|
Fister Roboto posted:If you have at least five core (full or territorial) provinces in a single colonial region, and your capital is in the Old World, they will form a colonial nation. The only way to effectively avoid this is to move your capital to the New World, but you can only do that if your current capital is your only stated province in the Old World. It's generally not worth avoiding because colonial nations give you a lot of good advantages - most importantly, an extra merchant for each CN with at least 10 provinces. How much control do I retain over a CN? Like, can I tell them to keep colonizing adjacent provinces?
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
They colonize themselves after a while, they get free colonists in their idea set and they will mainly colonize within their region. But you can also colonize yourself on any province bordering them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:How much control do I retain over a CN? Like, can I tell them to keep colonizing adjacent provinces? About the same amount as a vassal. The mechanics for CNs are slightly different but it's the same idea. They'll colonize by themselves as long as they aren't in a bad position financially, if they're losing money hand over fist it might be a good idea to subsidize them. You can also keep colonizing yourself, any province you colonize in the same colonial religion will automatically flip to the CN when it completes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Why am I losing this naval battle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
There's naval combat width now (~25?), so only a certain number of ships can engage at once. Heavies count for 3 spots in the width each, so England's 7 heavies are able to cover almost the entire battle. And their ships are individually significantly better than yours.AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This is good to know, thank you. Is there somewhere on the forums that we can get more information? Like if I let institutions spread to the province will they still release as a primitive? all I saw is this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/1-22-became-a-primitive-as-bharat.1030416/#post-22983756 Too Poetic posted:I am too but is the amount of content in Third Rome really worth 10 dollars It has a content pack rolled into it, but apparently art should all be free and adds nothing to the value of a DLC I guess I think once they fix the Ming tributaries so it's reasonable to expand on their periphery, if you wanna play Russia, it'll be a decent pack. e: I really think Paradox shot themselves in the foot with the release schedule though. I don't think Mandate of Heaven is nearly as broken as most people itt, but there are definitely some glaring issues with it- and issues that are very visible when you play a nation like Russia. I guess since the summer break is coming up they wanted to push a DLC out before that, but I think EU4 would have benefited a lot from having a bigger 1.21 patch with a beta and everything like normal, to iron stuff out and take a breather. 3 big patches in 2 months is too much. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I haven't played since rights of man and wanted to try Russia out now. Anyone has the time to explain what the problem with Ming is going to be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Question for the other people in the thread complaining about Ming -- what would you do to nerf them? I'm thinking about messing around with a mod to make it feasible for them to collapse in mid game as they, in fact, did. I'm not sure how I can make them less willing to march their armies halfway to Moscow to defend some crappy steppe horde unfortunately, so my "solution" is stack up debuffs lasting to 1821 on them over time. I'm thinking about slapping them with a cumulative inflation/corruption penalty every time a crappy monarch takes the throne or something, what else is feasible to add in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Drastically reduce the range at which tributaries will diplomatically accept the offer. Or maybe just make only Eastern religious group nations ever accept it? So for other groups, Ming has to actively conquer them. But I'm not sure that's possible to mod. Maybe you could dramatically lower their mercenary cap (or just remove it entirely for them)? That's one of the things that makes them so painful to fight against, that even when they run out of manpower they can still just throw unlimited men at you. e: one of the problems is, both the overcompensating to wars and mercenary spam are bigger issues with the game in general. It's not unique to Ming, just massively more visible with them. Party In My Diapee posted:I haven't played since rights of man and wanted to try Russia out now. Anyone has the time to explain what the problem with Ming is going to be? It's only if you have the Mandate of Heaven expansion, but they diplomatically make subjects a long way from home (all the way out to the Aral Sea and Persia sometimes) so you'll have to fight a whole ton of annoying long distance wars against an enemy who will take a long time to give in when you're expanding east. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:all I saw is this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/1-22-became-a-primitive-as-bharat.1030416/#post-22983756
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
