|
Poil posted:Or they bought a province in Africa or India somewhere. Yeah I have a lot of the world uncovered but maybe the somehow ended up in the Southeast Asian Islands. I'll find them eventually SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Apr 25, 2020 |
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Yeah I have a lot of the world uncovered but maybe the somehow ended up in the Southeast Asian Islands. I'll find them eventually Go to the diplomacy menu for your country and right click on the Brittany shield for the royal marriage and select "go to capital province"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Nations that get pushed out of Europe often end up on an island in the middle of nowhere for the rest of the game. I always feel bad for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
I always wonder at what point a Kingdom of Portugal with a capital in, like, St. Helena and no territories in Europe would give up claiming to be Portugal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 12:58
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I always wonder at what point a Kingdom of Portugal with a capital in, like, St. Helena and no territories in Europe would give up claiming to be Portugal. English kings maintained their claim to be kings of France for hundreds of years after losing their last French possessions, and Kings of Spain still officially call themselves the Kings of Jerusalem (among other titles). So, never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
And we still have the Republic of China in Taiwan, who I imagine will continue calling themselves that for some time to come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
I formed Italy and later ate the Papal lands but despite occupying their three remaining Italian provinces my warscore was only 99%. Turns out at some point they had bought a province of Mali. So that's where the pope is now hanging out. As amusing as it is I kinda wish I could do some kind of Vatican City decision, but I wonder if the game could handle the Papal States still existing despite not owning any provinces and if it would be too early historically for it to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
I've been playing a coop game with two friends and it's really fun but man the whole thing is just an exercise in managing aggressive expansion. We spend ages reconfiguring peace deals to try and get as much as we can without invoking the ire of a coalition, then holding our breath to see if a) a coalition forms and b) whether they declare war. It's so hard to resist the temptation to just take one more province and hope you can get away with it, but we almost always gently caress up and have to reload a save. Or the worst thing is when you think you've gotten away with it and the coalition declares war like 3 years later seemingly out of the blue. I know the whole point is to stop rampant expansion and it's a good mechanic, but the unpredictability (for us) can make it frustrating. One thing that makes it hard is the little warning that a coalition might form only applies to the war leader, not your allies who you are giving provinces to. Any tips on avoiding coalitions / understanding the logic behind them, beyond the basics? We always have diplomats set to appease outraged nations, and take any "improve relations" bonuses we can get...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 11:51
|
|
|
fuf posted:I've been playing a coop game with two friends and it's really fun but man the whole thing is just an exercise in managing aggressive expansion. We spend ages reconfiguring peace deals to try and get as much as we can without invoking the ire of a coalition, then holding our breath to see if a) a coalition forms and b) whether they declare war. It's so hard to resist the temptation to just take one more province and hope you can get away with it, but we almost always gently caress up and have to reload a save. Or the worst thing is when you think you've gotten away with it and the coalition declares war like 3 years later seemingly out of the blue. Be huge, have a huge army. If you're significantly stronger than the sum of all potential coalition members they'll chicken out and never declare war. Easy to see when you're mega-Ottomans or mega-France, I once had more than 300 AE with every remaining nation in Europe (I had gobbled up Spain, Italy, UK and a good half of the HRE as France) and no one ever dreamed of declaring a coalition war on me because I had a shitload of soldiers. The AI is reeeeally careful about not declaring wars where they think they might lose badly, to the point that I have played entire games without ever being declared on because I was always making sure to be stronger than my direct rivals at any given time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
