|
Hi, I'd like some advice on a game I'm playing in Multiplayer, where the players all are RL friends besides me and seem to be playing a 'co-operative' style game. I'm now stuck in a war between Milan and USA over my (Britain) colonies in North America and I dont really have the power to fight them both, but my navy > theirs. What should I do? Link to some stats caps for better picture of general situation http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269559/E78F9BFB4B0E0044F41C9EF2E93E451689841A75/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269946/84AB90EDC2E83986F586D3C09F43BF24508CF248/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269824/A1196B7D85D75EB617615DCF2A86ED5715912AA3/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269693/76E4917E7C4C7ED1363DD361DF2D0DE0DDB6C594/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269427/AB058E74569088316369857858613791304E769E/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/396675411369269275/3C0A54968E286873A8B3490005360024AEF4425D/ The issue is primarily, I'm sick and tired of their hugboxing play and forcing me to play nice, so I'm inclined to go destroy them one at a time, but am unsure as to how to do so. I intend to damage Milan and cripple the US and hopefully finish the war (which has been 5 years and ongoing already) without drawing any of the other human players like Bohemia and Netherlands in. Does that make me unreasonable? should I concede North America instead and play nice? Any advice on the issue would be greatly appreciated Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Nov 10, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm not good at boats. In the early game the other major powers around me seem to be fielding these massive fleets of heavy warships, but there's no way that my meager income can handle both building and maintaining a big fleet of those huge ships. What gives? I feel like I need to have a ton of light ships protecting trade just to eek out a +5 ducats/month Just guessing since I don't know your situation. Heavy Boats are now much more expensive to build and maintain than before, but are pretty much the killer in combat. In the early game 10-20 with a good admiral should be more than enough for most unless you're England, Spain, Portugal. Light ships are really only good at concentrating trade power to pull trade or solidfying control over your own node when you have significant competition. You should build trade buildings in your COT nodes instead and use 10-20 ships to pull/collect trade. Try to also chain your merchants to maximize income. Hope that helps
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Man, super excited for Cossacks tomorrow, but I have a quick question. I was playing a MP game where I am forced to rely on large quantities of Mercenary forces due to low manpower. I notice that sometimes after battles, 0 strength mercenaries automatically disband (at the end of the month? at the end of the battle? not clear) rather than stay to replenish. I do not merge them or anything, they simply disband, which is problematic since I really need those regiments to remain and reinforcing. Why is it happening? am I utilizing too many mercenaries, a bug or WAD? And is this being changed in Cossacks? I have no clue
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Node posted:Its probably working as intended for mercs to poof when their manpower hits zero. The thing is that not all mercs go poof. Some do, some don't. The inconsistency is confusing and problematic especially when I'm fighting a Hellwar on the Continent against a bohemia larger than the HRE as England (Every man must do his duty and regenerate, not disappear!)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Please someone teach me to play horde because holy gently caress am I unable to comprehend how it works I was playing Oirat in MP and I attacked the OPM next to me, going well so far. So I attack the siberian tribes and my army can't seem to beat them at all. Then Uzbek and Changtai declare on me individually and proceed to kill me off bit by bit. I can't even fight those siberian tribes 1v1 with equal troops. I keep getting 0-2 rolls for some reason even when I'm using a 2-2-1 general to their 0 and even when I'm using cav. I gave up but I really want to learn how hordes work. Some help? (My leader also died early and I was stuck with lovely generals) Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
MrBling posted:DDRjakes Minghals stream was something else though. I can't even remember why, but he really wanted to form The Mughals as Ming. I think it was something to do with retaining the Celestial Empire bonuses but getting rid of the faction system. Yeah my friend did that in Multiplayer. it actually worked and was pretty bullshit because what happened was you got rid of the 'Inward Perfection' maluses but kept the faction system. So what would happen was that he could get bureaucrats to build for nothing, buddhists to core for nothing (at no time because coring cost and time were correlated) and have eunches for -75% tech cost
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Maintaining that constant 100 prestige is a little harder though. I am Bulgaria. Won't be shooting for Rome or Jerusalem though, got a gameplan. It is the MP game and I noticed something funny and plan to take advantage of it. Remember to refresh it every monarch. You wouldn't want to forget that
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:Please don't post spoilers for the upcoming goon multiplayer game. The situation outlined was so prophetic I nearly choked there. Better try harder!. Pretty sure we'll be crushed regardless since it's us after all tho
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I saw a post where they debate the source of "Spain is not the Emperor". While my mandarin is not very good. I love how some people got it immediately while some others went into a long spiel into detailed explanations, such as the guy who wrote about how while Spain conquered the Inca empire it wasn't really one itself. My favorite one was the one that detailed how Empires were described in classical antiquity from Rome to West/East Rome to ottomans