skasion posted:Question for the other people in the thread complaining about Ming -- what would you do to nerf them? I'm thinking about messing around with a mod to make it feasible for them to collapse in mid game as they, in fact, did. I'm not sure how I can make them less willing to march their armies halfway to Moscow to defend some crappy steppe horde unfortunately, so my "solution" is stack up debuffs lasting to 1821 on them over time. I'm thinking about slapping them with a cumulative inflation/corruption penalty every time a crappy monarch takes the throne or something, what else is feasible to add in? I would reduce tributary range dramatically, probably change tributaries so they aren't ironclad defensive walls, give them back the chance for a Mingsplosion at a slightly reduced rate from what we used to see (which while not what happened during that time period is pretty accurate with regards to what happened in previous eras of China's history and provides an interesting model of the internal conflicts that historically plagued the region) and make Ming disaster/decline events much more common and incrementally brutal so it's not an all-or-nothing that never fires naturally without player intervention. Whether you're trying to model historical accuracy or just trying to make it fun, an ultra-stable untouchable Ming that the AI can trivially keep on track doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Right now there is no fun way to interact with the region at all, unless you're doing a very linear anti-ming strategy, and the AI will NEVER result in something interesting happening in or near Ming, which makes for boring and repetitive map states and "storylines". I Love You! fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
skasion posted:Question for the other people in the thread complaining about Ming -- what would you do to nerf them? I'm thinking about messing around with a mod to make it feasible for them to collapse in mid game as they, in fact, did. I'm not sure how I can make them less willing to march their armies halfway to Moscow to defend some crappy steppe horde unfortunately, so my "solution" is stack up debuffs lasting to 1821 on them over time. I'm thinking about slapping them with a cumulative inflation/corruption penalty every time a crappy monarch takes the throne or something, what else is feasible to add in? I've been thinking about it and I have a few ideas for it, none of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. The first idea would be disasters and events. There is one disaster that can hurt the Ming, but it's really unlikely to happen unless the player specifically knows about it and works to bring it about. I say make a bunch of possible disasters (Possibly triggered by things like contact with Europeans, Japan Unifying and attacking the Asian mainland, etc.), make them at least relatively likely to trigger, and throw some tag-specific bad events their way for good measure. This should at least give them some periodic moments of weakness where an opportunistic nation could maybe think about giving them the finger. Another idea has to do with the mandate itself. A lot of people say the mandate is a trap, when it is more accurate that the mandate is a trap for any country besides Ming. I say make it a ball and chain around their ankles, too. Make the mandate be much harder to keep high, and make the penalties for low mandate more severe. If anyone has the hubris to call themselves The One And Only True Divine Emperor, make them pay for it. As of now, Ming just passes ll the reforms really quickly and spends the rest of the game coasting at 100 mandate with no issues. Lastly, and probably least controversially, make the tributaries much more rebellious. Make it so the Ming has to actually work to keep their tributaries in place. It'll at least stop them from being super-stable behemoths that never feel pain ever and everyone is always super chill with existing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
So I bought this game a long time ago, like during November, tried it out, didn't like it, and decided again to try it again. Are there any guides for this thing? Because I am hopelessly lost. 1) How do you make money? In the old EUIII every year you got taxes, and then lost money over the course the year. Now you just lose money each month? Where's the income? I understand you can lower army maintenance, but that just makes you easy prey for your enemies. 2)What's with manpower and other AI nations? The game told to me to try Castile in 1444, I allied with Navarre, then Aragon declared war. No big deal I thought, I used my stacks to annihilate (Literally, wiped out their entire stack) theirs... then they had another 10,000 from nowhere. Wiped it out. Then they had another 10,000 stack. Wiped it out. After 5-6 times of this, I'm left with 6,000 men and here they come with another 10,000. Where are they getting all this manpower? My own manpower has been completely depleted, is this just an AI balance thing? Because if so that's really lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
skasion posted:About the same amount as a vassal. The mechanics for CNs are slightly different but it's the same idea. They'll colonize by themselves as long as they aren't in a bad position financially, if they're losing money hand over fist it might be a good idea to subsidize them. You can also keep colonizing yourself, any province you colonize in the same colonial religion will automatically flip to the CN when it completes. OK cool. How much control do I have over the new country's name? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:So I bought this game a long time ago, like during November, tried it out, didn't like it, and decided again to try it again. Are there any guides for this thing? Because I am hopelessly lost. They're using Mercenaries, which cost a bunch of money instead of manpower. To pay for them, they're taking a ton of loans. From what little I know of EU3, I think loans were really limited? In EU4 you can take like a lot of them before going bankrupt, and the AI takes them really often. To prevent this, you want to kill their army quick, then try to carpet their country if possible to prevent them from recruiting more. Try to kill them as they pop up in smaller stacks if possible. As for money, there's a lot of possible reasons you could be making a loss. The economics tab should give you a full account of what you're making money on and what you're spending it on each month. E: Peas and Rice posted:OK cool. I think there's a character limit? Other than that, go wild.