked at sailors since they were added. The only time I notice them is random pop-up events telling me I lost some or gained some.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:in my experience, they're all pretty expensive. especially since 1.16, i (and other people i play with) feel that cash has been really scarce, with very limited opportunity to invest in much of anything. i don't think i've played at all in 1.17, though, so maybe that's changed things? Have you ever tried declaring war just to earn some cash? This is especially lucrative when you attack smaller countries, they tend to sit on a ton of money and are easy to beat. If you have naval supremacy you can win some wars by just blockading some ports, you don't even need to use manpower. With a Trade Dispute CB you just need to sit around gaining free war score until you have enough for War Reparations + all of their ducats. No AE, no coring cost, just a quick "GIVE ME YOUR loving MONEY" war
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Playing a Brittany game and I... ran out of sailors. I didn't even know this could happen! Do I have to stoop to constructing sailor buildings? Is this game the darkest timeline?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
I guess the sailors are there to prevent you building a big fleet too fast as a small country, for Gameplay Reasons
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Yeah I think either sailors should be a lot rarer or their requirement should be drastically increased. The naval maintenance increases, maybe increase sailor cost along with it? I think the numbers as they are (200 for heavies, 100 for galleys, 50 for light and transports) works for the medieval ships and so on at start of the game but the later Man of Wars had more like 800 people didn't they? Still I like sailors alright for countries like Austria, it prevents them from suddenly making an enormous navy, and likewise for stuff like steppe hordes who have constantly insane autonomy on their land, they can never get sailors really. Those are maybe the only relevant situations in the entire game though. I definitely don't think it needs to take up a slot in the top bar, just shove it in the military tab instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Denmark in 1.17 was basically my first EU4 game, although I did have plenty of EU3 experience, and I dunno, I found it extremely straightforward and was never in any money trouble at all. Expansion: Annex Holstein. Use missions or fabricate claims to grab three random Baltic provinces from literally any vulnerable target. Annex Norway. Annex Sweden. While you're doing that, ally a strong land power to protect you from Moscow - I picked Poland at first, but they were lovely allies so I switched to Bohemia, who've been total bros. But if the emperor is strong, France may be a better option. Now that you're a respectable power, save up some cash / manpower / diplomatic goodwill and start SLOWLY ugobbling up the rich Hanseatic HRE minors. Trade: Collect in Lübeck, transfer from explorationBaltic and Novgorod. At the start use your ships to protect trade in Lübeck and the Baltic, then once the Baltic is a Danish lake put a ton of light ships in Novgorod to fight the Russians. When the age of exploration begins you should have a bigger forcelimit, put that into a north Atlantic- north Sea trade route. At the same time, you should get rid of all your galleys and build a lot of heavy ships so you can fight England who will probably rival you. Ideas: I picked trade, maritime, quality, exploration, administrative, expansion in that order so far. I had diplomacy focus and good diplomacy advisors almost the entire game, only switching to admin focus for a few decades. And yeah, as someone mentioned, you have a lot of useless forts. I always kept them all mothballed except for the ones on the southern border, plus the one I built next door to Novgorod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Can anyone explain EU4 to me? Crusader Kings 2 was my first Paradox game. It makes sense, it's about politics dickery and family dickery. There's also war/conquest/politics/building up provinces sure, but the core of the game is trying to keep a dumb dynasty together. I bought Hearts of Iron 4 and that makes sense. It's the "war" game. You set up your factory lines, focus on producing armies/teching up armies, and after spending 5 hours preparing for it, you burn through what you built in the 3-4 hour long WW2. The better you planned/prepared, the better you do, and there's a heavy focus on alt history/doing dumb poo poo like having Poland beat Germany in the initial invasion. Also makes sense. EU4 just seems to be the nationbuilding/war stuff of CK2 but without the oddball dynasty stuff? Am I missing something? What's EU4s "thing".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Can anyone explain EU4 to me? The transition from Europe being a bunch of gently caress-poo poo feudal kingdoms to global empires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
The AI is confounding sometimes. Austria was challenging Castille for a personal union over Naples...Austria was at around 60% positive war score, had all of Aragon sieged and half of Castille. Austria does white peace! JFC....they didn't even get the PU. They were in no other wars. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Can anyone explain EU4 to me? EU4's thing is simulating the historical pressures which led nations in specific directions and caused history to turn out as it did. This is really vague but I'm not sure how else to put it - unlike CK2, there is a directionality and geography to the world beyond terrain type and crude measures of wealth such as number of holdings. You conquer in specific directions and with an eye to culture, religion, etc. because the trade and province mechanics make some choices good and some choices bad financially and militarily. In CK2 you choose where to expand based on political convenience and nothing else as one piece of land is basically the same as any other. EU4 is about navigating a system that hates you and wants to conquer you by finding ways to be a jerk right back. Unable to get anywhere in Europe? Fine, time to gently caress off to India and get absurdly wealthy by bringing their trade back home, and then crush the French. It's kind of like a continuous cycle of mini-HoI games, as you've described that game - preparation followed by execution, but all in the service of some even larger plan, which is in service of an even larger longer term plan, etc. since it's a game that lasts for 380 years instead of 10. On a more month-to-month basis it's also about recognizing opportunities and striking just as an enemy is dissolving like CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
EU4 is still a wargame, but a wargame about diplomacy, imperialism, and grand army-level maneuver over more operational/tactical division movement simulating in detail one particular war
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Can anyone explain EU4 to me? CK2 is about building and maintaining a dynasty. EU4 is about building and maintaining a nation. HOI4 is about building and maintaining an industrial war machine. EU4's thing is basically to put your country's color on as much of the world as possible using some combination of war, diplomacy, and colonial expansion. It's also about riding the waves of history (the reformation, the renaissance, the discovery and colonization of the new world, periods of strife throughout the world, etc). QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
In addition to what others have said, CK2 is more of a "simulation" whereas EU4 is more of a "game". Because it has no actors in the state, you have more control over what your realm is doing, over its weaknesses and its strengths, rather than have those be randomised and having to deal with that. CK2 is a game about how putting you in situations and giving you options to work through them (or to not do that). EU4 is completely about competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
I'm playing as Brandenburg and have Lubeck OPM as my vassal. I'm a bit rusty with the trade stuff -- does it make sense for me to diplo annex them or to leave them as vassels? My plan is to go around conquering stuff so I won't be dedicating any ideas to trade stuff. If it helps, I'm not using The Cossacks or Mare Nostrum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:I'm playing as Brandenburg and have Lubeck OPM as my vassal. I'm a bit rusty with the trade stuff -- does it make sense for me to diplo annex them or to leave them as vassels? My plan is to go around conquering stuff so I won't be dedicating any ideas to trade stuff. Unless it changed in the Mare Nostrum patch, vassals only give you a % of their tax income, so you get absolutely no benefit from their centres of trade. Integrate them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 13:44
|
|
