|
Well that's the real reason behind why it's unrealistically easy to conquer poo poo within the HRE. If say, every member of the HRE guarantees every other member permanently, then you don't go to war for 300 years and the game will be boring as gently caress because its simulation of internal politics and HRE centralization is extremely minimal to nonexistent. Because it's a game about map painting. Did the mod that reduces the map to just a more-detailed map of the HRE actually change any gameplay stuff to reflect this kind of thing? Or is it just the same as the main game where you need to pick out the opportune moment to grow up into a mid power one province at a time so you can get emperor and then roll over everyone else?
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
You could make the HRE one country that's just utterly terrible in numerous ways until 1750.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Generally I'm in favor of esoteric history bullshit over gameplay but I think the idea of making what comprises a good 10% of the entire game's tags worthless OPMS that can do absolutely nothing other than wish for PUs sounds like a terrible idea and I'm glad they let them expand through conquest. The emperor should be a bit more proactive in stopping it (and the AI should be more proactive in electing good emperors that can actually do that) though, although the barrier for conquest is already a fair bit higher than the rest of the world. If the EU series wasn't already a thing I'd be pretty in favor of making it just one country with special mechanics, and I still think it's stupid how Germany gets like half the development of the entire world, but as it stands that's one of the most fleshed out and fun areas of the entire game and I'm glad they have it the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Generally I'm in favor of esoteric history bullshit over gameplay but I think the idea of making what comprises a good 10% of the entire game's tags worthless OPMS that can do absolutely nothing other than wish for PUs sounds like a terrible idea and I'm glad they let them expand through conquest. The emperor should be a bit more proactive in stopping it (and the AI should be more proactive in electing good emperors that can actually do that) though, although the barrier for conquest is already a fair bit higher than the rest of the world. Oh yeah, playing a historically accurate HRE member would be really boring in EU4 because it's all diplomacy and politics. I was just saying that blobbing within the HRE is super ahistorical and the AI Emperor is not very good about managing the HRE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Expanding inside the HRE is already coalition city; what else are minors supposed to do? Ideally, there'd be an HRE focused expansion, which would add Imperial government mechanics, dynastic trees you can actually interact with, and electoral shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I don't think you could bolt on enough systems to make hundreds of years without war fun. That doesn't work even in CK2, which despite its much greater focus on internal politics is ironically also terrible at an even slightly realistic HRE simulation. You would basically need it to be an entirely different sort of game. e: which is not to say an HRE focused expansion with all those things you listed wouldn't be cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
An HRE state in that expansion wouldnt be without war, though; it would be without wars of wanton conquest. There would be plenty of wars to fight in, its just that you wouldnt be conquering your neighbors. Now I'm not saying that it would still be as fun as a different game, but if it was an optional feature or something really well done it would be pretty darn cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
I dunno you can have tons of wars, just no outright wars of conquest resulting in the transfer of large, province-sized regions of territory. The HRE had disputes over succession rights, river tolls, cities and bishoprics getting uppity, etc. and if properly modeled it could be compelling. It would be dedicating a lot of in depth development time (more than any of the expansions so far) to a fairly small part of the map though. E: a smart guy posted faster than me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
It sounds like the best way to get rid of blobbing within the HRE is to make vertical growth more viable and interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
As the others have said, it doesn't mean a peaceful game. Tons of these dynastic conflicts escalated into open warfare. Another nice improvement would be adding the ability for a nation to switch sides in a war if one side was winning/losing by enough, which would be a nice addition for simulating the leagues you see in the Italian Wars, or prolonged conflicts in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
TBH I think a lot of the 'not enough to do when not at war' vs 'too easy to blob like mad' could be resolved by encouraging wars for reasons other than territory, but they seem to be doing that and it's not really catching on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I don't think the wars without territorial gain are rewarding enough right now. Humiliation and trade rights are often helpful, but going to war against a peer is a huge commitment in the game that can take years to plan, prosecute and then pay for afterwards even when things go perfectly. Where instead you can invade some smaller team with scarcely any risk and much more tangible gains. And it really doesn't help with how happy the AI is to throw its all into every single war, even for some third rate ally on the other side of the continent. Plus I think EU4's an old enough game at this point that no matter how well they do it, trying to totally curb back on expansionist play just isn't gonna go over well. People are too used to how they play the game at this point to accept being forced to play differently. Save the new HRE system for an EU5 IMO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Just noticed you can westernize if you border a province that is occupied by a western nation that are 7 techs ahead. That's useful!