|
Yeah, my big question mark was why they weren't already in a coalition against me, but I think I figured that out as I was writing my last post. As it stands, my only real complaint about the coalition system relates to the alliance system in general. When a stronger ally takes over the position of war leader from your target, then you can't make any demands except province cession from your original target. So if I attack Vijayanagar to get them to release people, then Spain takes over as Coalition leader, asking for Vijayanagar to release countries is no longer even an option.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, my big question mark was why they weren't already in a coalition against me, but I think I figured that out as I was writing my last post. I've noticed that those options start randomly appearing as you conquer the target in question. Fully occupy whoever it is you are really interested in beating up and more options should appear when you negotiate with Spain. Not sure about releasing though. I generally just annex and create vassal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
So it turns out that if a nation is in a coalition, doesn't end up as war leader and won't let the war leader negotiate for them then there's absolutely no way you can gain their provinces in that war. That seems like a bit of an oversight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:So it turns out that if a nation is in a coalition, doesn't end up as war leader and won't let the war leader negotiate for them then there's absolutely no way you can gain their provinces in that war. Coalition members aren't supposed to be able to negotiate separately. You can't uncheck the 'allow leader to negotiate for me' button in a coalition war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Kersch posted:Coalition members aren't supposed to be able to negotiate separately. You can't uncheck the 'allow leader to negotiate for me' button in a coalition war. I never noticed this was a button.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
If you get dragged into a coalition war, your allied leader can't take provinces for you even though the box is locked checked though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
EDIT: Wait, thought I was in the EUIV thread.  EDIT2: Well, I guess it works here too. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh. I just passed the Renovatio Imperii reform and my coring time has leapt from a few dozen months to hundreds. This has completely killed any desire I had to continue playing. Which joker thought this was clever game design?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Kersch posted:Coalition members aren't supposed to be able to negotiate separately. You can't uncheck the 'allow leader to negotiate for me' button in a coalition war. In that case, the oversight is that the AI seems to be able to uncheck it even when it shouldn't be able to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:EDIT: Wait, thought I was in the EUIV thread. Foruma Faatus will have limits to how ridiculous core times can get, but it will have far more "fun" poo poo that can happen with non cores in your nation too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I just passed the Renovatio Imperii reform and my coring time has leapt from a few dozen months to hundreds. This has completely killed any desire I had to continue playing. Which joker thought this was clever game design? Probably still better than EU3's 50 years 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:
Release Vassals to hold the uncored land, then diplo-annex them. All the cored land you could ever want for a svelte 0 admin points and about 20 years time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Probably still better than EU3's 50 years Gaining overextension in EU3 when you were as large as the formed HRE took a goddamn ton of land too, so you could sit on all of France if you were big enough. The time it took also didn't dig into your technology research.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Gaining overextension in EU3 when you were as large as the formed HRE took a goddamn ton of land too, so you could sit on all of France if you were big enough. The time it took also didn't dig into your technology research. Does it really dig into tech research, or are you referring to the cost of admin points?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Does it really dig into tech research, or are you referring to the cost of admin points? Quite. Coring in EU3 cost nothing but time, and the loss of money was overridden by staying at Stab+3, a much easier affair. Complaining that time was a factor in EU3 is ludicrous, it was easier in every way to expand like mad in that game to this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I've noticed that those options start randomly appearing as you conquer the target in question. Fully occupy whoever it is you are really interested in beating up and more options should appear when you negotiate with Spain. Not sure about releasing though. I generally just annex and create vassal. Wait, so in the game I mentioned earlier - Jabarto posted:I'm playing EU4, and there's an infuriating issue with my game as England. I have a mission to vassalize Scotland, but they're allied with Burgundy, who becomes the war leader once they join the war. Once this happens, I can no longer sign a separate peace with Scotland, because "they are the target of a wargoal", which makes the objective of vassalizing them impossible. Is this intentional, and is there any way around it? - had I occupied all their territory and negotiated with Burgundy, I would have had an option to vassalize Scotland?