fuf posted:I've been playing a coop game with two friends and it's really fun but man the whole thing is just an exercise in managing aggressive expansion. We spend ages reconfiguring peace deals to try and get as much as we can without invoking the ire of a coalition, then holding our breath to see if a) a coalition forms and b) whether they declare war. It's so hard to resist the temptation to just take one more province and hope you can get away with it, but we almost always gently caress up and have to reload a save. Or the worst thing is when you think you've gotten away with it and the coalition declares war like 3 years later seemingly out of the blue. A coalition can't form unless it has at least four eligible members. Only countries with at least -50 AE opinion modifier can join a coalition against you. Anyone with a positive opinion of you can't join, nor can anyone with whom you have a truce. So you can manage coalitions by improving relations in advance with anyone who might join, or by making sure you're truced with them (say by beating them up for humiliation/gold/anything else that doesn't give more AE). If they're declaring on you way later it's probably because the balance of power shifted somehow. Maybe one of your AI allies is at war and won't help you, maybe the coalition leader got a new ally (they can call them in when they dec you, even if that ally isn't a member of the coalition), maybe they've just been training up a bunch of troops and hit critical mass. Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 12:07
|
|
|
fuf posted:I've been playing a coop game with two friends and it's really fun but man the whole thing is just an exercise in managing aggressive expansion. We spend ages reconfiguring peace deals to try and get as much as we can without invoking the ire of a coalition, then holding our breath to see if a) a coalition forms and b) whether they declare war. It's so hard to resist the temptation to just take one more province and hope you can get away with it, but we almost always gently caress up and have to reload a save. Or the worst thing is when you think you've gotten away with it and the coalition declares war like 3 years later seemingly out of the blue. Coalitions can form when 4 countries have an AE modifier to relations of -50 and an overall negative opinion. Countries cannot join a coalition while you have a truce. AE generated is vastly reduced for nations of a different religious group and reduced for different religions in the same group. It also scales with distance. This is why the Ottomans can conquer so much poo poo without triggering coalitions, as long as they alternate between conquering Muslim and Christian land that are geographically far from eachother. In the early and midgame, the best way to minimize coalition exposure is to always ensure you have a CB for every province you take, as taking provinces you don't have claims on increases AE generation significantly. Any province you need to pay diplomatic points for will generally cost far more AE than it's worth, except maybe in defensive wars, but those tend to be rare. The HRE in particular is absolute poo poo for expansion as you generate additional AE with HRE members for every province you conquer . Eventually you'll hit a point where there are few enough potential coalition members that you can declare on them before they join the coalition whenever your truce is up, letting you chain wars constantly. This does require you to be on the ball and always declaring wars as soon as the truce is up, because if you don't, things can quickly get out of hand and see gigantic coalitions form. Alternately ally someone huge and offer their land in the coalition peace deal. Ottomans are particularly good for this as they tend to be hated by almost everyone around them, with lots of people wanting their land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:In the early and midgame, the best way to minimize coalition exposure is to always ensure you have a CB for every province you take, as taking provinces you don't have claims on increases AE generation significantly. This is wrong. Claims reduce core cost and time to core but not AE. Having cores (not claims) gives you the reconquest CB which offers massively discounted AE for the provinces you have cores on, but anything you take using the conquest CB (the standard one you get by having a claim) has the full 100% modifier. e: oh unless you mean you should have at least a claim for the conquest CB as opposed to no CB at all, in which case yeah. declaring a war with no CB will get you a fuckton of AE. you don't need a claim for every province though, just one Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
If 3 years is a figure speech and not an exact number then likely what's happening is some of the nations you attacked and pissed off are having their truces run out, thus giving you enough pissed off nations to form a coalition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
How to deal with coalitions, Florry style. Start integrating a huge vassal Trigger a coalition war when you're close to finishing Wait till you're at 100% completion (but before integration triggers) Surrender, offering to release said vassal They accept Month ticks over, you get the vassal integrated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Thanks for the info.Jabor posted:If 3 years is a figure speech and not an exact number then likely what's happening is some of the nations you attacked and pissed off are having their truces run out, thus giving you enough pissed off nations to form a coalition. mmm I don't think anyone new joined the coalition, I think the balance of power must have just tipped in their favour so they finally declared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Also don’t take land from non co-belligerents if you’re worried about AE, and the one who’s not a war leader should still be able to mock up a peace offer to see how much AE they’ll get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
