|
RabidWeasel posted:Correct, but I'm also trying to correct the misconception people have in general that you absolutely need to be able to route trade back to your capital in order for it to be a good source of income. You don't, but you lose 50% of your node trade power when you collect outside of your home node.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
You just move your home node.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
Got another UI hot take: Notification flags should just appear instead of floating sloooowly across the bar behind all the other flags where I can't click on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 11:53
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Got another UI hot take: Notification flags should just appear instead of floating sloooowly across the bar behind all the other flags where I can't click on them. oh god yes please let me turn that poo poo off
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
I've been reading some of the backlog of this thread and after reading people's concerns over the Mughals being the only tag with access to assimilation, I was curious if this would be possibly by modding, Groogy. Have a government reform level that gets added if your nation attains empire rank, a unique "Empire" reform with three options. Something like "One Nation, One People" which gives a culture conversion bonus, "One Nation, One Faith" which allows you to convert in territories, and "Cultural Melting pot" which allows not Mughal empires the ability to assimilate cultures. I'm not suggesting this NEEDS to be in the base game, obviously, I'm more curious if this is something even possible to do with the new reforms system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
Space Bat posted:I've been reading some of the backlog of this thread and after reading people's concerns over the Mughals being the only tag with access to assimilation, I was curious if this would be possibly by modding, Groogy. Have a government reform level that gets added if your nation attains empire rank, a unique "Empire" reform with three options. Something like "One Nation, One People" which gives a culture conversion bonus, "One Nation, One Faith" which allows you to convert in territories, and "Cultural Melting pot" which allows not Mughal empires the ability to assimilate cultures. I'm not suggesting this NEEDS to be in the base game, obviously, I'm more curious if this is something even possible to do with the new reforms system. Pretty sure its been confirmed that you can do that, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Why is corruption being tied to number of territories and not total development in territories vs. development in states? It seems really dumb that two 1/1/1 provinces can give you more corruption than holding one 10/10/10 province as territory.
Atreiden fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:Why is corruption being tied to number of territories and not total development in territories vs. development in states? It seems really dumb that two 1/1/1 provinces can give you more corruption than holding one 10/10/10 province as territory. I've seen several people suggest this (corruption based on comparing stated dev to unstated dev rather than on number of territories) and it does seem like a massively superior option which retains mostly the same gameplay impact. It gives you a further incentive to develop your states (since doing so would increase the total amount of development you can hold before running into corruption problems) and also prevents you from getting dicked over because you want to own one random garbage province out of a whole state because it's strategically important or just makes your borders look nicer. Given how much criticism / suggestions for alternatives has been raised recently I'm curious if they're going to look again at any of the new stuff they've implemented. It's not like we haven't had similar things happen before (the alternate fort system for example).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
They at least tried the alternate fort system out for a version before it got killed. I’d like to get a feel for how this new territory limit plays before I condemn it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Don’t hold your breath. I’m no fan of the latest dev diary either, especially given that TCs are a paid expansion feature, but the fort overhaul was presented as an idea to be tested as opposed to the fait accompli (with numbers subject to tweaking) of a normal dev diary. On the other hand, look at stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
skasion posted:They at least tried the alternate fort system out for a version before it got killed. I’d like to get a feel for how this new territory limit plays before I condemn it. This particular suggestion, I think, is basically a straight up improvement over what they've already shown. It does exactly the same thing in terms of restricting expansion overall, while also increasing the benefit you gain from developing your core provinces (a good thing) and not unnecessarily punishing the player for corner cases such as only taking 1 poor province from a single map area. But yeah I'm not actually expecting any changes and it's going to be weird picking humanist every game now. Unless they somehow don't require you to full core provinces before converting them, in which case it just means you have a floating state slot you can never use because it's reserved specifically for conversions. And you have to do more micro. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Does someone have good mods that boost native americans? Anything from making colonization a bit more challenging to full sunset invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I've seen several people suggest this (corruption based on comparing stated dev to unstated dev rather than on number of territories) and it does seem like a massively superior option which retains mostly the same gameplay impact. It gives you a further incentive to develop your states (since doing so would increase the total amount of development you can hold before running into corruption problems) and also prevents you from getting dicked over because you want to own one random garbage province out of a whole state because it's strategically important or just makes your borders look nicer. Exactly my thought. I already develop provinces with good trade-goods or provinces that are just cheap to develop in states, so giving more incentive to do that would be welcomed. I'm not against corruption being something to watch out for again, I just think the current upcoming way is bad. But I'm not holding my breath for any change, it seems from the DD that paradox is very set on this change and haven't really acknowledged the player-base complaints and suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
