|
Patter Song posted:So, something about Steppe Wolfe that I can't exactly discuss in my thread, but thought that the Paradox devs might be interested in. The Steppe Wolfe mod attempts to upload a soundtrack from a completely different game and put it into the mod Music folder in an apparent attempt to get it to play during EU3. This doesn't work for some reason: the soundtrack stays the same. I noticed that this Knights of Honor game is also published by Paradox and I was wondering if it's acceptable practice to steal another game's soundtrack and try to use that in a mod. I don't know if it makes it legal or not to use in a mod, but I remember that the Knights of Honor website put up the entire soundtrack as a free download available for all. Which is nice, because the music is pretty neat. Unfortunately, the website has since gone down so I can't redownload it for my reformatted computer nor confirm my story. Knights of Honor was a pretty cool game, tho.  vvv Tomn fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 11, 2013 |
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 18:43
|
|
(I'm assuming that the only reason this hasn't been brought to light before is that the music utterly fails to make it into the actual game)
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Raserys posted:So, for the first time, I might actually play EU3 to the end date! Related question - has anyone ever managed to play EU3 all the way to the end? Personally, I've never quite gotten there. I think the furthest I ever got was one of my first games, as France, which petered out somewhere in the early-mid 18th century.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Pylons posted:They've been hinting that Vicky 2 isn't done with, but nothing concrete yet as far as news goes. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall one of the devs (probably Darkrenown, he's the most active of the lot here) saying that making DLC/expansions using the old, pre-CK2 system is a lot trickier than making more modular, CK2-style patches, which might explain the delay. Then again, maybe they just keep looking back at Vic2, contemplating the complexity and difficulty of trying to fix its problems without creating whole new unexpected issues, and putting it off for another day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I wonder what the mod creator's signature means. It's so...enigmatic. I'm banking on it involving nationalism. You know, come to think of it, I kinda want to see a video game made by North Koreans. Just to see what it's like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:This revelation was brought to him, as I understand, because the contract he had with Paradox allegedly didn't specify who owns the engine. I'm going to assume Ubik is banking on a carrer as a Swedish Contract Law expert. Other fun things for those who didn't poke around the UV forums before it went down - shortly before the end Ubik went on this big, massive rant about how Paradox clearly "feared" Magna Mundi and how it would show up presumably the entire Paradox product line as being weak and inferior. His evidence that they feared Magna Mundi and were actively sabotaging it? The fact that they weren't promoting it hard and tried to deflect questions about it at expos and the like. He bragged about how, despite being given practically no presence or booth space at one particular expo, he and the MM team who were there nevertheless actively raised a fuss, passed out brochures, and wrangled interviews despite Paradox reps trying to shut them down. Keep in mind this is all months after the original release date passed with the game itself still in a code-wrecked shambles, missing things like working war, diplomacy, and AI, with even the most supportive beta-testers saying things like "It doesn't really crash all THAT often, and anyways there's autosaves."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:So I decided to vary it up with some D&T after playing EU3+ for the past while. So I chose one of the chinese city states in the 1356 and start punching gigantic mongols in the nuts. Fast forward 50 years and I've sent an expedition to Europe(You get a special decision that gives you 2 explorers to represent the chinese exploration fleet), westernized, formed modern china and gotten the worlds ugliest flag. Seriously, look at it. Isn't that the Chinese Republican flag? Why would they even have that at this point in time? I don't think the basic concepts informing its design are even in place yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
As long as "Send gift" isn't right next to "Send insult" anymore, I'll be pretty happy with diplomacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