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:So I bought this game a long time ago, like during November, tried it out, didn't like it, and decided again to try it again. Are there any guides for this thing? Because I am hopelessly lost. You also got monthly income in EU3 just that your yearly income was a larger clump sum? For EU4 you can see the income in the tab for economy, you see your income sources to the left while your expenses are to the right in the screen. Also for the manpower thing, just sounds like the AI is recruiting mercenaries. Also are you really wiping them or just hitting them back? Because sounds weird to be able to stack wipe 10k armies at 1444 already without the numbers or the modifiers for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
If they want to keep the mechanics of Mandate of Heaven intact they need to add a bunch of historical crises and rebellions to act as a drag / merc sink. Historically Ming had four insurrections within the first 100 years of the game period and that's not counting their dumbass Emperor getting captured by Oirat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Yellow river floods, earthquakes, managing the levies and so on, anti corruption stuff, even extra costs for running things like the civil examinations. There could be all sorts of moneysink and bad events- and they wouldn't even have to be entirely bad. If they made Mandate way harder to get, you could get rewarded by getting it in those events for a serious cost and it'd actually be meaningful.AnoHito posted:Another idea has to do with the mandate itself. A lot of people say the mandate is a trap, when it is more accurate that the mandate is a trap for any country besides Ming. I say make it a ball and chain around their ankles, too. Make the mandate be much harder to keep high, and make the penalties for low mandate more severe. If anyone has the hubris to call themselves The One And Only True Divine Emperor, make them pay for it. As of now, Ming just passes ll the reforms really quickly and spends the rest of the game coasting at 100 mandate with no issues. I'm really surprised they didn't do something like this when they implemented it, to be honest. Ming could start with a whole ton of penalties, but as you pass the reforms you slowly remove them, until by the last one you get rewarded by being a strong, centralized, 0 autonomy etc China. Instead of just... starting that way, and getting even stronger for passing the reforms. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Groogy posted:You also got monthly income in EU3 just that your yearly income was a larger clump sum? In the after-battle report pop-up, it shows the enemy army as having zero men, (10,000 - 10,000) I assumed it was because of very low morale) So loans -> mercs, okay, I'll have to try that. I was also running into a problem of not being to advance past border provinces of my opponent. Is that a thing? As in, I couldn't go past Zaragoza into Catalonia as Castile. I was defending my ally Navarre against Aragon if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:In the after-battle report pop-up, it shows the enemy army as having zero men, (10,000 - 10,000) I assumed it was because of very low morale) Enemy forts stop movement past them in ways that are way more complicated then they probably need to be until you win the siege against them. They also flip back control of adjacent provinces. And yes, you are wiping their army. As a side note, when an army is wiped out, that country gets half their manpower from the destroyed troops back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Fortresses block your armies from moving past them so you have to deal with them before you can move past them. Edit: Ninja'd again!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:1) How do you make money? In the old EUIII every year you got taxes, and then lost money over the course the year. Now you just lose money each month? Where's the income? I understand you can lower army maintenance, but that just makes you easy prey for your enemies. Maintaining a full army at max force limits is very expensive and you will incur a monthly loss when doing so until you build up your economy more. If you lower your army maintenance (only advisable during peacetime), you should be able to start making money again. You can adjust maintenance in the economy tab. Your fort maintenance can also be pretty expensive, which you don't adjust with a slider but toggle on and off per-fort in the province screen, or all at once in the military tab. An unmaintained fort basically does not function in any capacity. The general economic flow is to reduce your maintenance costs during peacetime in order to build up a war chest, which you then use in wartime to support a full-force limits, full-maintenance army. Eventually you'll want to start building churches and poo poo to bolster your income and help you sustain longer wars and all that. Keep your army at its max force limits even during peacetime in order to deter surprise invasions while you have your pants down. Maybe keep a border fort or two maintained if you're given reason for concern. Crazy Joe Wilson posted:2)What's with manpower and other AI nations? The game told to me to try Castile in 1444, I allied with Navarre, then Aragon declared war. No big deal I thought, I used my stacks to annihilate (Literally, wiped out their entire stack) theirs... then they had another 10,000 from nowhere. Wiped it out. Then they had another 10,000 stack. Wiped it out. After 5-6 times of this, I'm left with 6,000 men and here they come with another 10,000. Where are they getting all this manpower? My own manpower has been completely depleted, is this just an AI balance thing? Because if so that's really lovely. Crazy Joe Wilson posted:In the after-battle