The proposed tags nerf is a straightforward anti-fun mechanic. Anybody who likes it deserves an atomic wedgie. The other poo poo just makes me sad as hell that I didn't think to get one-faith during my WC run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
If I have a broken brain and an odd desire to go for Najd Jihad, would that be a thing to do before the next patch since it sounds like there are some big state limit and Religious idea nerfs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Yeah it will be a lot more annoying to micro conversion with the coming patch and holding 500 provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
I'm doing a Nitra run and the map color+flag combo is the best I've seen from an aesthetic point of view. Absolutely gorgeous. The Great Moravia achievement is pretty easy so long as you don't mind the taste of Ottoman boot leather. And I love the stuff. Mmmm mmmmm good. Yessir, sultan sir.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Linear Zoetrope posted:If I have a broken brain and an odd desire to go for Najd Jihad, would that be a thing to do before the next patch since it sounds like there are some big state limit and Religious idea nerfs? Yes. I remember there being some talk about optimal patch versions for certain achievements, I wonder if that's floating around anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
I had a good Najd run going that I hoped to get some achievements with, then I had a Tribal succession crisis and those "No child can be Khan!" style messages, I thought those horrible things were reserved for Hordes only? In any case it lead to monstrous amounts of Pretender rebels, which caused a Civil war, which caused more Rebels and in the end I was massively in debt and had lost 80% of my development when Pretender rebels enforcing demands also enforced Mushashas Seperatists demands who held only 2 provinces but got to secede with about 6 or 7 of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Is there any indication of then the Dharma is out? It looks like the best DLC in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
The devs get back from the summer break in the next couple of weeks so my guess is not too long after that, it seems like the Dev diaries have been getting towards the end of their cycle for this patch. Personally I'd be surprised if it's later than late August/ early September.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Koboje posted:I had a good Najd run going that I hoped to get some achievements with, then I had a Tribal succession crisis and those "No child can be Khan!" style messages, I thought those horrible things were reserved for Hordes only? In any case it lead to monstrous amounts of Pretender rebels, which caused a Civil war, which caused more Rebels and in the end I was massively in debt and had lost 80% of my development when Pretender rebels enforcing demands also enforced Mushashas Seperatists demands who held only 2 provinces but got to secede with about 6 or 7 of them. I think iqta gets those events too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
I hate the tag switching change because forming a strange and ahistorical tag is often the goal of my games: eg Ottomans-> Great Britain. That’s good and fun poo poo. I’ll lose a ton of motivation to start an eu4 game if I can’t do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
yeah and having more territories than states is often a goal of my campaigns, indirectly
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 11:12
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Europa Universalis IV: That wasn't an answer to you...You are still wrong though Yes please
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Achievements I want to bother getting at some point: A Decent Reserve, A Manchurian Candidate, A Sun God, Switzerlake, African Power, Big Blue Blob, Sons of Carthage. What are some other fun, moderately challenging ones to go for? I have Ideas Guy already but it was one of my favorites to get. I also have "We bled for this" which is my rarest achievement. Burning through a million manpower in a war with vs. Ottomans and everyone else doesn't seem like it would be that uncommon. Vivian Darkbloom fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jul 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Achievements I want to bother getting at some point: A Decent Reserve, A Manchurian Candidate, A Sun God, Switzerlake, African Power, Big Blue Blob, Sons of Carthage. What are some other fun, moderately challenging ones to go for? I have Ideas Guy already but it was one of my favorites to get. The Riga one was pretty fun. You get the achievement at about the same time you become a major power, so there are no boring wars against countries that stand zero chance of beating you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Riga one was pretty fun. You get the achievement at about the same time you become a major power, so there are no boring wars against countries that stand zero chance of beating you. How'd you beat the Livonian Order in that first war? I can't get any decent allies and my forcelimit is way less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 09:33
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:How'd you beat the Livonian Order in that first war? I can't get any decent allies and my forcelimit is way less. Wait for the almost guaranteed war between Poland and The Teutonic order, sweep in when the Livonian orders army is beaten or occupied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yes please Groogs, do y'all in the EUIV part not wanna copy the "game rules" from CK2? I mean, that poo poo is pretty great and one of my absolute favourite things there and playing EUIV where you gotta have historical lucky nations and no silky business forced in is dreadful. Like, I'd love to have rules for like, crazy condottiere like it was a few patches back or let people toggle having tot give estates lands and what not