If it's been a hundred years, and their land tech level is 13 or higher, they should have access to landsknechts or condotta infantry units, both of which are waaaaaay better than anything you get below that tech level. Like, almost unbeatably so. If you're not yourself already at or just about to hit land tech 13, you're probably going to lose this particular war. It's seriously a viable strategy to plow everything into land tech to get landsknechts early so that you can tapdance all over Europe with nary a care in the world. If you ARE at tech level 13, go into the military panel, click on your infantry unit (probably men-at-arms or Galloglaigh infantry) and switch 'em out to landsknechts/condotta post-haste. Avoid battle for as long as it takes for your morale to recover, and from then on you should be able to match them in even battle. For the record, I think this is the only really dramatic land tech level difference (at least in the Latin tech groups). After this, land tech levels provide an advantage, but no longer such an overwhelmingly dramatic one. Also, at this early stage in the game, field artillery isn't of much use in battle, and slows your armies down. They're primarily useful in sieges for now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Graham Gremlin posted:I'm using Landsknechts as my infantry. The composition I have is roughly even, I have one less cavalry (I think its 12/11/4). Could low prestige be affecting my morale? They've really tanked my prestige with the illegal imperial territory crap. Is it worth just giving in and dropping out of the HRE, it'd mean losing Lombardia, Cremona and Liguria but it's worth it if I don't have to put up with Austria's bullshit any more. What would happen to my vassals in the HRE? It doesn't mention them in the tooltip. Huh. Try mousing over your prestige and hovering for a minute - that should offer up a tooltip showing you exactly what effects are being applied. If you're patient, you can also look into a battle at the slowest speed setting while mousing over your units and theirs, to see if you can work out exactly what's going on. It's also worth noting that if you're out of the HRE but hold HRE provinces for whatever reason, the Emperor gets a CB on you to reconquer the provinces for the Empire. They even get cores for doing so. So yeah, being in the HRE region in general requires putting up with Austrian bullshit. Regarding money - holy balls that's a lot of cash. What's your minting and inflation levels looking like? Keep in mind you don't need to have a positive monthly balance to make money - you get an annual lump sum every new year, and as long as your annual expenses are smaller than that annual tax, you'll make a profit. Trying to keep a positive monthly balance at all costs will generally net you a lot of unnecessary inflation, as well as sucking investment away from technology and stability. That being said, if you have the cash on hand anyways, try looking into whatever provincial buildings you can create at the moment. For something more immediately war-related, try checking to see if there's any great powers near Austria that don't have three allies already and who might be bribed into allying and joining the war. Trying to reduce their stability can be useful, too - if they're going up against Hungary, France, and yourself at the same time, anything that causes them internal problems can help exacerbate their war exhaustion issues. For that matter, if they're at war with France, try offering France military access if you haven't already, so that the French can help knock the Austrians out for you. If all else fails, try offering the Austrians a peace deal consisting of nothing but ducats. It'll sting, but it beats losing territory.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Who do you plan to play as first when you get EU4? I'm going to play as the Inca and die horribly to the brutality of racist Swedes making it impossible for me to win. What about y'all? I'm going to be playing England - I was always kinda bored with England in EU3 on account of not having that much challenge to it once you've conquered Britannia and established the wooden walls which no foe will ever penetrate. The need to use navies to shepherd trade routes could making playing England very interesting and right different from the usual "I BLOB UR LAND" strategies of the continental powers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
uPen posted:I didn't know anyone hated the Aztec DLC, it's cheap and fun. There were a lot of people on the Paradox forums getting somehow offended at the idea of Aztecs getting enough technology to invade Europe. A few angrily huffed that they would have preferred an alien invasion DLC or somesuch because that would at least be clearly fantastical, instead of a "pseudo-historical" Aztec invasion. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction myself, but they appeared to consider it a crime against everything Paradox ever stood for. For more information, Google Darkrenown's custom title. It's a parody, but honestly not that far away from what people were saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:We can't be sure of this. I'm aware it was a direct quote - that's why I suggested that people Google it to find the original post. I sincerely doubt it's serious, though, given that the person in question has a grand total of eight posts to his name including that one, and how he failed to participate any further in the thread after posting. Also, this: quote:The pain I felt from this betrayal has destroyed me on an emotional level, and has deprived me of my primary source of entertainment. No longer can I play Grand Strategy games