|
Yeah, France is not as good as you think in the beginning, it's extremely easy to get overextended and dogpiled. It's also very sad that the game is supposed to be played since 1444. Later dates are not just underdeveloped but neglected in many ways. E.g. some game mechanics are not updated with time. Native Americans exist in a stasis and won't get any ideas or reforms passed even if you start as surviving Native Americans in 1776 start date, development doesn't change at all AFAIK. 1444 also reflects some current affairs of nations, but if you start as, say, France 1 day before the Revolution you won't have anything like a pre-Revolutionary situation, just a normal stable country. So if you're thinking it'll be fun to try to survive as some specific country in some specific historical moment then you're out of luck, you'll only get very basic setup like current wars and alliances.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Another Person posted:that's not a bug as timurids, you have cores on 100% of your vassals lands so the integration happens instantly. integrating land from a vassal you already have cores on will always be instant for the proportion of land cored. so if you had a vassal which you already had cores on 40% of, that coring would fly right up to 40%. Oh OK thanks. So that "give up a core in a vassal" event is not as innocent as it seems then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yeah, France is not as good as you think in the beginning, it's extremely easy to get overextended and dogpiled. it won't even be stable. the pre-revolution start for france is a mess because they have a huge army but no buildings iirc. so, you are running a massive defecit. i think this is the same for a lot of start dates, they just don't have buildings down anywhere really. Kuiperdolin posted:Oh OK thanks. So that "give up a core in a vassal" event is not as innocent as it seems then. yeah, don't really go with that event. if you ever find yourself as a vassal though, you can take advantage of making claims on your overlord to see if they will give you that land via an event.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
Nobody mentioned Muscovy, but I think it's possibly the single easiest country in the game to play. Your path forward is as straightforward as can be. By yourself, you're the most powerful country in your region, but you also start with a vassal swarm just to tip the scales so nobody has even a slight chance against you. You don't need to engage in clever diplomacy and try to find ways to exploit the diplomatic systems in order to succeed. Just kick the poo poo out of novgorod, the other minor principalities, your horde neighbors, and then when you're big enough and maybe with like one decent ally, Poland-Lithuania. I think they make for a very good sandbox to start the game with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
Another Person posted:different nations are good for tutorialising different things. i think you are best starting off by learning how war stuff happens, so I recommend the Ottomans as your starter nation. Ottomans are fun but I also like to recommend Muscovy. You start out as a strong regional power and can soon enough become a hugely monstrous blob, you learn about fighting wars and dealing with vassals, and as a bonus you can optionally mostly ignore naval affairs completely for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:23
|
|
|
my issue with muscovy is that they are so easy that they end up being fairly boring due to total safety, didn't want to recommend something i find boring to play, where your options are very limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Another Person posted:my issue with muscovy is that they are so easy that they end up being fairly boring due to total safety, didn't want to recommend something i find boring to play, where your options are very limited. Oh it's not difficult to gently caress up a Muscovy run, it will teach you a lot about the game mechanics. ("Aggressive expansion", what's that supposed to mean? Why am I three levels behind in military tech now? Etc.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
Another Person posted:always start in 1444 if you are trying to learn - the later start dates get significantly less attention (because nobody plays them) and are not great to play in singleplayer as a result. the later dates are only really good as something to look at and fiddle with. One glaring exception: if you want to play as easy-mode France, take the 1453 start. It's close enough to game start that you can easily use the same "strategies" but Austria is fragmented and not the Holy Roman Emperor (that would be Styria, which owns like half of Austria's lands). You also have more cores, on Brittany and the English lands in France. Since Austria is your main rival and source of problems, this makes for a pretty easy start (you can easily kick England out of your continental lands and conquer Brittany very early thanks to the cores, ally either Castile or Aragon to keep your south border secure, keep burgundy in check until Burgundian Inheritance fires and then you can just roflstomp the weakened HRE ASAP. Or, since Austria is unlikely to threaten you early on, prioritize consolidating French lands and conquering Aragon/Castille, and just become an unstoppable juggernaut. Another Person posted:I would say France is not actually a good newbie start - they are strong and in a good position, and in a singleplayer campaign are usually either the final boss or the second to last boss in a eurogame, but all of their neighbours are buff boys (plus fighting England or Burgundy usually means fighting the other at the same time) and it is pretty easy to lose as them if you do not know what you are doing. Sure, you can bounce back with shrew play, but a newbie is not going to know what shrewd play is unlike someone with more time under their belt. Totally agree, with the above exception if starting in 1453: wouldn't recommend it to a complete newbie, but even as a barely-experienced player it can be great fun 