I know this was already addressed but I've seen this mistake here multiple times now so I'd just like to reiterate: Claims do not reduce AE. Claims do not reduce AE. CLAIMS DO NOT REDUCE AE. Ahem. The way you game AE is by constantly sending diplomats out to improve relations with anyone who might get mad at your conquests and the truce juggling act. If you're on a conquest spree, try to stagger truce timers so not everyone comes off truce at the same time and join a coalition right away. That will make it easier to either improve relations or declare war again. Also, try to find sources of the Improve Relations modifier. Easiest is the diplomatic advisor who does it. Improve Relations affects how quickly relationship modifiers tick up or down each year, including AE. Having lots of it is great for aggressive players who want to lose AE quickly. The other pro-tip is to try to dodge AE completely when possible. Find dead or near-dead countries with lots of cores still in foreign land, and make them your vassal (you can release vassals in the diplomatic screen for your country, it's the bottom button). This gives you reconquest CBs that generate WAY less AE. A good example for this is Iraq. They start off the map but have a lot of cores in Mesopotamia. Conquer one of those cores from AQ, release Iraq as a vassal, and enjoy loads of low-AE conquest. This isn't usually worth it for two or three province minors, but always be on the lookout for mid-sized or major powers that have collapsed and are near death or have been annexed. This can be a productive way to spend the time while waiting for AE to cool down, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Also, try to find sources of the Improve Relations modifier. Easiest is the diplomatic advisor who does it. Improve Relations affects how quickly relationship modifiers tick up or down each year, including AE. Having lots of it is great for aggressive players who want to lose AE quickly. I also move a merchant into a trade area where I anticipate a lot of AE and set the policy to Improve Relations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
the best part of a coalition forming is when you do the little puzzle and figure out which country to get a truce with somehow and the whole thing unravels
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The other pro-tip is to try to dodge AE completely when possible. Find dead or near-dead countries with lots of cores still in foreign land, and make them your vassal (you can release vassals in the diplomatic screen for your country, it's the bottom button). This gives you reconquest CBs that generate WAY less AE. A good example for this is Iraq. They start off the map but have a lot of cores in Mesopotamia. Conquer one of those cores from AQ, release Iraq as a vassal, and enjoy loads of low-AE conquest. This isn't usually worth it for two or three province minors, but always be on the lookout for mid-sized or major powers that have collapsed and are near death or have been annexed. This can be a productive way to spend the time while waiting for AE to cool down, too. drat I like this one so if you release a nation from the diplo menu they will always be your vassal? you can't control what provinces they get when released, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
fuf posted:you can't control what provinces they get when released, right? mobius42 posted:I also move a merchant into a trade area where I anticipate a lot of AE and set the policy to Improve Relations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
fuf posted:drat I like this one Yeah. It's a very fine way to beat up on big blobs who have previously eaten mid-sized countries. Also some countries contain a lot of dead tags at gamestart (France, England and Lithuania are nicely vulnerable to this, for example; much of Aragon is also Catalonia, or Aragon can be carved back out of Spain).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
If you're going to be aggressive enough that huge coalitions are an issue start with espionage ideas, that -20% is a godsend
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Azhais posted:If you're going to be aggressive enough that huge coalitions are an issue start with espionage ideas, that -20% is a godsend I could not disagree more with this advice. I know espionage isn't a complete and total joke anymore, but it's still kinda meh and it should be no one's first idea group. Humanism's +30% Improve Relations is an adequate substitute for the AE reduction, and it has tons of other benefits for an expansionist player. Even still, I'd recommend doing a military group first almost always. edit: I ran the numbers, and I dunno if it was intentionally designed this way, but the -20% AE idea seems roughly equal to the +30% Improve Relations idea in terms of long-term benefit, with all of your AE disappearing slightly faster with the IR. Absent any other modifiers, 40 AE becomes 32 and goes away in 16 years with -20% AE, while 40 AE goes away in 15.39 years with +30% IR. Obviously the immediate benefits of -20% AE makes it the superior modifier, but I don't think it's significant enough to justify all the other bad ideas in Espionage. late edit: It occured to me that I ignored the other obvious benefits of Improve Relations like raising your relations with other countries faster and removing other negative modifiers faster, helping you stay out of the coalition danger zone. Espionage may be a viable late game pick since mixing the two modifiers is what's best, but i would never ever take it before Humanism. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