without remembering the day I ceased mattering to people I devoted myself to. Paradox had not just destroyed me or their company, they had destroyed the one force of stability in the world: Trust. Granted, it's not as blatant as the guy talking about how he formed deeper, richer emotional connections with his CK2 characters than he did with anyone in real life, but it's still pretty over the top. Edit: In case anyone is curious, here's the "rich emotional connections" guy I was talking about. Tomn fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I missed that part. Though I can still say I don't know what that had to do with anything. It seemed randomly put in there. There was a line of argument over on the Paradox forums that Sunset Invasion was "political correctness gone mad," allowing the Native Americans a "revenge fantasy" of sorts upon Europe and that it wasn't appropriate somehow for that reason - because, I suppose, Paradox needed to stick to the real history and real facts of Europe overrunning the entire world and not indulge in such fripperies as Native Americans being more than a speedbump for Europeans. It was not, to be fair, a very COMMON line of argument, but yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Personally, my favorite part was when he compared the Paradox devs to a grown man frolicking naked in a hundred pounds of chocolate pudding.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:No worries. I canned it this morning so you could be put on the Austrian Painting School game.. Damnit, Austria is already overpowered. We don't need them blobbing even harder.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Oh no. Europa Universalis the board game had two maps, if I remember correctly. A Europe map and a 'Rest of the World' map. I have a copy in the basement I can haul up if need be. How DOES the actual board game play, incidentally?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well the super-secret project is either something new or something old. If it's something new then it obviously could be anything (dinosaurs). EU: Alpha Centauri. At last, we will have the technology required to deal with sighted comets appropriately.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
I have to admit, it's a small thing, but the addition of a newspaper frame to present major events in Heart of Darkness really tickles my goat. One of the issues with Victoria 2 was always how your country felt a bit lifeless after a while, and a spot of flavor in the vein of newspapers presenting major events might be what the doctor ordered.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Okay, I'm playing this now. I feel kind of dumb though. There MUST be some screen in the game where I can see HOW MUCH of each resource I'm gathering each turn, but I'll be damned if I can find it. I can see my stocks just fine, but not how much I'm producing. Check the Transport tab? It only shows resources connected to your transport hub, but those are the only things that'll be going into your stockpile anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's because when you are selling a product that's been fashioned entirely out of the creative vision and taste of the developers it makes everyone a bit nervous that said taste includes something so very tacky. "Everyone" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? I mean, it seems somewhat unlikely that a lot of people are putting enough thought into the wallpaper of a trailer explaining game features that they view the interior decoration as a sign of impending creative doom. I'd personally guess that most people just find it funny, if they think about it at all. Not to mention that I dunno that there's a lot of correlation between taste in interior decoration and ability to design and program good games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:CK players: How lofty are your goals and how much ... stuff do you do when playing the game? I think part of my issue is that I always feel like I always need to be constantly expanding and setting up marriages and seizing titles and all that stuff, and then I get frustrated when I don't have CBs and no one wants to marry me. Maybe I should play a game where I just mostly let things happen to me and react? Most of the time I start as a duke or count in a kingdom and make it my goal to scheme my way to the top title in the realm by hook or by crook. Once I get there I usually peter out somewhat. The furthest I got in terms of keeping on past getting the top title was a run as the Doux of Athens, since gaining the throne gave me a valid, self-justifiable reason to relentlessly blob as far as I could down the Levant and generally rebuild the Empire. (Left that game behind eventually because for some reason king and emperor AI in the Empire kept imprisoning and blinding people for no reason at all and racking up massive tyranny - my heirs included. Dunno if patches have fixed that since, and dunno if I can even play the save now.) Edit: Also my basic strategy is to gradually build up my income/levy base and strike at whatever opportunities happen to come up. By and large I'm content to shepherd my lands while waiting for a chance to