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The Asia Universalis posted a few weeks ago that a lot of Chinese EU4 players use has a translated version on the steam workshop now. Sounds interesting enough. Giving Asia more flavor (along with the new world and Africa) is always a great thing What kind of nationalism though? Like blatant bad kind or the kind that sort of fits in with the time period? (Like how westerners think of new world folk as savages Edit: will reduce the size of quote once I'm on a computer Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Just the boring kind of nationalism really, I haven't played that much so maybe there's some events or something to balance it but they removed all the penalties for being Celestial Empire and gave Ming pretty much every mechanic in the game (syncreticism, parliament, deities, estates, trade companies etc) plus an assload of horrendously overpowered decisions so you're basically playing just playing Steamroll Simulator. I can't...even, what the gently caress? WASNT TAIWAN ALREADY CHINESE in 1449? I'll try it and give it a go too E: there really is a lot of flavor with these ideas...although did they really have to make Ming stronger with their ideas and change their opponents? Also some of these descriptors are funny (I know they're second language is english, but forcing other concubines to have abortion, causing king to had no heir made me laugh a little), E2: Holy poo poo the China ideas "10% discipline, 20% morale", CC -20% HCC +100%. In the words of a translated wuxia light novel: "It made me want to vomit blood and die" Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Anybody find AE for taking territory increasing with more people than usual? Some Pdox forum folks were mentioning it and I also mentioned it after forcing vassalization of like 30 dev of stuff and reaping close to 70 AE with everyone near me
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:So wait how does embracing work as a non Euro? Pump development? Yes, But even as a European you can do it to accelerate something that takes a while otherwise. For example, in our MP game Colonialism popped in Portugal. Austria gets no spread, so I simply put about 10-15 points into Wien, bringing it from 26 to 40 and getting it, and letting me embrace it faster than most. The investments were worth it because: it kept me ahead of the curve and I had the spare points anyways, but it can be dependent on your situation. you really want to pick locations where it's cheap to buff (farmland, COTs, capital) and dump points once they spawn. In my case it cost me around 500+ MP all around, which is better because otherwise I would have to have waited like 20+ years anyways
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Does anyone actually invest in production for reasons other than getting institutions? It also boosts your production income (.2 goods per prod increase), which also boosts trade value: can be very useful for some of the higher priced items: (Cloth, Silk, Tropical Wood, Wine, Iron)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I'm fine with it in theory, but for pure gameplay reasons they kind of need to balance it out so the AI actually tries to abuse development like the player will. I know that the AI can do this under some circumstances, but at the moment the investment to reward is quite strongly in favour of heavy investment to get instituitons ASAP and the AI needs to pursue it equally aggressively if it's in a strong position; that Bahamis is a perfect example, no player would let themselves sit in such a strong position with 100% tech penalty. But then you also run into the issue that we used to face in Europe (especially HRE), where all these countries pump their provinces to be high in dev, have decent armies and you can't take anything without being stopped for a long time. I know in my MP game we have a fractured China in the 1650s and they still have 50k+ armies everywhere and taking even 2 provinces gives you 40OE. I get the importance of getting gameplay balance so there's a challenge, but you also have to balance the fun aspect (albeit the European Imperialism part) otherwise things stay static for a long time. I really wish tall gameplay was more fun and also that focus was less on military (everyone always spams mil ideas) The example of the Prussian government was decent (althoug giving them more military benefits was just -_-) in my ideal EU IV I would hope to get more forms of government or just descale military ideas/units a bit more so that stacking all these combat bonuses dont always win you a war Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The weird thing about the Prussian monarchy stuff is that it wants you to be so small. I'm in the early days of Prussia'ing this game, but it seems like it really wants to hold you to less than 15 provinces. The core Brandenburg-Prussia area is already 10, and that's assuming you just inherited Ducal Prussia or some equally implausible thing. Are you just supposed to be dumping loads of military points into bumping militarism? I think that's decent, considering the military bonuses it gives are quite dumb when coupled with Prussian ideas. Even then you're guaranteed perma 3 mil ruler, so It could be possible to keep it at 50 and/or buff it when needed I guess? I'd like more of a focus on trade/economy. Development was a good step, but generally most people blob too easily and it's almost never worth it to stay small still. Like I wish things like merchant republics could be viable with even larger merc pools or being able to choose 'France tier mercs, Prussian tier mercs etc so they could actually stand up to bigger military blobs. Giving mercs your discipline/morale and tactics with a hard cap has always been kinda ehhhh to me, especially when you consider countries like Burgundy who can literally run the board with mercs only and never die as long as they have a nice income flow. Or when you look at France/Prussia steamrolling Venice with mercs because their mercs have 125% dis or morale vs 115 at (at best) venetian mercs
