|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I havent been able to play at all since Rights of Man came out but based on the posting in this thread, doing what you are saying sounds both popular and easy to pull off, which makes me think that it is likely to get nerfed - so I have to ask, are there any bad side effects to doing it that I havent seen/am not aware of having not played at all? If you spawn an institution, it'll still spread to your neighbors, even though you paid a ton if monarch points for it and they didn't. This can lead to other nations around you out-teching you pretty easily.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
AnoHito posted:If you spawn an institution, it'll still spread to your neighbors, even though you paid a ton if monarch points for it and they didn't. This can lead to other nations around you out-teching you pretty easily. Yeah this is probably the largest downside. You pay ~2000 monarch points to develop a province and seed an institution, which gets you a fat province and faster tech spread than if you didn't. However, there's the immediate opportunity cost of putting yourself a little behind your neighbors, and longer-term you're giving your neighbors a tech boost for free. For example, in my Bahmanis game I bought the Renaissance (Renaissance and Printing Press are the slowest to spread for non-Euros) and had Colonialism spawn in my own province of Goa, so those institutions spread to Asia much more rapidly than normal. Before I've seen Ming without the Renaissance (and at like +200% tech penalty) in the 1600s, but my Bahmanis game they have Renaissance and will soon have Colonialism in 1550. Ming and maybe the Ottomans will be the end bosses of this run and me buying institutions is helping Ming out a ton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:If you spawn an institution, it'll still spread to your neighbors, even though you paid a ton if monarch points for it and they didn't. This can lead to other nations around you out-teching you pretty easily. I mean, I agree that it makes it easier for your neighbours, but you do get that 2000 monarch points pumped into development and therefore you economy/military. I haven't seen anyone out-tech me, though if you'have a ton of provinces sometimes someone will embrace something before you get to, even if it spawned in your country, or if you paid to get to get it in one of your provinces, because they don't have to pay 5000 gold. So maybe they will get a tech ahead...I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
How do I invade a mostly mountainous country like Persia? I have a numerical advantage but mountains negate that numbers advantage right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:How do I invade a mostly mountainous country like Persia? I have a numerical advantage but mountains negate that numbers advantage right? Depends how much of Persia they have. To the northeast and southwest there are some flat provinces. Try and engage them there. Depending where you are you can lure them into your territory and fight them there. Persia is a beast with nice NIs, but if they are still small it shouldn't be too hard. The only get that mountain advantage (against your sieges) in provinces they have forts, so if you can get them to attack you in any mountain province then you'll have a nice advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I mean, I agree that it makes it easier for your neighbours, but you do get that 2000 monarch points pumped into development and therefore you economy/military. I haven't seen anyone out-tech me, though if you'have a ton of provinces sometimes someone will embrace something before you get to, even if it spawned in your country, or if you paid to get to get it in one of your provinces, because they don't have to pay 5000 gold. So maybe they will get a tech ahead...I dunno. Dumping 2000+ points into 1 province does give you a bit of a boost yeah, but it's a horrendously inefficient use of monarch points. It's a side effect that makes having to embrace that way not sting so much, but it's not exactly a great thing in and of its self. There's a reason people weren't making super cities before this patch. I don't really understand why people have the desire to massively gimp the rest of the world by nerfing this for some reason. Westernization wasn't exactly difficult either, and Europe still comes out ahead with the new system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
why do rebels get artillery They should at the very least get under strength regiments if they're not like aristocrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:why do rebels get artillery It's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be a speedbump for the player's progress
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:It's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be a speedbump for the player's progress Could just spawn more of them 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Could just spawn more of them You could spawn 40 infantry but 14 infantry and 12 cannons behind them will beat them every time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Eej posted:You could spawn 40 infantry but 14 infantry and 12 cannons behind them will beat them every time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
The conventional wisdom is to use monarch points for other things, but for a small country how feasible could it be to go tall and build megacity:1444? The benefits would be more tax, more manpower, more production: is there any trade good that would make this a fantastic idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
It's a bad idea, because it's boring as hell, and strategic depth is crazy useful. What was crazy fun was playing as a Horde, razing everything, and building your middle of nowhere capital into a gigantic megacity. Still fun now, but Hordes are a lot tougher and razing isn't comically op.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Beefeater1980 posted:The conventional wisdom is to use monarch points for other things, but for a small country how feasible could it be to go tall and build megacity:1444? The benefits would be more tax, more manpower, more production: is there any trade good that would make this a fantastic idea? It's not feasible because costs increase every time you develop, you won't be able to keep pace with empires that conquer development at a fraction of your costs