strike, although I do feel free to fabricate the occasional claim. Tomn fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Jabarto posted: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). I don't know if this counts, exactly, since it isn't quite the usual "What if things had happened slightly differently?" sort of alt-history. But I've always had a soft spot for the "1632" series since finding out about them in high school. The basic premise goes like this: "What would happen if we transplanted a modern West Virginian town smack-dab in the middle of Germany during the 30 Years War?" The series as a whole does a pretty good job of working through all the implications of such an event throughout the Europe, including things like King Charles getting his hands on history books relating to the English Civil War, or how the arrival of the Americans throws a gigantic monkey wrench into Richelieu's plans. Downside, though, is that the author seems, to me, a little too optimistic and gung-ho about how well modern American values would be accepted by 17th century Germans. He's also got some literary tics which are charmingly enthusiastic at first, but which quickly become grating as hell after you've run into them for the twentieth time. Not to mention that despite professing not to like the "great man" theory of history, he's got one particular character who's some kind of lovechild of every great American leader, Jesus, and Machiavelli. Fortunately, he likes to work with co-authors, some of who are capable of reining in his wilder bursts of idealism and giving the series a more solid grounding. Do not under any circumstances look into "The Dreeson Incident", though. That one was largely co-written by someone who isn't, apparently, a professional author and is basically an enormous, wooden redneck soap opera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Harry Turtledove... is not that great. He is usually only pointed out because he is one of the few writers actually involved in alternate history. I would not recommend a vast majority of his books. Guns of the South is interesting but I wouldn't advise going farther in the series than that. My favorite anecdote about Turtledove involves the one time I was five pages past the climax of the book and a nuclear war before I realized that I had just passed the climax and a nuclear war. A massive amount of build-up for something world-shattering that just went "sput" when it came to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
It might be a good idea to add Kersch's LP to the OP, given how often it comes up as the best newbie AAR.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A little old but I personally love cognatic succession and playing with a very Matriarchal noble House where its the women who are the powerful ones and the men are just there for babies and dying in droves to protect them. I can't remember where I read it - it might have been a Rider Haggard book - but I seem to recall one bit of fiction where an old man explains that in their society, they have queens and pass on the crown matrilineally because that way, you can be damned sure the royal heir is of the royal blood. BigRoman posted:Viki 2 AHD question: I'm by no means an expert on V2, so take this all with a grain of salt. But militancy is a general revolt risk thing - just indicates that they're pissed off. Social/political reforms can help, but only if the reason they're pissed off in the first place has to do with social/political issues to begin with. What exactly are France and Britain demanding, anyways? It may be easier to just pay them off and let your country recover by this point. If everyone's at 10 militancy, your country is already in terrible shape, anyhow. As for Jacobins and nationalists, Jacobins seem to be the default "We Are Unhappy" rebels when they've got no better causes to rebel about. Reducing militancy in general should pare them down to more reasonable numbers. As for nationalists, I'm afraid that as long as you occupy foreign lands, you will have nationalists. This IS the age of revolution and nationalism. The best thing to do is to try and keep them so content they don't rise up, and even then you'll probably have to stomp on the occasional rebellion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is that because the Queen directly gives birth with a dude you can never be too sure? That was the argument, yes. I seem to recall the European character who heard out the explanation commenting that "He'd never quite considered things in that light before."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:They keep talking about "unintended consequences" of allowing eldest daughters to inherit. What exactly do you suppose they mean by that? Do they mean the crown passing out of the House of Windsor if the eldest daughter should marry and take her husband's name? Also, why would it even matter anymore whose family held the crown in a constitutional monarchy where Parliament decides things? That I can tell you in one word.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