I miss the good old days when that -20% AE was part of the Influence group god it was so OP and great
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
And Deus Vult was the first religious idea 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Who the what now? In the trade node window you can change the policy to Establish Communities for 15% improved relations with all countries within the node. It defaults to maximizing trade power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
mobius42 posted:In the trade node window you can change the policy to Establish Communities for 15% improved relations with all countries within the node. It defaults to maximizing trade power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
It's so hard for me to not just go innovative-> offensive every game help
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
Watching these Emperor streams makes me not want to play this game. I know it's multiplayer but still, everything is a hell war, local conflict doesn't exist, the HRE has been consolidated into 5 major nations less than a century in, and battles still hinge on running reinforcements in every two weeks. The one thing that MP has going for it is fluid alliances, but that almost certainly won't extend into SP. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 02:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I mean, mp and sp are different games entirely
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Watching these Emperor streams makes me not want to play this game. I know it's multiplayer but still, everything is a hell war, local conflict doesn't exist, the HRE has been consolidated into 5 major nations less than a century in, and battles still hinge on running reinforcements in every two weeks. I mean, if you know multiplayer plays very differently to single player, then why are you acting as if the dev mp is in any way an indicator of how the sp will play? The HRE thing is especially obvious. There were like ten different players who started in the HRE, so of course it would be a clusterfuck that consolidates immediately. There's nothing about those streams that indicate that any of the core mechanics (like combat/warfare) will fundamentally change. My expectation is that the HRE will be more interesting to play in due to the new mechanics built for it, but unless you're the emperor and are heavily safeguarding every opm's sovereignty, we'll probably see two thirds of the member states annexed within the first couple hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
I just really hate seeing Napoleonic scale campaigns raging across Europe in 1500, historically it's complete nonsense, and I really wish they'd take the game in that direction for once. The HRE is another example, there was this massive institution that effectively protected the rights of the princes, knights, and cities of the empire for centuries; it'd be cool if they did something to preserve that patchwork, but nope. Really it's just confirmation that none of the things I currently dislike about EU4 are going to be addressed at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I mean, if you know multiplayer plays very differently to single player, then why are you acting as if the dev mp is in any way an indicator of how the sp will play? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
I feel like the dissapointing nature of the HRE decentralised reforms are an example of mp leading development. Centralisation is clearly the better option for any player who isn't sharing the HRE with other people, and the decentralised reforms don't seem to offer much interesting flavour outside of the Reichskrieg cacus belli.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:13
|
|
|
Historical accuracy is for nerds and losers
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
Azhais posted:If you're going to be aggressive enough that huge coalitions are an issue start with espionage ideas, that -20% is a godsend Reduced AE is not nearly as important as Improved Relations. Like others said, the best solution to coalitions is to keep outraged countries in long peace treaties. If you're relying on not making them outraged in the first place, your expansion will be very slow, even with -20% AE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
TowerofOil posted:Historical accuracy is
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:45
|
|
|
Your right, but attempting to represent the changes to warfare throughout the period would probably make playing from 1444 all the way to 1820 more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Watching these Emperor streams makes me not want to play this game. I know it's multiplayer but still, everything is a hell war, local conflict doesn't exist, the HRE has been consolidated into 5 major nations less than a century in, and battles still hinge on running reinforcements in every two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 19:03
|
|