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Rebels are insanely easy to deal with thanks to the siege changes. Just wait for them to attack a fort and mop them up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
that's only when you're one of those insane people who builds more than the single fort on their capital
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Koramei posted:that's only when you're one of those insane people who builds more than the single fort on their capital They should let you build mountains for a few thousand gold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:that's only when you're one of those insane people who builds more than the single fort on their capital isn't there some kind of penalty for just having the one fort in a large country, now? I vaguely remember that being in one of the dev diaries before the last patch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Just started a Hesse game, I like that you can still call allies in promising them land, take a bunch of land from the allies of your target, then take no provinces from the original target, and your allies are totally cool about it. Thanks for conquering my neighbors for me Bohemia!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
If you like watching let's plays this one is good, it's quite short (just 4 parts) and it shows off a mod. The dude goes into a lot of detail on strategy and such. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooX9XzWw7ko
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Koramei posted:that's only when you're one of those insane people who builds more than the single fort on their capital OTOH army tradition is really good and maintaining some forts to keep your passive army tradition high is a huge boon to any country that can afford it (aka any country with a player behind it)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:(aka any country with a player behind it) This is only really true mid to late game for a lot of (most?) starts though. e: actually the AI generally manages to afford a lot more forts than I ever can even playing a rich nation Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:This is only really true mid to late game for a lot of (most?) starts though. Isn't the AI exempted from paying for their border forts, or was that changed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Forts are terribly expensive unless you have a good province or two or you've got really good trade control. You need more forts the more development you have, even just for the AT bonus. They have to be up to date too which sucks
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
I've no problems affording forts in my Transylvania game, where I control the Venice end node and all provinces are small with short travel times so I don't need many either. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Poil posted:I've no problems affording forts in my Transylvania game, where I control the Venice end node and all provinces are small with short travel times so I don't need many either. Yeah that's kind of my point. Sure if you control a good trade node and have cash rolling in you can afford lots of forts, if you have Venice you can afford 24 hour merc artillery dance parties in every fort in all of your provinces. But if you're playing say an African minor (or even an African major) forts are prohibitively expensive when all your cash is going into keeping the best advisors you can afford and into embracing institutions. In my recent games as Karagwe and Kongo, even once I got the African gold mines under my control and the Zanzibar trade node locked down I could still only just afford a couple of forts in key chokepoints. THE BAR posted:Isn't the AI exempted from paying for their border forts, or was that changed? I'm not sure if they still do, but I was responding to a post singling out player-controlled nations as being the best able to afford forts, which is not the case most of the time. Whether the AI still gets free forts or not it almost always has a hell of a lot more than I do at a comparable size.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I'm not sure if they still do, but I was responding to a post singling out player-controlled nations as being the best able to afford forts, which is not the case most of the time. Whether the AI still gets free forts or not it almost always has a hell of a lot more than I do at a comparable size. Yeah, I never bother with forts except for a few key spots. And even when I do, I tend to disable maintenance between wars anyway, Army Tradition be damned. I don't like how Army Tradition all but becomes useless that way, but I just rely on the Estates to give me 40AT generals anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Is it worth using more than one general? They don't even seem to last 10 years. Sure you can milk the nobility estates but the cooldown is twice as long as the benefit so you spend a lot of time without one extra. Is it just my imagination but it feels like I keep having to replace them constantly.Wafflecopper posted:Yeah that's kind of my point. Sure if you control a good trade node and have cash rolling in you can afford lots of forts, if you have Venice you can afford 24 hour merc artillery dance parties in every fort in all of your provinces. But if you're playing say an African minor (or even an African major) forts are prohibitively expensive when all your cash is going into keeping the best advisors you can afford and into embracing institutions. In my recent games as Karagwe and Kongo, even once I got the African gold mines under my control and the Zanzibar trade node locked down I could still only just afford a couple of forts in key chokepoints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