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And it really doesn't help with how happy the AI is to throw its all into every single war, even for some third rate ally on the other side of the continent. This is I think the biggest problem with EU4 in general. It goes beyond just the AI behaviour too, but the type of mass mobilization and total war we see in the game didn't really happen at all during the period. The most obvious examples are in colonial conflicts, where powers will ship thousands of men across an ocean and engage in prolonged engagements there, but even on the homefront it's weird how large the armies get, and the sweeping wars that develop. Large polities of the time had multiple commitments for their armed forces and serious limits on their use. Arguably the defining factor of the early modern period in Western Europe is the revolution in gunpowder and fortresses, which require larger armies to defend and besiege, the desperate struggle of monarchs to pay those forces, and the resulting conflicts over political centralization. That what EU should probably be about (in Europe anyway), along with overseas trade and early colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I haven't kept up with all the latest expansions over the past year. What's worth buying since I think there is a Paradox sale on their site?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:You want to funnel as much trade value as possible into a trade node where you have near total control. Because of the topology of the trade network, that's usually as downstream as you can get, so in your case, Malacca. Also, if you only collect in your home node, you get a +10% Trade Power bonus there for every merchant you have steering trade. So that's a free 30% bonus if you stop collecting in Beijing. Pellisworth posted:Malacca, definitely. If you have 2/3 control you can rake in a huge share, send some light ships to protect trade there. The problem is twofold: 1. If I'm already dominating Malacca, the additional trade power from basing my home port there is redundant. It makes more financial sense to collect there using a merchant and profit from the +10% Trade Efficiency. 2. Beijing does not steer downstream to Malacca and Nippon steers downstream only through the congested Hangzhou node. This means I have to collect in Nippon and Beijing. Otherwise, their value basically dissipate in some other node and get earned by some other country. Point 1 is especially interesting to me -- it suggests the broader point that if you dominate in a high-value node, you should not locate your home port there. At that point, you want more trade efficiency, not trade power, so you should collect using a merchant instead. Save the home trading port for a less-wealthy node whose trade value you can't effectively steer to the high-value node. Maybe I'm mistaking something, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
No, your setup might be correct. Trade is a fickle beast, and I always say it takes a lot of experimentation before you really get a feel for how it will work. If you're going to lose a lot of trade value along the way in contested nodes, then you're correct, you very well might want to leave your home port in a contested node and collect there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This is I think the biggest problem with EU4 in general. It goes beyond just the AI behaviour too, but the type of mass mobilization and total war we see in the game didn't really happen at all during the period. The most obvious examples are in colonial conflicts, where powers will ship thousands of men across an ocean and engage in prolonged engagements there, but even on the homefront it's weird how large the armies get, and the sweeping wars that develop. I have to say the best part of being a colonial power is that continental powers will send tens of thousands of troops to attack your colonies allowing you to defeat their European armies in detail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
If you wanted to make non-territorial wars more viable you could make Prestige more integral to gameplay(maybe instead of adm points, you have to use Prestige to up Stability) and make it so that territorial conquest= no prestige gain. I'm not sure that this would be a very fun solution, however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I have to say the best part of being a colonial power is that continental powers will send tens of thousands of troops to attack your colonies allowing you to defeat their European armies in detail. Yeah, the game allows way too much power projection compared to what countries could actually do. It's why Africa and Central Asia get conquered by Europeans way too fast (compare the Vicky start map to what even a half competent player can do by the end of EU) and is one of the major factors that creates a lot of the historical issues with the game (along with every war being a hellwar to the death). Russia is probably the biggest example, they only started controlling the areas around Samarkand and Tashkent in the mid 1800s, and in 1840 they were only able to send 5,000 men to attack Khiva - a force which suffered horrific casualties and turned back before even reaching its target due to the weather and terrain. Of course, in EU they can just stroll 50,000 men around the area freely with minimal issue, which is absurd. For accurate history you would almost certainly need some kind of supply mechanic, but I suspect that would turn off too many map painters to ever be added to the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:but I suspect that would turn off too many map painters to ever be added to the game. The trouble with anything that makes it harder to pant the map is that there isn't really anything else to do except paint the map. Making the game realistic in terms of power projection etc would make it much less fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Frankly I find it unrealistic that I can speed up time! One of the biggest problems imo, so ahistorical. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:The trouble with anything that makes it harder to pant the map is that there isn't really anything else to do except paint the map. Making the game realistic in terms of power projection etc would make it much less fun. Now, I am just saying that I *think* I would enjoy it if I had to plan on having a larger army at home and thus a smaller one in my 'colonial' possession(s) and it would be expensive to deploy the home army abroad or vice versa and pull a colonial army home. In history it is expensive to deploy armies abroad and I think modeling that would alleviate some of the problems that EU4 has with every war being a total war. I do not have a suggestion on how to do it nor do I expect it to actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Also as Netherlands I have Influence-Defensive-Exploration-Quality-Offensive, what should I pick for my next idea set? Admin might be a good idea since my infantry is all merc and I'm starting the snowball phase, but diplo ideas would be easier on the points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Also as Netherlands I have Influence-Defensive-Exploration-Quality-Offensive, what should I pick for my next idea set? Admin might be a good idea since my infantry is all merc and I'm starting the snowball phase, but diplo ideas would be easier on the points. I mean what are your goals? Conquer inside the hre, conquer the new world, go after England/GB, ... ? Given the Dutch prowess for economics you might consider the trade idea to make your coffers overflow with money