podcat posted:Not to hate, but it seems to me that many of you guys are dissing Sengoku without actually playing it. Its not as deep as our other games but a few playthroughs are fun if you like war. I don't think it deserves the reputation it has on these forums. This is all from somewhat fragmentary memories about the game when it first came out, so I dunno if patches fixed things or my memory wasn't quite clear. But I remember the big thing was that everything was very SAMEY. Like, literally every province in the world is EXACTLY the same at game start, and if you're playing optimally almost all your provinces KEEP looking identical. All the characters had very little to differentiate between them, with only a handful of stats and traits. They also looked much the same, and had names that were kinda tricky to remember (last bit not really the game's fault, of course). Clans, too, seemed basically identical - the only real difference between any clan was how big it was and whether it was currently in a position to be toppled into civil war if the right people died. War, too, from what I recalled, was mainly about shoving as many troops as you could at the enemy and hoping you had the bigger stack. So to sum up, everything was pretty much the same, the main and practically only thing that mattered to any clan was how big it was, and if you didn't bust your hump playing optimally early on, you ended up either getting absorbed by a bigger clan or losing the game because a clan at the rear end end of Japan grew too hugeous for you to even think about opposing before the game ended. It literally felt like a game where there really was only one way to play it properly, and if you didn't play it that way, you lost. Also, I'm reasonably certain that the SA thread consensus didn't influence my thoughts any - seem to recall I didn't check the thread much then, but that could just be a quirk of memory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Enrico Dandolo posted:In March of the Eagles, I don't know how to move troops into a fort but I keep accidentally doing it, which is very inconvenient because you can't see troops stationed in a fort, so every now and then one of my 35k stacks will just disappear and I have to go clicking around forts to find out where I lost it. What dumb thing am I doing here? I don't actually have the game, so this is just wild-rear end guessing. But in that screenshot with the Russian borders, on the list-thingy to the right, you can see an entry called "Garrisons." Maybe this is what you're looking for? Try right-clicking the list to see if you can add in the option to view garrisons. That might at least save you the trouble of clicking through provinces to find out where you dropped off armies, even if it doesn't tell you how you got them in there in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:
I thought it was Gort who kept getting into HoI slapfights with Darkrenown, not Gorgo. Tomn fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: A critical analysis of Devposts. The dev brings the posters face to face with their own preconceived hierarchy of cultural values and assumptions of gameplay worth. Each post imaginatively propels its viewer forward into the seemingly infinite progression of possible reproductions that the dev's practice engenders, whilst simultaneously pulling them backwards in a quest for the 'original' source or referent that underlines Darkrenown's oeuvre.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:Maybe they should hire a proofreader at some point. All their games seem riddled with spelling and grammar errors and it just looks unprofessional. Well, to be fair, those ARE beta screenshots, and beta screenshots of unusually text-heavy stuff, too. From what I recall their more recent releases have tended to be better about outright errors, even if there's the odd bit of sentence structuring and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Put Kersch's LP in the OP already, Gorgo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:The point you again miss is that it's stupid to make fun of the unfinished work you're getting an early look at for being unfinished. It's quite different from making fun of dumb things that make into a released product. You don't think so? When a co-worker shows you an early draft or concept art for a new project and asks you what you think of the idea, do jump all over his spelling or drawing skills? Perhaps you do and nobody likes you, I don't know, but the point of the exercise was to show you the concept, not the details. Overreacting just a tad, dude. Settle down a bit, relax, don't take it so seriously. Noreaus didn't seem to be doing so, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, sadly, I suspect it will be a mess. I think it's a hard period to do, and the best way would probably be to pull back and make it a bit higher level and more abstract. Going down the crazy detail route just isn't going to end well. Despite what a lot(!) of developers and players seem to think it doesn't actually make the game or the RESULTS of the 'simulation' more accurate, it just gives the IMPRESSION that it could be. I was always iffy about the possibility of a good Cold War game to begin with - the complexities involved in modeling even one aspect of the Cold War is plenty to fuel any one game, let