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Groogs, do y'all in the EUIV part not wanna copy the "game rules" from CK2? I mean, that poo poo is pretty great and one of my absolute favourite things there and playing EUIV where you gotta have historical lucky nations and no silky business forced in is dreadful. It would still be blocking achievements and the biggest out cry has been for how the balance change affects people getting achievements. So we would just trade the whining to be about how this option disables achievements. Just like Lucky nations disables achievements, adding it to this screen would still do the same with whatever other options would be there. That is not why we are not planning to do it though. Crusader Kings 2 have taken balance and thrown it out the window and the game rules doesn't help with this. There would be one single combination of settings we could balance the game for.and anything else would be pretty much foobar with the resources available to us. EU4 is not supposed to be fairly balanced between nations but a lot of effort and time is put into avoiding potential traps and most things are caught in the beta stage so you don't even notice. Though of course we also hammer down on things when other people catch it after release of a patch. If someone wants the game to play specifically a way you can always mod it. Someone should make a "Balance collection" mod package with several small mods you piece together to play the game as you want. e: And no just because community think something is OP, it is not unbalanced because of that. You're still wrong  Fixed the bug where TC got goods produced though, programmer had inverted logic when switching to institutions. Groogy fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Jul 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
Groogy posted:It would still be blocking achievements and the biggest out cry has been for how the balance change affects people getting achievements. So we would just trade the whining to be about how this option disables achievements. Just like Lucky nations disables achievements, adding it to this screen would still do the same with whatever other options would be there. Also why do I have to have historical lucky nations for cheevos? That was most baffling to me. But yeah, not wanting to allocate for it and game test for a lotta variables folks might not like is perfectly reasonable
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
how do you take advantage of bigger horse limit nations? Are they handicapped by flanking/combat width stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
I'm playing as Ming for the first time and I realized that when I declare war on a non-tributary neighbour with the "Enforce Tributary" CB and they are allied to one of my tributaries and get called into my war, if I enforce tributary status on my original target then the tributary ally lose it's status (can't enforce it in a separate peace). I'm doing something wrong or it's just like this by design? Because it's super annoying to declare war on a non-tributary allied to several tributaries and lose all of them in the peace deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:how do you take advantage of bigger horse limit nations? Are they handicapped by flanking/combat width stuff? I would also like to hear a good explanation of this tbh. I have like 1500 hrs in this game and I just take horse bonuses as a cue to field 4-6 cavalry per army instead of 2-4. still have no idea if it makes any real difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Flanking basically doesn't exist after the early 16th century unless you already outmatch the enemy so much that it was never going to be a fair fight in the first place. Combat width puts a hard restriction on how useful cavalry can be. There's so many structural reasons why cavalry aren't good to use compared to infantry - outside of the early game if you have spare cash - that unless you want to go full gimmick mode with 100% cav limit and stacking power modifiers you're still best off ignoring them. If you have a good cav power bonus in your traditions or an early idea it doesn't hurt to try and squeeze a few more in - but you'll still want to phase them out later. It basically comes down to: 1. Cavalry are really expensive and if you have spare cash you're better off investing it in artillery and / or mercs. 2. Even if you go cav heavy you still need infantry in your armies wheras an army with all infantry and no cavalry will do just fine; this means that infantry power bonuses are essentially worth more than cavalry power. 3. The idea groups which buff cav specifically are much worse than the ones which buff infantry (compare the 20% infantry power policy being unlocked by quality-economic vs the 20% cav power policy being unlocked by aristocratic-espionage) Though in a world with infinite money and 100% cavalry limits you'd probably go full cavalry because they are stronger on a per unit basis. So I guess the answer to the actual question is "you don't unless it's early game and you have a very strong economy in which case great, or you are going for a very specific build with 100% cavalry and have gimped yourself in other areas to make those cavalry as strong as possible" RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jul 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
What RabidWeasel said, but also there's an issue with the combat deployment algorithms that makes it very difficult to get any use out of any more than four cavalry. The algorithm always prioritizes putting your infantry front and center, so if you have 10 inf 10 cav, your front line will look like this: /////xxxxxxxxxx///// That's great if your enemy has 16-20 regiments on their front line, but if they have any less then some of your cavalry will sit on the flanks doing nothing. Also because infantry are always front and center, they always take the brunt of the damage. This means that the higher your army's cav:inf ratio is, the faster it will rise above your cav:inf ratio limit in combat and get the tactics penalty. The only way to actually take advantage of this is to either have a 100% ratio, or to have your infantry arrive in combat a day after your cavalry, which is extremely tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Oh yeah I totally forgot that the game actually prioritises not putting your cav units into combat sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
so aristocracy group is... bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
It's good (+1 leader siege is amazing), just not as good as the other military groups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:26
|
|