|
Wiz posted:- You will no longer lose accepted cultures as long as they remain part of your tax base. Can you explain this a bit? I've never fully understood what causes a culture to become/stop being accepted.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:In vanilla, cultures become accepted if at least 20% (I think) of your tax comes from core provinces of that culture, and stop being accepted if less than 5% does. In EU3+, now, they can become accepted by decision and never stop being accepted as long as you have a core province of that culture on the same continent as your capital. Thanks for clarifying. This sounds like a really good idea on Wiz's part.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:
That's relatively common in my games since England always get dragged into war with Morocco via their alliance with Portugal. The Ottomans tend to get around a lot, too; I've seen them take and hold provinces in Italy, France, and even Sweden at various points in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
It's not as crazy as the other things mentioned in this thread, but it's also funny to me that Scotland ends up overrunning England in all of my games. I think someone in the last thread described that Highlanders event as, "giving Scotland enough men to build a space elevator out of bodies" or something like that, and it fits perfectly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
I just noticed that EU3+ doesn't let you play any non-bookmarked dates, is there a reason for this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
run DNC posted:The history in regular eu3 is actual real life history where as the history in eu3+ is not. So theres not a thing to base the map off of, and it would be a whole heck of a lot of work to fix the history files to fit a bunch of other dates probably. I was mainly asking because it removed the option entirely (plenty of mods don't have accurate history files but leave the option in), and I was wondering if starting at other dates would break any scripting or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Kersch posted:And to be honest, I haven't really thought of modding for a while. Any time I've spent with EU3 lately has been spent trying out the EU3Plus betas. I want to take a moment and mention that your take on MiscMods is still my favorite way to play EU3. EU3+ is fantastic, but I like a more laid-back game that's still got lots of neat features. It's too bad you haven't given thought to updating it but I doubt the final EU3 patch will break it or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I've always been amazed at how Vietnamese people really can hit way above their weight in terms of taking on empires that want to own them and their land. Not many countries can claim to have defeated occupations by china, america(+south korea, australia, and others), france and japan all within about 30 years (1945 - 1975). Don't forget how they kicked the Mongols out on three separate occasions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Also maybe you don't have enough infantry? Artillery is nice to have but without a meat shield in front it just dies. Also, if you have less infantry than the enemy you'll get flanked by his cavalry. Combat got a lot easier for me when I realized how that works.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Kersch posted:I tried infantry = artillery armies for a bit, but it makes it really easy for a large army of yours to get boned when your infantry starts dropping out from morale loss and your artillery has nothing guarding it anymore. I think that something along the lines of 12/4/4 might be more resilient than 8/4/8. Same here. I seem to have better look forgoing artillery altogether and just getting lots of shock modifiers for my infantry and cavalry (though I usually get bored with my games around the 1650's so maybe things change in the last century).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I don't believe it has. I don't think it matters, I've been playing it on the betas for ages with no problems. Then again, I don't play multiplayer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, look at what he said:that guy posted:Yet, for many of us, CKII is no laughing matter. It is serious business. Even if the stuff about Serbia and the Balkans wasn't obvious, you can't possibly take this line seriously. Still funny though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean taking an active role. The player hits "Start the Revolution!" and they immediately lose control of the nation and take control of a freshly-spawned rebel stack. Conquering a province gives free units and access to manpower/construction. Regular units have a chance to flip control to the player based on stability, revolt risk, and provinces conquered. This probably isn't super-practical for small nations or would be easy to make hit the sweet spot between "trivial annoyance" and "horribly frustrating", though. At first I was really leery about this idea for the reasons you stated, but now that I think of it this could actually be a fun mechanic. It reminds me of Medieval:Total War a bit, where if there was a civil war you could choose to back the king or the rebels. It would make revolution a lot more meaningful, at the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:To be fair, there's loving awesome alt-history like a new American Civil War between the USA, the CSA, the California Republic, New England, a Native American nation etc. Then there's dumb alt-history like "The only reason the USSR might have had instability is capitalists backing rebels. There was no ethnic problems for the USSR." which is just boring to have a super stable giant and inaccurate. Do you know of any other good alt-history ideas? I'm kind of intrigued by the genre (both in EU3, now that I've tried some modded scenarios, and in general) but it seems like most of them are basically "What if Hitler/Churchill/Stalin got hit by a bus/had never been born/autoerotically asphyxiated himself?". I'd like to see some that are actually well thought-out (and I'd loving love it if they didn't involve either of the World Wars in some way).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Thanks for all of the alt-history ideas. I guess there are some good ones out there (especially the Tupac one).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