report pop-up, it shows the enemy army as having zero men, (10,000 - 10,000) I assumed it was because of very low morale) So, it's great that you're crushing the Aragonese army, but it sounds like you're failing to capitalize on that by capturing their land, which is leading to a drawn-out war that is threatening to leave the both of you in debt. As others have pointed out, you have to capture forts in order to progress into enemy territory. Since you have the army crushing step down, the next step is to prioritize their forts (there's a little rampart icon on the map for each province that has one), and try to get those down as quickly as possible and make your way to their capital. Keep in mind that your troops need to outnumber the fort garrison if you want the siege to progress, and artillery will help if you have that already, as does blockading if it's a coastal province, and having a general with siege capability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Mkay, I see. Thanks for all the helpful pointers folks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
I have a question: How do I beat great Britain's navy? I cannot significantly outnumber them while with their ideas they significantly outpower me one on one. I need to grab provinces from them in my exploity first come run, my armies are bigger and better but they can just cruise around the continent with their huge armada dropping armies on my unprotected lands, leaving me with too little warscore by a thousand occupied lovely provinces and playing whack-a-mole is almost impossible due to the ai perfect micromanagement...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I have a question: How do I beat great Britain's navy? I cannot significantly outnumber them while with their ideas they significantly outpower me one on one. Ship cycling is one of the only ways to beat GB. It's a tedious micromanagement tactic where you have your navy unstacked and then retreat out boats as they take damage and lose morale and allow fresh boats to take their place. You can sink some of their boats without losing your own like this and then retreat your entire navy once you run out of fresh boats. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I have a question: How do I beat great Britain's navy? I cannot significantly outnumber them while with their ideas they significantly outpower me one on one. I just wait till they are in another war early on then no-cb them and kill all their boats and then never let them build back up. But yeah GB is obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
The thing that really kills me about England/GB is how incredibly loving rich and terrifyingly powerful they are even at the start. Everything I have read about England up into the 1600s was how poor they were and that they didnt have the men or money to have an Army and a Navy - they had one or the other; not both. The only reason they owned so much of France leading into EU4's start date was because of French incompetence / infighting / marriage politics and not because England was so swole that they just wardec'd and invaded with hordes of men. France gradually pushed them out as they got their poo poo together. Most of the battles in the War of the Roses was a few thousand men on each side and thats it. It astounds me that they start with such a huge fleet and an army of what, 30k? And it only grows from there. Three of the For Odin! + First Come, First Serve runs that I have had to abandon was because England shows up in the New World in 1525 with a fleet of 50+ (at least 10 Heavies) and eventually have armies totally over 75k stomping around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:An unmaintained fort basically does not function in any capacity. i'd add that an unmaintained fort can be a bit of a security risk since the enemy can start using it if they occupy the province - which is obviously very easy for them to do if the fort is unmanned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:1) How do you make money? In the old EUIII every year you got taxes, and then lost money over the course the year. Now you just lose money each month? Where's the income? I understand you can lower army maintenance, but that just makes you easy prey for your enemies. Annual taxes from EU3 are gone, but the tax income is all still there; it's simply folded into your monthly income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Elotana posted:If they want to keep the mechanics of Mandate of Heaven intact they need to add a bunch of historical crises and rebellions to act as a drag / merc sink. Historically Ming had four insurrections within the first 100 years of the game period and that's not counting their dumbass Emperor getting captured by Oirat. Yeah China needs much more effort laid down in portraying its history. In general the disaster system is very sparsely used outside of Europe which is a drat shame since I believe it can be a great tool to try and nudge the game in the direction of the historical development while still clearly presenting the conditions for them to occur and how to avoid them (primarily to the benefit of players in contrast to the railroad events of Paradox games past). Mandate is affected by devastation as far as I understand, introudcing a bunch of ways for Chinese provinces to be devastated by civil wars and rebellions both generic and historical seems like a good way to challenge Ming. I've seen threats where people will defend Ming's current state by saying that Ming was the most powerful country in the world in 1444. While this is a true piece of fact I believe that this is somewhat meaningless if you don't also then try to answer the question of why the Ming Empire declined massively by 1600. Also the Manchus need to be stronger or at least harder to conquer, I don't know about the most recent patch, but I have almost never seen the Manchus survive. They are always conquered by Korea and