alone the whole shebang. East vs West just doesn't seem to be headed in the right direction to soothe those fears. This much detail on the military seems fitting for a war game, but a game that treats the Cold War like a war game isn't a game about the Cold War at all, it's a game about WW3. Speaking of which, did anyone actually buy Supreme Ruler: Cold War? I remember trying the demo and thinking that it suffered from the exact same wargaming focus in a setting where the focus should be on the tightrope of diplomacy, politics and intrigue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Personally, I can KIND of see an argument for heavily detailing some of the military units, in that a critical component of the arms race was how both superpowers were constantly trying to one-up each other with both nuclear and conventional arms. The problem is, good luck making an AI capable of intelligently deciding how to select and make use of all the different options, and have fun figuring out some way of presenting all these options to the player without seeing him freeze up like a deer in the headlights. Real-life senators and the like making these kinds of decisions were probably just as ignorant as the player, but at least they had committees, subcommittees, and various uniformed staff providing them with advice and viewpoints as opposed to just giving people statblocks to pore through.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:amazing, what camera did you use? looks like a game :p I want that as city view in EU4 It's funny when high praise for a photograph is "It looks like a game."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:So I'm playing Scotland on my first go through in EUIII and I'm probably going to win a war against England and its allies. From my understanding as I'll have 100% of England's counties captured I should have the option to Annex them in totality. I already own Ulster which has finally become a core province and Cambra, Northumberland and the one south of it I can't remember at the moment which are revolting poo poo holes because of their recent capture. My question really is, should I annex all of England and Wales? I'm barely able to support a single Man-at-Arms levy without minting. My inflation is already at something astonishing like 15% from all the minting I have to do just to stay solvent. The only reason I was able to beat England is because of that stupid Highlander event that gives 12 levies of troops out of nowhere for free. If I conclude the war I'll be unable to stop the Annexed English counties from revolting. If Annexing is a poo poo option what is my best course of action to ensure that England remains in the gutter so I can piece mail conquer it? Force them to release Wales and vassalize both? OK, bunch of things to clear up here. First off, you are almost certainly not going to be able to annex England. Countries need to be pretty small, like 3-5 provinces at best before you get the option to annex them. So those concerns are largely moot. Secondly, you don't need to mint to stay solvent, knock that minting off. A MONTHLY deficit is fine. What you need to worry about is the ANNUAL deficit - you can check by hovering over the money icon to see how much you bring in every New Year's Day. It doesn't matter if you lose 2 ducats every month if your annual tax brings in 26 ducats. Yeah, it's a bit confusing, which is probably why they're overhauling the system in EU4. Third, a single regiment is a tiny standing army. With your new understanding of how taxation works, recruit something more respectable and capable of beating off rebels, which probably aren't going to be that big an issue if you take only a handful of English provinces. Fourth, England is probably still too large to effectively vassalize at this point. Your best bet is to break them up into as many minor countries as you can, which is essentially Cornwall and Wales if I recall aright. Otherwise, smash their field armies, fund a few random rebels in their territory if you can afford it, and hope they're too busy fighting rebels to bother with you. Odds are they're still going to be dangerous for a while, though. Fifth, try recruiting a Master of Mint advisor to reduce inflation. Increased centralization also helps.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Flame112 posted:I'm pretty sure as Scotland that you do have to mint early to be able to do anything other than get owned by England. OK, yeah, that's true, but you're not supposed to mint for the sake of simply staying solvent. Mint for the sake of maintaining an oversized army, which will almost certainly be operating at a monthly deficit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
YouTuber posted:It was an annual deficit of some retarded number like 50-60 ducats with no army at all. I outright couldn't understand it. I attempted to hire a Master of the Mint but it was always greyed out for some reason. Um, yeah, that's not supposed to happen. Something's gone squirrely. Also, re: Master of the Mint, I believe you need a certain amount of cultural tradition before you can hire one. Can't recall the exact amount, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 17:52
|
|