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:Wait, so in the game I mentioned earlier - Yeah, I was just trying to vassilize Corsica and Austria came to their defense and took over the war but when I sieged Corsica down the option popped up in the negotiations with Austria. But it'd depend on if Scotland lost any territory yet. You wouldn't be able to vassilize them in one pass. The warscore cost would be too much by half.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Hearts of Iron is a game that should be substantially railroaded - it covers around 10-15 years of history so there just doesn't exists a 'grand scheme of things' for you to change. Isn't HOI III completely broken in following anything vaguely resembling history?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
How long before a miscmods package is released for EU4? As a big fan of Shattered Europe in miscmods, I'm really missing it here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
 I think I've found the worst CSA borders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:
 Ugh, just ugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
uPen posted:
Same world: worst France ever: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:
The USA always takes that blob of northern Mexico and it offends my sense of pretty borders so hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:
Wow, did the CSA actually survive the war? No CSA I've ever seen lasted more than a year in the civil war, even when I cheated and spawned revolts in USA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Wow, did the CSA actually survive the war? No CSA I've ever seen lasted more than a year in the civil war, even when I cheated and spawned revolts in USA. I see them white peace out every once and awhile but since the US keeps cores on the south they just re-absorb them a few years later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Quite. Coring in EU3 cost nothing but time, and the loss of money was overridden by staying at Stab+3, a much easier affair. Complaining that time was a factor in EU3 is ludicrous, it was easier in every way to expand like mad in that game to this. I don't necessarily disagree, but it all draws back to how ADM power is just too much more important than MIL or DIP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
You seem to be taking the idea I'm complaining from that post. I'm not. It's pretty much the best antiblobbing measure I've seen because there are still clever ways to expand, you can bruteforce it, or you can centralize power on a smaller area and just cascade everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:You seem to be taking the idea I'm complaining from that post. I'm not necessarily complaining about the mechanic as anti-blobbing, I just feel like either DIP or MIL need a buff, or some of the things you use ADM for need to be retooled to use DIP or MIL instead - but I don't really know what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I'm not necessarily complaining about the mechanic as anti-blobbing, I just feel like either DIP or MIL need a buff, or some of the things you use ADM for need to be retooled to use DIP or MIL instead - but I don't really know what. As someone's already brought up, excess MIL has a use, Leaders don't lower your tradition. Load the gently caress up on Generals for a war and shuffle them as you see fit. The 50 points per and 1 point down should be a generous cost of MIL for a pretty nice effect. DIP. Uh. Yeah, DIPs a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:As someone's already brought up, excess MIL has a use, Leaders don't lower your tradition. Load the gently caress up on Generals for a war and shuffle them as you see fit. The 50 points per and 1 point down should be a generous cost of MIL for a pretty nice effect. MIL isn't really that useful in that regard, though. I mean, sure, it's nice having a glut of generals tailored for whatever you need, but not all countries are going to be at war often enough to make use of it - and even then, the value is limited. I would like a similar system to how army tradition works now, where it provides a passive bonus. Ironically, I feel like DIP's used pretty neatly, if not quite often enough - you kind of want tons of it as a naval/trade power, but the problem is that you can only use it for Ideas or the tech...and that's really it. Peace treaties aren't often enough to make you worry about how much you have at a given time, and annexing/integrating isn't such a big deal either. Like you seem to say, it just doesn't pop up enough to worry about. I find I max MIL/DIP semi-often after the 16th century, but still always thirst for ADM. Maybe Paradox is making a meta-statement on the great rulers of Europe? EDIT: Just to be clear, it's obvious we're not arguing with eachother, just corroborating eachother's points. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:As someone's already brought up, excess MIL has a use, Leaders don't lower your tradition. Load the gently caress up on Generals for a war and shuffle them as you see fit. The 50 points per and 1 point down should be a generous cost of MIL for a pretty nice effect. That's not really a good enough use, though. Like, it only gives you a marginal benefit if you're doing general swapping before major battles and most likely you only need 2 or 3 generals unless it's a really epic scale war, which is not a common occurrence. You can roll a dozen generals and then only keep the best of the best but that only gives you a tiny benefit over just getting as many as you need. Ultimately that's a really weak argument for saying that MIL has enough uses. That doesn't feel like a strong use to me, it feels like a way to spend MIL if you're at the cap and there's nothing better to use it on. So it doesn't introduce any decision making points, just a "Well I'm at 999 MIL again, let's roll a few generals and see if any are good."