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Paint as much of Europe/America as possible, make tons of money. I'm in relatively solid alliances with Sweden and GB, France was scary but I've finally broken them and just have to wait for truces/admin at this point. At this point I'm not terribly frightened of coalitions so I can probably swap back and forth between France and the HRE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
As a relatively small colonial power like the Dutch, I think quantity is nearly always worthwhile. You need significant armies out in Asia and America to do your imperial bullshit, but you don't want to leave so little at home that you'll get walked over if someone declares a war before you can ship your armies back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
At this point it's 1650 and I have a 90K man army with merc infantry. Still need a stack in the colonies but the ~15 forcelimit for that is quite fine coming from conquest. e: ex-Spanish USA which has most of the seaboard from Maine down and Louisiana is a threat but I can probably trounce them if I just get one stack over there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Honestly I would kill for the game to be built to support historical army deployments - I shouldnt be able to just ship an army of 40,000k from England to India or the Netherlands to Indonesia in a couple months, drop 'em off, and watch 'em go on a rampage. If I am Russia it should be hard to march my entire army to Siberia to fight the Chinese. If I am the Ottomans fighting in Persia it should not be as simple as pulling an army off of the front to go deal with a rebellion in the Balkans. Here's my idea for how to do it, that just came into my head so is probably terrible: Make both attrition and maintenance increase based on how far a regiment is from its home province (i.e. where it was recruited). This would encourage you to make armies for certain regions, i.e. a home army versus a colonial army, and while it wouldn't prevent you from making your colonial army huge if you wanted to, it would make it costly for you to bring that army back home to fight wars, or make it costly for you to move your large home army to the colonies. It wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, but it would encourage you not to do that and encourage you to return those armies to their home base at the end of a war or campaign. It would also reflect history a little more accurately, I think. If you wanted, you could even apply a modifier of how long it has been since the army has been in its home region and have that further affect the maintenance and attrition penalties, to encourage the player to actually return their army home in between campaigns, i.e. say you're fighting Austria, you might launch a campaign against their holdings in the Netherlands but when that campaign ends you would return your army home to recuperate before starting another campaign against their holdings in Austria, unless you wanted to exacerbate your maintenance and attrition penalties. To provide a workaround, though, mercenaries would not have this issue apply--they could deploy anywhere at no additional cost in attrition or maintenance, just like the current system for all armies. In exchange, though, mercenaries would have their maintenance and attrition increase steadily over time to reflect the fact that mercenaries were not and should not be a permanent military solution during this time period. They would be hired for one war or even one campaign, can be shipped anywhere without the deployment penalties of regular troops, but at the end of that war or campaign there would be a large incentive for the player to disband them again since if you just keep them sitting around as a standing army they get progressively more and more expensive and more vulnerable to attrition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
You could tweak the ahistorical levels of mobilization pretty easily by decreasing the speed of armies and increasing attrition. Something like halving the supply limit in the attrition calculation if the regiment is moving, or taking a per-province rather than per-month attrition hit the way forced march eats milpoints, and not allowing reinforcement until the stack is stationary for at least a month. And transport ship attrition needs to be WAY more punishing, especially in the early game when scurvy was a thing. More attrition there plus a high-risk flag for a wipeout random event like the Mongol invasion of Japan hitting a typhoon. Elotana fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Elotana posted:You could tweak the ahistorical levels of mobilization pretty easily by decreasing the speed of armies and increasing attrition. Something like halving the supply limit in the attrition calculation if the regiment is moving, or taking a per-province rather than per-month attrition hit the way forced march eats milpoints, and not allowing reinforcement until the stack is stationary for at least a month. I personally think I wouldnt mind something like that - wars were more methodical and planning was huge. In EU4, even with the fort mechanics, its still just a complicated game of whack-a-mole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Having attrition and everything be on a monthly tick is really exploitive. As long as your navy is in port when the month ticks over they'll repair even if they're only in it for a couple of days. Staying in port for three weeks in the middle of the month? Does absolutely nothing.Bort Bortles posted:people would literally die of sperg. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