TorakFade fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Sep 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
Another Person posted:it won't even be stable. the pre-revolution start for france is a mess because they have a huge army but no buildings iirc. so, you are running a massive defecit. i think this is the same for a lot of start dates, they just don't have buildings down anywhere really. It's still stable, you can disband most of the army in a single click. The point it that you might at least expect that it would have stats defined for the revolution disaster to fire. And yes, they didn't go over rebalanced buildings. A pity, really. On release EU4 was much better in that regard. Some provinces even got historical buildings in them IIRC, like universities appearing on the right dates. It was still out of touch and provinces were underdeveloped compared to what you or AI would have by that point but it was playable. I remember in pre-release videos they've even talked about how 1492 start date might be more interesting as you can start colonizing, tech allows for better money flow and you already get some historical ideas which further define your country. Right now you'd only play later dates for very specific challenges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Another Person posted:my issue with muscovy is that they are so easy that they end up being fairly boring due to total safety, didn't want to recommend something i find boring to play, where your options are very limited. On the other hand I think you have a very clear "historical" goal of reaching the Pacific Ocean and if you're new you'll screw it up, discovering Portugal or something like that there. With institutions you can also have a challenging midgame: you won't be that far ahead of Central Asia in terms of tech so depending on what happens there you might fight some powerful countries. And in midgame you'll be behind Europe in institutions (unless you're advanced enough to know how and when spawn institutions youself) so conflicts with Poland/HRE may pose a threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
I can see 1453 above being a safe non-1444 start date, due to it not suffering from the 'nowhere has any buildings' thing. ilitarist posted:It's still stable, you can disband most of the army in a single click. The point it that you might at least expect that it would have stats defined for the revolution disaster to fire. And yes, they didn't go over rebalanced buildings. To give people an idea of how some late starts look: the 1792 start date which is during the revolution proper, the last one, sees France with a bajillion forts (mostly level 2s) and no other buildings, an army of 159k in the most trashcan compositions possible (one army has 16k cavalry and 42k infantry with no arty - infact for their 159k men, only 16k of them touch a cannon). You would have to disband most of this to actually fight anything and rebalance it to something more sensible. They are in the war of the first coalition, which the game calculates as them having medium war enthusiasm for. Why? Maybe because they are running a 16 ducat deficit before they even have to reinforce a unit due to battle. Consider how much higher a loss that will be if they actually ran a sensible amount of artillery. They have pitiful 24k manpower with a max of 82k, but almost full professionalism, so it isn't all bad (the game actually has their cap at 18k manpower for the first month but it goes up at the tick), but that's a major rut to get yourself out of there. Similarly, Austria is losing 18 ducats a month, and the Ottos if you just use their base settings and go to war are losing a staggering 26 ducats a month. The best is Qing, which is losing money too, but starts with just 26 ducats. The later the start dates, the more hosed things get basically, due to the lack of scaling of economies. I don't really care about it ever being 'fixed' so that it can be better balanced, because that sounds like a massive waste of resources, I just find it funny and somewhat unfortunate. These issues aren't what really seems to be intentional design, it is just the game leaving those starts behind as more mechanics get introduced. They are still fun scenarios for multiplayer, I should add. Most of them just don't make for great singleplayer experiences. Another Person fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Sep 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
So my Timurid run. It's disgusting. I declared 11 December 1444 on Ajam, managed to take 100% warscore of provinces basically leaving them with 3-4 counties. Then a few months later Qara Qoyunlu attacked and annexed them, relieving me of the necessity to wait out the truce, so I just straight up attacked QQ (allied with the Mamluks that were getting beaten by the Ottomans so didn't accept their call to war) and grabbed the remaining cores + a couple strategic provinces. Then Shah Rukh dies in like 1449 but due to the extra Ajam development, my vassals are quite happy waiting until 1454 and then I start annexing and get so huge it's not even funny. I start chaining wars to the east, north and south to wait out the AE I incurred with the Mamluks and neighbors, end result is that I own all of Persia, the southern part of Mashriq (up to the edge of the desert wasteland), Shirvan, Dagestan, Hormuz and a few steppe provinces stolen from Chagatai and Uzbek. Then I start being serious. Attack Delhi, steal all their poo poo. Form Mughals in 1520 or so. Start roflstomping the poor indians, I'm not even that much behind in institutions since the Ottos have left the Mamluks pretty much alone and conquered all of Hungary so they're getting pretty quick spawns and they LOVE me (100 trust) so they immediately offer knowledge sharing as soon as they embrace an institution Jaunpur and Sindh are gone, Delhi reduced to 3 mountain provinces, the whole himalayan belt under my rule. I like how you get permanent claims through missions, meaning not all at once. I enjoy the deliberate pacing of first pacifying an area before rampaging on the next: Bahmanis, Vijanyagar, Malwa - I'm coming for you now 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