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Ironically, I feel like DIP's used pretty neatly, if not quite often enough - you kind of want tons of it as a naval/trade power, but the problem is that you can only use it for Ideas or the tech...and that's really it. Peace treaties aren't often enough to make you worry about how much you have at a given time, and annexing/integrating isn't such a big deal either. Like you seem to say, it just doesn't pop up enough to worry about. Speak for yourself. Apparently I'm paying 33-50 diplopoints for every overseas province I take for some reason (probably the no-CB thing because Alliance leader switches are kinda broken), and I desperately need to spam the naval buildings all over the place so I can keep my forcelimits up. 850 ships and counting. The sad part is, despite having more money than I could possibly use, I'm not actually making that much from trade. Only 650 some per month. I have most of the trade from India onwards funneling into London, where I collect 100% of the value, but that value itself isn't actually that high. I suspect it's because at no point could I ever spare the points to spam trade buildings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Speak for yourself. Apparently I'm paying 33-50 diplopoints for every overseas province I take for some reason (probably the no-CB thing because Alliance leader switches are kinda broken), and I desperately need to spam the naval buildings all over the place so I can keep my forcelimits up. 850 ships and counting. The demand for Ivory has a huge penalty for every province that doesn't have a marketplace. Customs Houses are the only buildings that increase demand of coffee, chinaware, sugar, spice, and tea. If you really don't have any trade buildings up, I'd be curious to see how much it'd increase if you start spamming up to customs houses everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
What coalition wars in EU4 could really use is the Victoria 2 option of claiming war goals. That the strongest power should become coalition leader should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
The only change I'd like to see re: mon points right now is stability increases being changed to 33/33/33 base cost. I can see why they made them just use admin points but it seems reasonable that increasing stability requires all the apparatus of state working together to be really successful, and it gives mil points a slight additional dump. It would make westernisation a lot different though since you would essentially progress at a rate defined by your worst stat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Riso posted:What coalition wars in EU4 could really use is the Victoria 2 option of claiming war goals. That the strongest power should become coalition leader should be obvious. Strongest power should be coalition leader but what it also needs is a completely redesigned peace system. No more "I have X Warscore and I get to claim this, this and this!" when there are more than two people involved in a war, but something that would allow for all participants to get involved. I proposed something a couple weeks back and it doesn't go into much detail but after playing a LOT of EU4, I still think the peace system needs a radical change and something along those lines could be a good direction to go in. RabidWeasel posted:The only change I'd like to see re: mon points right now is stability increases being changed to 33/33/33 base cost. I can see why they made them just use admin points but it seems reasonable that increasing stability requires all the apparatus of state working together to be really successful, and it gives mil points a slight additional dump. It would make westernisation a lot different though since you would essentially progress at a rate defined by your worst stat. There's also the problem that it usually takes around a third of the time to reach 33/33/33 than it does to reach 100/0/0, with some obvious variability dependent on stats. Making that change would allow you to reach +3 stability WAY faster. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
It's me, I'm the one with the terrible borders. Nejd->Arabia is a much harder game if the Ottomans just decide to blob into Egypt as hard as they can and you have to content yourself with whatever's left over. Still, there's 46 years left, and I have plenty of time to plot the Ottomans' downfall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Same world: worst France ever: What, why? I honestly can't figure out what's wrong with its borders from an aesthetical point of view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
I miss CK2 and wish EU4 could carry some of its flavor 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:What, why? I honestly can't figure out what's wrong with its borders from an aesthetical point of view. The only pretty-looking France is the one that is reduced to an OPM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
fspades posted:The only pretty-looking France is the one that is reduced to an OPM. I like how France looks when it's a vassal
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 16:43
|
|