It's been a while since I last fought a colonial power, so remind me how active colonial nations are in wars in the current patch. I'm Mutapa and I'm fairly large at this point. (Buha and Warsangali are my vassals)  I really want to kick England out of South Africa and I'm reasonably sure I can handle them, except for the uncertainty about their colonial nations. See, France has gotten a foothold on the British Isles so they give England a kicking every so often.  But I don't feel like screwing up my ironman game by declaring war and then getting stomped by all those colonial nations. I have yet to discover the new world so I don't really know how strong they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
MrBling posted:But I don't feel like screwing up my ironman game by declaring war and then getting stomped by all those colonial nations. I have yet to discover the new world so I don't really know how strong they are. Honestly, I feel like it's a crap-shoot these days whether the colonial nations will jump across the sea. I do see them once in a while, but it usually takes them a bit to mobilize. I would wait until England is at war again. Do you have mil tech parity? If so you should be fine as long as you keep track of ships that go by the cape and are ready to jump on them when they land. I've never seen a clown car of colonial nations cross the Atlantic to pile on someone, only dribs and drabs. Just my two cents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I think these are fine ideas and I would probably enjoy them but, in addition to what Bort said about drastic changes to an existing game, there's also the issue of AI to consider. I suspect it would be VERY difficult to make the AI properly reason and plan a war where strategy and logistics are so punishing, and it would be trivial to trap AI armies into death marches or endless sieges of doom. The current, mostly whack-a-mole structure of warfare is boring because it is so simple, yet the AI still struggles with it at times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
MrBling posted:It's been a while since I last fought a colonial power, so remind me how active colonial nations are in wars in the current patch. I'm at about ~1690 in Kongo game going for the African Power achievement and was in a very similar position to you, I didn't manage to get to South Africa before Spain and England got some colonies there, but they were really easy to push out once I got big enough. Are you Westernized and caught up on Mil tech? Do you have a similar amount of heavy ships to England and allies? Colonial nations did jack poo poo against me other than occupy the two provinces I colonized in Brazil to Westernize off of, they didn't even send navies and I owned most of the West African coast which would have been closer for them. England will probably try and land armies. Maybe. The AI is still not very good about amphibious landings and if they're distracted with something else they might not at all. You just want to have enough heavy ships around to have a fair fight against their fleet. The naval AI seems to be really cowardly and will retreat from any sort of close fight, they won't slug it out with your ships. Edit: even like 15 up-to-date heavies with an admiral and maybe the 10% naval morale adviser should do it, toss in some of your lights too. Remember that the naval combat width is 10. I think the AI decided to retreat based on number of enemy ships too, so like I said put most/all your lights with your heavies and even if the English bring more heavies they'll puss out of a fight right away. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I'm at about ~1690 in Kongo game going for the African Power achievement and was in a very similar position to you, I didn't manage to get to South Africa before Spain and England got some colonies there, but they were really easy to push out once I got big enough. Not westernised yet, I basically need to get to West Africa to do that which I'm planning to do by eating Kongo. I'm at mil tech 17 to Englands 18. Only dip 15 though and I forget which dip tech unlocks better heavy ships. I have like 14 heavies to Englands ~25 but I can build some more if need be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Not westernised yet, I basically need to get to West Africa to do that which I'm planning to do by eating Kongo. I'm at mil tech 17 to Englands 18. Only dip 15 though and I forget which dip tech unlocks better heavy ships. I have like 14 heavies to Englands ~25 but I can build some more if need be. You should be fine, just occupy a few provinces of theirs and wait for the ticking warscore. There are heavy unlocks at dip 15 and 19 so you shouldn't be behind there. I would build a few more heavies and upgrade what you currently have (if necessary), ball them up with your light ships and you shouldn't have an issue. Since all of your provinces are in East Africa, you can just park your heavies in the chokepoint sea zone at the tip of South Africa and it'll be super easy to catch the English fleet (if they send one). Edit: if England is allied to Portugal, Spain, or another naval power with lots of heavies you might want like 20-25. You're probably rolling in cash so just build up to 20 and go for it, imo. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Not westernised yet, I basically need to get to West Africa to do that which I'm planning to do by eating Kongo. I'm at mil tech 17 to Englands 18. Only dip 15 though and I forget which dip tech unlocks better heavy ships. I have like 14 heavies to Englands ~25 but I can build some more if need be. In my experience colonial nations never contribute anything useful to wars on other continents. Check England's number of transports, and make sure you can wipe that amount of troops before they can land another batch. You should easily be able to do that.When you sue for peace take a province from one of their colonial nations if you have the range and you'll be able to westernize, too. You won't have to actually occupy any land there unless they've built forts. Edit: It might be better to dock your ships and let your enemy land if you're confident you can wipe them.You'll get a lot of warscore for it and it'll tank their war enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:The problem with things like this is that they arent "fun" and the vast majority of the people that play EU4 would lose their ability to feel human if that change was made. If it was a core feature of EU5 that may be a different story because it will come with the game out of the box, but if they changed it now people would literally die of sperg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 07:14
|
|