I've tried something like that, just a bit more slowly, but I get tons of rebels sucking my manpower dry, how do you deal with those?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
Kuiperdolin posted:I've tried something like that, just a bit more slowly, but I get tons of rebels sucking my manpower dry, how do you deal with those? well my 1st idea group was humanism (it's probably overkill, but with the new "no conversion unless province is stated and cored" there's no point to get religion for a huge empire, and Timurids don't need much adm power early on since you have cores on almost all surrounding lands and vassals), and I never let rebels take control of a province not in ZoC, so after 10 years or so separatism disappears, which generally isn't enough to spawn a revolt if you manage it - raise stability, use harsh treatment, take the -unrest option in events, station some troops as necessary etc... Plus Mughals have a special mechanic (might be DLC-dependent?) that treats every culture as accepted if you have conquered all the culture's land which means you can expand like a madman with little to no consequence if you grab whole cultural regions at once. Right now I'm beating all the indian kingdoms silly and just grabbing the land I want. Between the permaclaims, -years of separatism, -unrest and +tolerance for heatens and heretics, it's like getting "cores" that cost me 10 to 20 adm / province 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Nobody mentioned Muscovy, but I think it's possibly the single easiest country in the game to play. Your path forward is as straightforward as can be. By yourself, you're the most powerful country in your region, but you also start with a vassal swarm just to tip the scales so nobody has even a slight chance against you. You don't need to engage in clever diplomacy and try to find ways to exploit the diplomatic systems in order to succeed. Just kick the poo poo out of novgorod, the other minor principalities, your horde neighbors, and then when you're big enough and maybe with like one decent ally, Poland-Lithuania. I think they make for a very good sandbox to start the game with. peasant's war is a thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Two  Playing Byzantium, Orthodox state religion, with virtually every province Orthodox. Ended up in a personal union with Bohemia a long time ago, which, I realized soon after, seems to have made my Basileus Catholic. He was Orthodox before the Bohemian succession war, I'm sure of it. Fine, I guess, but a little weird. Maybe it was in the terms of the dude's will. 1. I don't see any game mechanics penalty for having a leader not following the state religion besides the unrest event that fires each time a Catholic ascends to my very nice Byzantine throne. Is that right? I only noticed the change in religions from the notification I got, some short time after the war: "National Decisions Available: Time for an Orthodox Basileus?" It's been taunting me ever since. A handful of Orthodox heirs have died and it's been nothing but Catholics for a long while. I finally gave in when I felt I could take the stability hit. (-2 stability in exchange for 10 legitimacy and converting both the leader and the heir.) The next loving month, the notification flag came back, doing the ridiculous left-to-right dance of the notification flags, coming to rest for me to read the tooltip: "Time for an Orthodox Basileus?" They're both Catholic again  2. Seems like a bug, but if it isn't, what can I do to stop this from happening again? Are my dudes secretly playing CK2 beneath the EU4 layer? Suspicious. also i like this patch and lol at the paradox forums melting down
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
 ming you know you gotta split your culture groups if you are going for a world conquest, right
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Another Person posted:I could see AIs mutilating themselves with that. If you all really really want territory land to be convertible again, just give it a huge ticking modifier which gradually goes down, so you could convert non-state lands in like... 50-100 years. If it were up to me, conversion would consider explicitly of forced emigration and depopulation, with minority religions depicted somehow, and the only actual possible changing of religions is to the various Reformation Faith's (including Sikh). But it's not, and this idea seems fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
 Managed to get True Heir on the 2nd try. And uhhh, everything is great in my country. Piece of cake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
I started a France game, going for big blue blob achievement. This is the first time in a while I’ve played in Europe, so I don’t have eyes on Ming. Whenever I play somewhere I can see them, they never explode and just get larger and more annoying as the decades roll by. In the first ten years, Ming completely disappears from the GP list. A mingsplosion finally happened for me and I didn’t get to see it. Boo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Beamed posted:If it were up to me, conversion would consider explicitly of forced emigration and depopulation, with minority religions depicted somehow, and the only actual possible changing of religions is to the various Reformation Faith's (including Sikh). if it is based on emigration and depopulation then I would think you need to model where those people are going to (unless you are committing a genocide which is another can of worms), and while a better simulation of reality, what that would end up as in a game is a bunch of pops being shuffled around constantly in a way which has very little control. the great upside of the relatively simple conversion system in the game right now is that you, the player, feel like you have a great deal of control over your nation. most decisions in the game as it is right now are a decision is made, and then a thing happens totally, and the system you are proposing is a fair bit less controlled and more granular. check out the Meiou and Taxes mod if you haven't already, which does similar things with economics and trading for this game. on one hand, it is a really cool simulation, but on the other the general lack of control in the hands of all players (both you and AI) makes it feel like your impact on the game is actually very limited. you can definitely enact change on the map and eventually become a staggering beast, but it ends up feeling less like a strategy game and more like a weird evolution simulator akin to Gridworld, where you are spending more time watching than actually playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Another Person posted:
