|
Bishop Rodan posted:As Poland, I'm guessing I should form the Commonwealth ASAP? No. There's a lot of non-accepted culture, wrong religion provinces. You should get the PU ASAP and then wait until you finish Humanism to form the PLC. e: and feed Lit as much territory as you can before hand so you don't have to pay the Admin price to core it.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Started my second ironman game after a Portugal run kinda bogged down in peaceful colonization/tedious Asian land wars (got the No Pirates cheevo tho). I'm still working on getting going in my Scotland game, but I don't want to give it up because a year into the campaign Austria got a PU with Hungary after they had two monarchs die in quick succession. I must see what this world looks like. Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:17
|
|
Already shaping up to be a corker!
|
Bishop Rodan posted:As Poland, I'm guessing I should form the Commonwealth ASAP? In my current run I didn't form the commonwealth until 1750. Just keep feeding Lithuania, but make sure they don't go too far over 50% overextension or you'll have a poo poo ton of rebels to put down. Also don't let your prestige get anywhere near zero, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
It's kind of weird how much more likely France is to rival Spain than England or Austria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:No. There's a lot of non-accepted culture, wrong religion provinces. You should get the PU ASAP and then wait until you finish Humanism to form the PLC. Tsyni posted:In my current run I didn't form the commonwealth until 1750. Just keep feeding Lithuania, but make sure they don't go too far over 50% overextension or you'll have a poo poo ton of rebels to put down. Also don't let your prestige get anywhere near zero, of course. Ah, cheers. TTBF posted:It's kind of weird how much more likely France is to rival Spain than England or Austria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:I'm assuming I'm still on 1.12 and it seems pretty messed up to me. The Ottomans just ate 2.3rds of the Mamluks and their AE is at 8. It seems too low on 1.12 but 1.13 is ridiculous. Take one province, with a claim in the HRE and you will be coalitioned. Two and you will have all the OPMs in a coalition against you. And this was as a "small" Norway(as a HRE member) with just my starting lands plus a 2 or 3 of Denmarks Donald Duck fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Bishop Rodan posted:I'm pretty sure that's historically accurate? My knowledge of European history is woefully inadequate compared to most of the people posting in this thread, so I'm aware I'm probably wrong. My understanding was that France during this time period was consistently upset at England for various wars and conflicts of interest on the continent and in the New World. Catholic France joined the Protestants during the 30 Years War to gently caress over Austria, which seems like a rival thing to do. TTBF fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
They also frequently allied with England against Spain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
TTBF posted:My knowledge of European history is woefully inadequate compared to most of the people posting in this thread, so I'm aware I'm probably wrong. My understanding was that France during this time period was consistently upset at England for various wars and conflicts of interest on the continent and in the New World. Catholic France joined the Protestants during the 30 Years War to gently caress over Austria, which seems like a rival thing to do. France's primary antagonists through the period were the Habsburgs, typically Spain and Austria together. So you see them fighting primarily the Spanish in Italy, and working to undermine the Habsburgs in Germany to prevent them becoming too powerful there. France and England fought often, but that was more out of a sense of containment on the part of the English than anything else; the end of the 100YW ended a lot of the need for conflict there. Whenever it seemed like Spain or France was growing overly powerful, the bulk of the continent would align against them, which is a thing the game doesn't really model well. e: And before the Italian Wars really kick off, the most pressing concern for the French monarchy was the question of the Duchy of Burgundy. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:France's primary antagonists through the period were the Habsburgs, typically Spain and Austria together. So you see them fighting primarily the Spanish in Italy, and working to undermine the Habsburgs in Germany to prevent them becoming too powerful there. France and England fought often, but that was more out of a sense of containment on the part of the English than anything else; the end of the 100YW ended a lot of the need for conflict there. Whenever it seemed like Spain or France was growing overly powerful, the bulk of the continent would align against them, which is a thing the game doesn't really model well. Yeah, AE is an ok system but the countries of the world should have the ability to see run-away powerful nations, specially ones near them, and act to contain them. The history of alliances has always been about the world trying to find a balance so that no one country can go on a conquering spree. Alliances would rapidly shift to try to maintain balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Contrecoup posted:I know only American history matters most, but in South America, continental unity was a pretty major force during the latin revolutions. Post revolution Mexico idolized america and dreamed of being beacons of freedom together but it seems America really only saw Mexico as an opportunity for expansion