Ming, sometimes within the first decade of playtime. That's also a thing that's meant to reduce mandate, non-tributary neighboring hordes, yet those are always either outright conquered or reduced to tributary status within an extremely short span of time. Really I think that's the greatest failure of the Mandate system. What seems to be meant to be the primary breaks on Ming retaining the Mandate of Heaven and reaping the rewards, devasation of Chinese provinces and powerful neighboring hordes, never really given the opportunity to emerge or exist. Thus the Mandate system for Ming is exclusively a boon and an advantage that just keeps growing. Quite unlike the HRE where all the factors reducing Imperial Authority are likely to occur (smaller powers getting annexed by larger ones, free cities being conquered, princes going heretic and Imperial provinces ending up outside the control of the Empire).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think anyone was saying they're funky, someone was just wondering why they always got only cavalry (the answer is that you get whatever proportion of units gets you as close to your cavalry ratio as possible, which is probably 50% while you're probably only running like 5-20% normally). In the worst case you can get free, strictly-better cavalry that don't cost manpower to build or reinforce. I feel like I must be doing something wrong. I merc up so that I have 40 infantry and 20 cavalry and raise manchu banners and it's still pure cavalry. And yes--the tooltip says my ratio is 50%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:I feel like I must be doing something wrong. I merc up so that I have 40 infantry and 20 cavalry and raise manchu banners and it's still pure cavalry. And yes--the tooltip says my ratio is 50%. The ratio isn't cavalry/infantry, it's cavalry/(infantry + cavalry) - you only have 33% in your example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Mygna posted:The ratio isn't cavalry/infantry, it's cavalry/(infantry + cavalry) - you only have 33% in your example. After doing a little napkin algebra, I realized that I always thought the ratio was meant to be a percentage of infantry--not the total of infantry and cavalry. I would need to up my cavalry to equal my infantry to get infantry banners. Doesn't seem worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I'm playing Ottomans (w/o the weird China DLC) allied with France and Poland. Of course France got their dumb asses in a "war of honor" with half the HRE, so I've been intervening. Austria is the enemy warleader and interestingly the Austrian AI sent most of its stacks to France where they have been fighting the French for over a year, so even though I control Austria and Hungary, the Austrian Netherlands are still churning out dudes to fight France, and I would be risking a lot by sending a doomstack that way. One novel thing is that Poland also hates Austria so they lent me a condottieri 20-stack for free, which amounts to the Polish basically just invading Austria but I get the credit, nice! Anyway I haven't managed to crush The Enemy Armies and I don't think I'll be able to, so I'm trying to figure out if France will give me any land in the peace deal. Warscore is like 70% now but I only have 20% of that (despite occupying Hungary and "mainland" Austria!) so I might backstab France by peacing out for a couple provinces. Would this just lower France's trust (which is pretty high already) or would it cause France to possibly break our alliance? I have a lot of AE so the Euro allies are super important to hang onto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I'm playing Ottomans (w/o the weird China DLC) allied with France and Poland. Of course France got their dumb asses in a "war of honor" with half the HRE, so I've been intervening. Austria is the enemy warleader and interestingly the Austrian AI sent most of its stacks to France where they have been fighting the French for over a year, so even though I control Austria and Hungary, the Austrian Netherlands are still churning out dudes to fight France, and I would be risking a lot by sending a doomstack that way. One novel thing is that Poland also hates Austria so they lent me a condottieri 20-stack for free, which amounts to the Polish basically just invading Austria but I get the credit, nice! Have you marked the provinces as provinces of interest? they will be more likely to give you land if you do that, otherwise they might not know that you're interested in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I'm playing Ottomans (w/o the weird China DLC) allied with France and Poland. Of course France got their dumb asses in a "war of honor" with half the HRE, so I've been intervening. Austria is the enemy warleader and interestingly the Austrian AI sent most of its stacks to France where they have been fighting the French for over a year, so even though I control Austria and Hungary, the Austrian Netherlands are still churning out dudes to fight France, and I would be risking a lot by sending a doomstack that way. One novel thing is that Poland also hates Austria so they lent me a condottieri 20-stack for free, which amounts to the Polish basically just invading Austria but I get the credit, nice! It will lower trust (you can mouse over their flag in the peace deal screen to see by how much), but they're pretty unlikely to break the alliance unless it brings the value really low. You can try marking the provinces you want in the diplo menu and trusting to the essential goodness of the French, but I wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I'm playing Ottomans (w/o the weird China DLC) allied with France and Poland. Of course France got their dumb asses in a "war of honor" with half the HRE, so I've been intervening. Austria is the enemy warleader and interestingly the Austrian AI sent most of its stacks to France where they have been fighting the French for over a year, so even though I