in my wc game ming had two coalition wars called against it by jaunpur which ended up with ming allying afghanistan and vassalizing nagaur
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
How does religious unity work now? Do territories not count towards it anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
oddium posted:in my wc game ming had two coalition wars called against it by jaunpur which ended up with ming allying afghanistan and vassalizing nagaur that coalition never fired, but ming very nearly lost a tributary war to transoxciana and fars after they somehow got inside of ming and caused them to plummet into internal conflicts i got really excited for a moment, and sat watching ming get covered in rebels, but somehow bounce back. i regret not declaring my own war on them there and then, a trade war, just to push them over the edge. i am desperately trying to get a border with them now, to tank their mandate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Cool & good: nepotism lets you elect 30 year old dynastic nephews, guaranteeing you a nice, young ruler to reelect over and over to become a living god Bad times: they start with extremely bad semi random stats, I think they're guaranteed to have two stats as either 0 or 1 and the 3rd stat no more than 3 I really can't make up my mind if this is worth using over the republicanism reform (+0.2 RT / year) - I'm theorycrafting that you could use it to fish for a nephew with less awful starting stats with 3 year reelection terms, then reelect him into space (once you take the reduced terms reform even a 1/1/1 becomes a 6/6/6 in 15 years) but OTOH you're losing out on RT and the cumulative impact of the poor starting stats will be annoying However you can get pretty amazing amounts of RT generation going now, and there's also "reelection cost reduction" from a policy, so maybe losing the extra 0.2/year is OK? Also worth taking into consideration that every time you click the reelect button you also generate 50 random monarch points - which you will presumably be doing more often with younger rulers. With 3 year reelection cycles this comes out to ~1.4 monarch points per year! RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Hungary seemed to be trying to get the insulting neighbors achievement, because they sent out 3 in rapid succession. Unfortunately for them, Austria was having money and manpower problems and did not join their wars when the diplo insult wars were declared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Another Person posted:if it is based on emigration and depopulation then I would think you need to model where those people are going to (unless you are committing a genocide which is another can of worms), and while a better simulation of reality, what that would end up as in a game is a bunch of pops being shuffled around constantly in a way which has very little control. Why would they be shuffled around constantly? I mean, yes, it would be better gameplay even if they would, but you would either have e.g. Andalusian Muslims emigrating to Morocco, or Jewish persecutions causing fleeing to Poland and parts of Russia (and back and forth), which all seems ultimately correct. The player's control can come from these decisions - whether to "convert" at all, whether to accept refugees, with pros and cons for each. Difficult and rewarding choices which shape your nation are good. Another Person posted:the great upside of the relatively simple conversion system in the game right now is that you, the player, feel like you have a great deal of control over your nation. most decisions in the game as it is right now are a decision is made, and then a thing happens totally, and the system you are proposing is a fair bit less controlled and more granular. I'm okay with relinquishing some control to the game in return for the control I do have becoming far, far more rewarding. Things like e.g. a healthy humanist nation being represented with.. 124% religious unit :neutral: is not very rewarding, it's just a checkbox. And that's boring. Another Person posted:check out the Meiou and Taxes mod if you haven't already, which does similar things with economics and trading for this game. on one hand, it is a really cool simulation, but on the other the general lack of control in the hands of all players (both you and AI) makes it feel like your impact on the game is actually very limited. you can definitely enact change on the map and eventually become a staggering beast, but it ends up feeling less like a strategy game and more like a weird evolution simulator akin to Gridworld, where you are spending more time watching than actually playing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Well I did start a France game but following along with that Arumba LP (I know it’s a year old) I didn’t actually unpause. I’ve done France and Muscovy way back in the past actually when I first played. Can someone then suggest maybe a Scandi country to start with? I’m not a complete EUIV noob just haven’t played in years, I’m sure key concepts will come back to me very quickly once I’m underway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:Well I did start a France game but following along with that Arumba LP (I know it’s a year old) I didn’t actually unpause. I’ve done France and Muscovy way back in the past actually when I first played. I guess Sweden is a solid intermediate pick. You have an easy supporter for your independence in England, but from there you're sandwiched between the Russians, Danes, and the HRE, making expansion not so straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:Well I did start a France game but following along with that Arumba LP (I know it’s a year old) I didn’t actually unpause. I’ve done France and Muscovy way back in the past actually when I first played. I suggest continuing with the France game, but, very crucially, unpausing. Try to get all France back by 1480.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Does province development ever go up without an event or you spending mana?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Does province development ever go up without an event or you spending mana? Some of the missions increase dev, and the new jam a colonist in a province does as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