I guess this hasn't been mentioned yet since it just came out yesterday - http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?666155-Septentrionalis-Universalis It's an EU3 mod that crams 832 countries into a map of Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, the British Isles, and northeastern Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Something I've been wondering for a while now; is it ever advantageous to switch religions? I like the looks of the production/tax advantages you get with Protestantism, but in practice all converting has ever accomplished for me is making the entire world despise me and racking up intolerance penalties while I manually convert my provinces.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Generally, one of three things will cause me to convert in any given game: Sure, but if you go Innovative like I do, this isn't an option. DrProsek posted:2) Pope is loving pissed at me and I am in a position where I am more concerned with the negatives of excommunication than holy war. Like in the Peace of God scenario of Misc Mods, if I am Jerusalem and the pope hates me, Alexandria and the Byzantines won't mind terribly if I become Protestant. This makes sense, though you're liable to piss off Castile and France by doing it, which sounds much worse. DrProsek posted:3) Because everyone else is. No need to die for the faith, if most super powers have converted to Protestant, it's time to jump boat. I don't think this has ever happened in my games. Usually one or two of the HRE states will convert but otherwise the Protestant Reformation is pretty much toothless. Frankly I'd be perfectly happy to go tolerant and ignore the issue if it weren't for that stupid naval forcelimits penalty you get if a coastal province has a different religion than yours.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Modding question: is there any reason that a triggered modifier could fire over and over again? I've been doing some stuff with MiscMods Expanded and now the Baltic/Black Sea sound toll events show up every couple of months. It doesn't happen with any of the others and I'm completely baffled by how this is possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Kersch posted:The 5.2 beta has different sound toll events than 5.1. If you drop a mod that perpetuates some of the old, 5.1 sound toll stuff into a 5.2 installation of EU3, that will happen. I have a 5.2 compatibility patch for Expanded that should fix that particular problem among others. It's in this post on the paradox forums: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?528878-%28MOD%29-MiscMods&p=14231574&highlight=#post14231574 Thanks! I must have forgotten to add the compatibility patch when I reinstalled the mod a while back.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
run DNC posted:Yes. If a thing pops up every month with a nice number, then you are getting that many ducats. From the blockade. Speaking of blockades, what does "blockade efficiency" do? It doesn't seem to affect warscore, war exhaustion, or revolt risk in the province. Also, blockading gives you income? I seriously never knew that, and England is my favorite country.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I've never heard that before. I've noticed that I rarely have regencies now that I marry everyone I can (as opposed to spending 60% of the game having them before), but maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
I thought Germany couldn't form the HRE and vice-versa?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
MC2552John posted:Here is a breakdown of how you can use ships to stop pirates without patrolling. First thing to know is that docked ships CAN prevent pirates, but only Light or Big ships, not Galleys or Transports as far as I know. Galleys have always stopped pirates for me, but this makes me wonder; is it the case that galleys can only protect their own zone? I ask because that's how it seems to be, but I have had times where a single fleet was able to stop spawns in an adjacent sea zone. I never figured out why, and tentatively guessed that it had to do with the size of the fleet, but now I'm wondering if composition is what matters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Not so much history (I was interested in that before hand), but Paradox games helped immensely with my geographical knowledge. Ditto. I made up my mind to pursue a history degree long before I'd ever heard of EU3 (my first, and so far, only Paradox game), but playing it taught me a lot of things about geography; "Whoa, Brunei is Muslim?", and, "Aleppo? Hey, I know where that is from my Mamluks game!". I do have to admit, though, that EU3 is the only reason I know who Charles the Bold is, and he's since became one of my favorite historical figures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Everyone always said that forming the HRE in EU3 was really easy, but it's drat near impossible for me. Every time I try it, the same thing happens: 1. I make tons of royal marriages and shovel money into the electors' pockets. 2. I sit around and wait to become emperor. 3. I sit around and answer a call to arms every 30 years or so to build imperial authority. 4. I sit around and wait until the Protestant Reformation hits, which sets my authority to 0 once member states start converting, and keeps it at 0 forever because enforcing religious unity almost never works (and requires authority that I don't have). So basically I'm just not sure how to get enough authority to pass the reforms. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:Vassalize the electors? Yeah, as near as I can tell the last thousand posts or so have almost exclusively been about Victoria 2. Anyway, you don't get authority by doing that. It IS a great way to ensure their vote though, and I always make sure to diplo-vassalize Saxony as soon as possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips, I'll look at that LP and give the Protestant thing a try (I planned on switching at some point anyway). That reminds me, when I was doing some Googling I found a thread on the Paradox forums where a guy formed the HRE in 1407 by declaring war on one of the Russian minors, offering to convert to Orthodox in the peace deal, then using religious unity on every state in the Empire.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Tulip posted:This was the form of overkill in EU that drove me the most nuts. If i'm looking for a historical example of how EU3's PU-inheritance mechanics work, it'd be Scotland inheriting England. Except that never happens because England Uber Alles just steamrolls over Scotland with tanks or some poo poo and unifies it all by 1450 at the latest. You don't need to have 8 bajillion mechanics kludged together to force a particular result, that's just messy as hell. Counterpoint: the highlanders event that causes Scotland to end up with half of England in every single game. I don't think I've ever seen Great Britain form in Divine wind because the main isle always ends up divided evenly between the two. Not that I don't agree with your point (I do), but England and Scotland are about the worst example you could have picked.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:Juicier than the OP? That's gonna be pretty hard without doing an LP or something for it... Jesus, that's the craziest thing I've seen since Septentrionalis Universalis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I peeked at Death and Taxes for EU3 since they released V10.0 yesterday, when I noticed that they have campaigns that go all the way to 1918. Does the mod actually represent that era well? I rather doubt it, but I'd like to know as well. I've seen other mods with 1918 end dates and always wondered how that worked. Frankly, anytime I see an end date past the 1850s or so I start thinking about that Steppe Wolfe LP with Stadthouder Truman and the communist aristocracy of Bulgaria.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:No sliders is huge for me, Just curious, but why is this so? It seems like a lot of people hated sliders but I never had a problem with them. In fact, I'm not sure I like them being replaced by a broad, fuzzy concept like a bundle of national ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Okay, I see where you're coming from now. And I do agree with a lot of it, especially the bit about expansion being the only thing that requires attention from the player. In EU3, I never play as colonial nations, or try to expand diplomatically, or just try to be a small trading nation, because it's just so damned boring and oftentimes impossible to meaningfully influence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:For EU3, is there any way to make it more likely to inherit another country's throne? I'm playing as Muscovy right now and want to conquer Ryazan through royal marriage rather than militarily since they're allied to a bunch of countries I'd rather not go to war with. Last I checked, no one really knows because the devs refuse to explain the mechanics behind it for some reason. High prestige and a ruler with good diplomatic skill, along with good relations and a high level of trust with the target county are the oft-cited factors (trust in particular seems to be really important).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm unsure about the current balance - bad AP stats gently caress you far harder than bad stats in the other categories because it's useful for so much more critical stuff (in particular opening up new ideas so you actually have stuff to spend your other points on). Agreed. I really love the idea behind monarch points, but I don't like how they're so deeply tied to your ruler. They need some way of scaling with your country's size, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:That's why I think it's a shame you can't convert over to a Republic (or other govtype). It'd certainly make dealing with a bad ruler more interesting (and involve an actual choice!) than just sinking a cog with him and a thousand men in it over and over until he dies. Yeah I was pretty surprised that it was flat out impossible to change your government type, so I made a small mod yesterday that lets you switch between monarchies and republics via decision. It seems to work pretty well, so I don't know why you couldn't do it begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
I'm starting to get a little irritated with the diplomacy in EU4. Specifically, the attitude system seems to ruin it because there's no way to control it and it has no apparent correlation with what the country actually thinks of you. As an example, I can never keep allies for any length of time, because the moment I eclipse them in power they declare me to be their rival and hate me for the rest of the game. Am I missing something here or is the game just designed to hate the player?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm honestly not sure what he could consider 'dumbed down', most things in this game are a lot more controllable, and a lot more interconnected, rather than a bunch of totally unconnected systems. I guess if you loved sliders you'll love eu2/3 more. Just about everything in EU4 is deeper than EU3, honestly. I actually did love sliders, and even I think EU4 is a massive improvement over EU3 (never played the second one). Making the game mechanics more transparent, less dependent on chance, and/or require more input from the player was about the best thing they could have done.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
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
|
|