If you're fighting on multiple fronts, or happen to get a good siege general, but one who's terrible at actual fighting. I like having at least two, so that you don't get caught with your pants down as easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Poil posted:Is it worth using more than one general? They don't even seem to last 10 years. Sure you can milk the nobility estates but the cooldown is twice as long as the benefit so you spend a lot of time without one extra. Is it just my imagination but it feels like I keep having to replace them constantly. If you have more than one army in the field at a time, absolutely, and in this version with Feudalism you don't even need to eat a military point penalty or risk a ruler/heir to do it. Generals make a huge difference to army performance and if you only have one it severely limits your tactical flexibility. They probably do die a little too soon. Most of mine don't last long enough to pick up a modifier. Depending on how short you are on military points you can make a case for passing on them, but if I'm at war and I have room for a general, I will always get a general. Might be a 1 fire guy who dies in 1450, might be the next Subutai who lives for fifty years single handedly smashing all my opponents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Has anyone pulled off the 'hoarder' fetishist cheevo? I'm trying it as Butua, and I'm having difficulty getting the last two madagascar cults - i'm neighboring & at war with a fetishist Madagascar nation, but the cults aren't appearing? I did it a couple of days ago with Kongo. Had no problem with them, I think I got them all in a war where I took a couple of provinces on madagascar and then released them as a vassal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the general advice.  skasion posted:They probably do die a little too soon. Most of mine don't last long enough to pick up a modifier. The Ottomans declared on Russia so I did my own war against them and dragged in Austria and mega-Poland and it's been a huge success. Until the Ottoman signed a peace with Russia and the game crashed for some reason. Oh, well. Time to reload and hope it wasn't at the end of the year. Getting really annoyed at how the AI keeps hiding their army inside other countries borders and I can't follow them (not fleeing after a battle, regular movement).  edit Neat, the game asked me to send an error report. Also suck it Ottomans, I got Constantinople in the peace deal. All your delicious kebab are belong to me. 
Poil fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Even mechanics I was sceptical of when they were initially added, like corruption, are being advanced into having some genuine decision making in them to make them actually deep and interesting beyond "keep number low." Corruption is still a garbage spite mechanic that the game didn't need but almost everything else has been great. I was worried that the state system would be horrible but it's actually really engaging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/794188998642114561
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how to build the optimal army stacks and am having trouble figuring out how combat width works. It only refers to the line itself, and not the total number of units that can fight in a single battle, right? So if I had a combat width of 25, I would want enough infantry and calvary to fill the combat width of 25 for the first line, then you back it up with 25 artillery for the second line. Or am I completely wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:I did it a couple of days ago with Kongo. Had no problem with them, I think I got them all in a war where I took a couple of provinces on madagascar and then released them as a vassal. I've been trying more things since my last post, but it just isn't working. I had two separate fetishist Madagascar vassals for several decades, released one of them and then invaded... nothing. I may have to give up on the achievement, which is a little frustrating for a game that's reached 1720!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
About bloody time. Transport Tycoon had that figured out back in 1994. Speaking of that, are any of Fredman's Epistles in the dlc not just about "lol drinking"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Zikan posted:I'm trying to figure out how to build the optimal army stacks and am having trouble figuring out how combat width works. It only refers to the line itself, and not the total number of units that can fight in a single battle, right? You're only partially wrong. I'm on my phone and I'm sure someone else will go into greater detail. You want a wider front line than the army you're facing if possible. The front line is going to take casualties right away and then you'll have artillery getting decimated, so you want more infantry/cavalry than artillery. Most cavalry you only want flanking, so depending on the era I'll have only 2/4/6 units of cavalry per army. The exception is hordes where you want as much cavalry as you can afford to start. Usually I'll do something like 14/4/12(or multiples of that), but there may be a more optimal composition, especially because I think there might be odd numbered siege bonuses? In the end game when forts are crazy I'll have a stack of just artillery that I attach to sieging armies that aren't going to do battle so I can hit all the artillery siege bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Poil posted:About bloody time. Transport Tycoon had that figured out back in 1994. I don't speak the tongue of the frozen north, but I'm pretty sure at least one of them is about KLONG KLONG KLONG KLONG!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Zikan posted:I'm trying to figure out how to build the optimal army stacks and am having trouble figuring out how combat width works. It only refers to the line itself, and not the total number of units that can fight in a single battle, right? If you're just trying to get a basic 'good enough' sort of ratio, I generally use something approaching a 16/8/8 ratio, then just add more infantry as required to keep up with my neighbors, and more artillery as I gain the ability to afford it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:06
|
|