I've been playing for hundreds of hours. When playing as Burgundy yesterday, I noticed that one of their missions offers, as a reward, 25% discount for culture conversion. I realized I have no clue about why I should care about culture at all, to the point that I couldn't find where to convert people to another culture. What's the benefit? Does having a culturally unified nation give bonuses to unrest reduction or taxes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Cool & good: nepotism lets you elect 30 year old dynastic nephews, guaranteeing you a nice, young ruler to reelect over and over to become a living god They are weighted to be lower in stats when being generated but are guaranteed to be young yes. They also still get the random bonus to one of their stats from the nepotism reform. And that also applies to all rulers you generate. Also the Mandatory Service policy also allows you to have female republican leaders besides giving you the reelection bonus. I did bunch of work on that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:I've been playing for hundreds of hours. When playing as Burgundy yesterday, I noticed that one of their missions offers, as a reward, 25% discount for culture conversion. I realized I have no clue about why I should care about culture at all, to the point that I couldn't find where to convert people to another culture. What's the benefit? Does having a culturally unified nation give bonuses to unrest reduction or taxes? No it p much just exists to make roleplayers happy, there's rarely a good reason to convert cultures (non accepted cultures give a minor tax / manpower / revolt penalty)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
In practical terms, converting culture is a way to turn diplomatic points into tax income and manpower, so it can be useful at times. At worst it's the equivalent of 30 diplo points for 1 base tax and 1 base manpower, which is still a better use of points than development in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
I very rarely use convert culture. I guess if you're not going for WC and just have a Europe-spanning empire you'll be able to accept a lot of cultures so your core domain doesn't suffer that much. The effect of non-accepted culture (so it's not in your culture group) is: −33% Local tax modifier −2% Local missionary strength −33% Local manpower modifier −20% Local sailors modifier +2 Local unrest Note that trade is not affected. Also note that merciful Paradox devs allowed those provinces to give us healthy amount of sailors, the joy. The cost is 10 diplomacy monarch power per development. I can see it being useful for developed provinces bordering your culture province (-25% discount) but even then it's costly. I guess it works well if you stack modifiers, wait for enlightenment, and for some reason take Religious instead of Humanist - and then you'll mostly do it for manpower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I'd be lying to you if I said I wasn't partially inspired by Dei Gratia, the mod for EU3 which really well modelled these minority religions and how they ebbed and flowed throughout society. I think MEIOU and Taxes' model was inspired similarly (could be wrong), but I gave up on that mod right around when I brought up making things too overpowered just because it rhymed with "The Schmoman Mempire" or "The Jyzantine Empire" and they just shrugged. (Also when I tried to run it on a computer with 16 GB RAM and got about 1 sec per day load times on speed 4) The skeleton of the EUIV Dei Gratia is actually in the current M&T, it is just horrendously busted and doesn't work sadly (as in, it isn't made well and is buggy, not what the actual plan was not working and that it was a bad idea). It is a compilation of a few total overhaul mods really. Also I think you underestimate just how much conversion happens in EUIV. A looot happens. Another Person fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Sep 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:No it p much just exists to make roleplayers happy, there's rarely a good reason to convert cultures (non accepted cultures give a minor tax / manpower / revolt penalty) Pretty significant tax/manpower penalty, really. -33% is no joke. Though it's still probably not worth doing unless you can get some culture conversion modifiers. Especially since you'll be able to accept most of the culture groups in the wealthy regions of your empire, which is always worth the dip cost. Valiantman posted:I've been playing for hundreds of hours. When playing as Burgundy yesterday, I noticed that one of their missions offers, as a reward, 25% discount for culture conversion. I realized I have no clue about why I should care about culture at all, to the point that I couldn't find where to convert people to another culture. What's the benefit? Does having a culturally unified nation give bonuses to unrest reduction or taxes? If you aren't even accepting new cultures, you should at least do that. That's in the government tab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
I used to form culture blocks when running with Religious ideas. You convert everything in a culture group to one culture and have that one as accepted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 10:45
|
|