control Austria and Hungary, the Austrian Netherlands are still churning out dudes to fight France, and I would be risking a lot by sending a doomstack that way. One novel thing is that Poland also hates Austria so they lent me a condottieri 20-stack for free, which amounts to the Polish basically just invading Austria but I get the credit, nice! I would recommend seperate peacing like 90% of the wars you are in and using it to take key provinces halfway across the content + huge stacks of money. Your allies will get over it almost immediately and the benefits are immense. Separate peace is like a No-CB war you didn't have to take a stab hit for and which you had a free ally eat the brunt of the actual combat to win. I separate peace almost all of my calls to arms and probably still don't do it often enough. My favorite is probably joining a war against Portugal or Spain and taking a center of trade in Iberia which I then use as a front to conquer the entire region later using the same ally I backstabbed by separate peacing. The trust hit from peacing is the same bonus you got from accepting the call to arms and the overall relations hit is really minor. As long as they win the war or white peace and don't get forced to cancel the alliance it will have an extremely minor impact on your present relations and will fix itself in no time. I Love You! fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The thing that really kills me about England/GB is how incredibly loving rich and terrifyingly powerful they are even at the start. Everything I have read about England up into the 1600s was how poor they were and that they didnt have the men or money to have an Army and a Navy - they had one or the other; not both. The only reason they owned so much of France leading into EU4's start date was because of French incompetence / infighting / marriage politics and not because England was so swole that they just wardec'd and invaded with hordes of men. France gradually pushed them out as they got their poo poo together. Most of the battles in the War of the Roses was a few thousand men on each side and thats it. It astounds me that they start with such a huge fleet and an army of what, 30k? And it only grows from there. The Hundred's Year War was a lot more complicated than just French incompetence. There wasn't really a united France to speak of at all for much of this period. Charles the V of France had deprived the English of almost all their possessions on the continent after the death of Edward III and the Black Prince. What followed was a long peacee until Henry V, one of the great (and ruthless) warrior kings of his time, single handedly won back almost all of France through diplomacy and military strength. If you rewind the clock back to 1420 and had to place bets, England was strong enough that you should be putting money on the Henry ruling a combined Kingdom of France and England for a long time to come. Except he died of disease. Even then his brother who was regent for his child continued to expand English territory up until 1429. The French only started making serious headway when the English couldn't come to terms to make peace and the death of John of Bedford as well as collapse of the alliance with Burgundy that the war seriously started going downhill. England actually controlled huge and very profitable territories in France and could raise a considerable sum of money off their French holdings despite the fact the taxes enraged French towns and landholders. England of 1444 was still a force to be reckon'd with if it had a leader like Henry V or the Duke of Bedford to lead it. Instead by that time, it had fallen into the same factionalism that plagued the French earlier in the conflict while Charles VII married a woman who's family was fabulously rich and had the energy to to consolidate central power and build an effective army which was more professional than the English. The England that ended up fighting the War of the Roses was a small shadow of itself and one that was tired of war. The War of the Roses was more of a series of insurrections and counter insurrections fought by the two families without the resources of a country behind them so trying to judge what a united England could have done based on War of the Roses army sizes is faulty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
skasion posted:Question for the other people in the thread complaining about Ming -- what would you do to nerf them? I'm thinking about messing around with a mod to make it feasible for them to collapse in mid game as they, in fact, did. I'm not sure how I can make them less willing to march their armies halfway to Moscow to defend some crappy steppe horde unfortunately, so my "solution" is stack up debuffs lasting to 1821 on them over time. I'm thinking about slapping them with a cumulative inflation/corruption penalty every time a crappy monarch takes the throne or something, what else is feasible to add in? I'd make it so the horde disaster fires if there are 300 (or some other amount) development of ANY horde bordering the Ming, even if they are still tributaries. The Ming are still extremely strong after that disaster, but that disaster basically always occurring for the AI might better reflect the fragility of the Ming at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Ming were extremely unstable and now are even more mega-stable than the HRE for the entire game. It's hilarious watching the AI fail to pass any HRE reforms while Ming maintains a perfect mandate score for all time
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I don't mind Ming being stable so much as I'm annoyed that super-stable Ming has half of India and most of the Central Asian steppe as tributaries. It makes any expansion into Asia really tedious because you have to deal with big daddy Ming. The easiest solution is of course to become a tributary yourself!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:27
|
|