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:Incidentally, this is pretty similar to how it works in MEIOU and taxes. You can still send missionaries, but they only flip 20-40% of a province to your state religion. Conversion is mostly based on events that slowly change your provinces, which have MTTH modifiers that radically speed up the process based on positive stability, religious ideas, etc. Even then, you'll almost always have religious minorities in a province unless you use a decision to expel them entirely, which carries massive revolt risk penalties and often triggers immediate revolts in provinces that have pops of the religion you're trying to expel. Yeah but the issue with that is that the system gets pretty clunky (a good summary of MEIOU itself tbh). I tried played MEIOU and taxes and I found it mindnumbing and relatively unfun to deal with that aspect. Sure it's totally unrealistic to just pop a missionary and convert all of canton to Christianity, but at the same time, MEIOU made it too fiddly. I think there needs to be a balance. Religious Unity is really only there as another stumbling block to blobbing anyways, so the real core issue is making internal stability/governance systems a bit more fun than blobbing everywhere, then we can go back to things like Religion. I personally would like to see a method where smaller nations like trade republics could expand and have their exclaves/small rich territories without having to worry about some stupid land power barrel over everything and force you to give up stuff because you aren't military based. Definitely combat should be switched up a little so that automatically stacking as much discipline as possible isn't the only realistic choice (making Discipline just reduce losses and lowering combat width rather than both reducing losses and increasing damage) Godlovesus fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:It doesn't actually, since it will likely be additive so you get +200% -25% for a total of +175% maintenance Looking at johans example though it's added on seperately afterwards? So state maint reduction is applied after the cost increase In his example the base cost was 1, edict makes a + 200% for cost 3 and then the courthouse kicks in with -25 % for a total cost of 2.25, meaning the increase was only 125% rather than 175% as you might have assumed. Might make expensive provinces worth it, Especially since capital regions aren't free anymore
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
The tributary status isn't really linked to the mandate itself. If you're worried about it, just beat china up bit by bit without taking the mandate immediately. Tbh the paradox forums are more annoying at this point. All I see are wah wah China isn't inferior enough for me. Like I understand some issues like losing the mandate actually making their army stronger (because they lose the mandate debuffs and the horde disaster. But Jesus, people just went from how ming exploding or being perma stale/boring to omg op op. It's clear how to circumvent Ming's advantages isn't it? I just don't understand why people seem so bitter about how they can't dominate as the white man (even though it's easy to play within Europe almost 90% compared to a non European?)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah I'm gonna be bummed out if they give China back its autonomy floor or whatever like some people have been suggesting. Also: :/ DDR Jakes suggestion sounds good on paper but never considers the problem of cycling mandates? Like what if one person beats out another of the mandate after they gain it. All that means is a bunch of asians all being terrible with extra dmg and national unrest everywhere.... Well I guess Europeans will be happy at least. I mean you also have to make the mandate desirable and not a dangerous bomb or trap that you don't want to take, which is how most mandate takers sound like to me. I think we should have cb wars to transfer tributaries similar to the transfer vassal option and make the seizing mandate cb lower that cost. Either that, or make certain factors like high WE raise liberty desire of tributaries. Or release tributaries as a wargoal because I want ways to be able to weaken ming without it collapsing into a black hole
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Prav posted:if a game has china going all warring states 2.0 the countries involved probably should be in terrible shape The terrible shape should be because of the warring rather than from losing the arbitrary mandate loss modifier that they intend to roll into the next version though? Like I don't mind having a devastated country and high autonomy. But having 20 years + of take 50% extra dmg, take 10 national unrest because I lost the mandate is ehhh. Especially if a mandate war is popular
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Isn't the issue then taking the mandate too soon? I mean I agree there should be consequences for having low mandate and maybe losing mandate, but reading from the dev diary suggests they already have that built in? It sounds like the failure was in implementation rather than the system itself. If I were to add anything it would be the ability totransferring tributaries to yourself. Since Isn't the old lost Mandate of Heaven unrest modifier still there? Because the latter is what normally starts the state explosions, although I imagine that you could roll in more nationalism/subfaction events. I feel like people just feel like they should be able to snatch the mandate and call it a day, forgetting there's work involved And I thought that Ming has had the zero % floor since RoM? Was I wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Oh then the solution is simple. Roll the unrest thing back in, or put it as a triggered modifier t to low mandate : below 40 or when ming loses mandate for x years Because I thought they attached that loss that we used to have rather than getting rid of it entirely... But yeah otherwise new emperors and existing mings would remain quite stable indeed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Thats not true, they do get a negative modifier for 20 years if they lose the Mandate to someone else. They're just strong enough to deal. But don't you see, I want to see a Mingsplosion! It's only historical and accurate next to my crushing of the ottomans by the byzantines and a new Roman Empire - the average pdox forum man In all honesty, I guess you could add seperatist events to the various locations to represent warlords? Or increase your tributary Liberty desire so they don't want to pay trivute? I still think the transfer tributary peace offer would offer a viable way to 'swap' and replace empires without giving a mandate loser all those debuffs, because then it means the loser just collapses if they keep all those low mandate penalties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm writing the new OP now for the expansion tomorrow, if anyone has title suggestions say them now or else I'm just gonna do a search for whatever was the last semi-decent one Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of DLC (As you can see, I’m terrible at this) Or maybe Europa Universalis IV: The Cradle for the Civilized
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 02:43
|
|