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Gotta keep finding new land for Slave States after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, AE is an ok system but the countries of the world should have the ability to see run-away powerful nations, specially ones near them, and act to contain them. The history of alliances has always been about the world trying to find a balance so that no one country can go on a conquering spree. Alliances would rapidly shift to try to maintain balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Maybe if AE was tied not only to your conquests, but also your total strength (union partners and vassals included) relative to the countries reacting to them? Going on a conquering spree in the HRE as a small state would freak your tiny HRE neighbors out, but a country like Bohemia might be less worried. If it was France doing the conquering though, all of the HRE and Western Europe would be paying attention. Thinking about it, this might more be an adjustment to the AE system so it scales better and makes intra-HRE blobbing more likely to have an aggressor get diplomatically isolated and eventually dismantled. To make a system where countries can proactively deal with a threat would probably require a new "Hegemon system", where any state which clearly outclasses its local neighborhood risks getting ganged up on occasionally. Yeah, it's like AE should take into account base tax or something. So if I'm a little dev 50 HRE minor country and I just conquered 30 dev worth of provinces I'm going to freak out my neighbours that are of similar size to me, but a bigger country isn't going to care. Some formula like the total dev of annexed provinces but then divided by the country's dev. So a dev 40 country will freak out at a 1:1 level if I take 40 dev worth of provinces, but a 400 dev country will only freak out 10% as much. Well not exactly that formula, but something like that. Or maybe it should look not just at the dev total of the annexed provinces, but also at the aggressor country. I mean I know as a player if I see france gobble up 40 dev worth of provinces and I'm next to france I get worried, france just got that much bigger than everyone else and their advantage is just going to snowball. But some small to medium sized country near me takes 40 dev of provinces? I'm not so worried, maybe they just doubled their size, but they're still way smaller than me. I'll worry about them if their conquests start to snowball to the point that they become a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:Today I decided to try something for fun and instead of breaking up the Ottomans as the HRE - I gave the Ottomans territories equal to a 2000% win score for them, to see what would happen. fuckin savage
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
TTBF posted:My knowledge of European history is woefully inadequate compared to most of the people posting in this thread, so I'm aware I'm probably wrong. My understanding was that France during this time period was consistently upset at England for various wars and conflicts of interest on the continent and in the New World. Catholic France joined the Protestants during the 30 Years War to gently caress over Austria, which seems like a rival thing to do. The pattern of major antagonism with France, broadly, is England (Hundred Years War, to 1453), Spain (1500-1700; 1494 Italian War through to Nine Years War ending in 1697, some 90 years of war, with one running nearly 25 years), England/Britain again (most of the 18th century basically, through to the fall of Napoleon). Broadly. Of course, there's plenty of others in there, like the Dutch, the Austrians, and the Prussians. But those are the big three that occupy entire decades and major portions of France's income and foreign policy energies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Contrecoup posted:I know only American history matters most, but in South America, continental unity was a pretty major force during the latin revolutions. Maybe for twelve seconds. Every single CN in Latin America ingame ended up Balkanizing pretty badly within decades of independence--just look at what happened to Peru-Bolivia, United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, and Gran Colombia. And that's to say nothing of the border disputes that put Latin American nations to war against each other throughout the 19th century. IMO letting newly-independent Latin American states squabble among themselves is pretty historically accurate. Sure, having them in EU4 means they happen ingame earlier than they did historically, but come on, it's a Paradox game and those don't have to line up 1:1 with what really happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Gotta keep finding new land for Slave States after all. The Mexican war resulted in more free territories than slave territories by a giant margin. In fact, since Texas was in the union before the Mexican American war, that war resulted in the acquisition of zero slave states and territories and one anti-bellum free state--California (1850). ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
I am having a much harder time with this Holland -> Netherlands game than I thought I would. I just finally cored Gelre and its 1555. I'm allied to Austria (who managed to integrate Hungary for once,) the Hansa, and Nassau. Nassau you might think is a funny choice, but they somehow got to be the Emperor and inherited Burgundy, so they're pretty big. Although now if I form the Netherlands, I lose the protection of the Emperor and don't have much room to expand. My force limit is a mere 16, and I've just started colonizing the Americas. The AI Netherlands always seems to have a really large army for their size and I feel like I could get crushed by France or GB any moment now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
In my Lucca game, which is actually going quite well other than this one small hiccup, France just became the leader of a personal union with Spain (who, incidentally, also integrated Naples). (I immediately dropped GB to ally with them, after doing a bit of math on the alliance acceptance values.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
You can get both France and Austria to support your independence right away as Holland, and you can snipe the one province you need from Burgundy in that war. How did it take you so long?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I decided on a calm and relaxing game as England, after two restarts I gave up on unionizing France and was going to work over Scotland instead when suddenly the king of Castile died and dragged me into a succession war against Aragon who got all cranky about who was going to inherit those huge tracts of land. This game I'm thinking of colonizing as much as possibly of North America and immediately releasing every colonial nation that forms. Just because I can, and I'm curious if I can create a thunderdome in that area. To make it more interesting and fair for everyone, myself not included, I tag switched to Portugal and Castile and made them abandon exploration for trade ideas instead. It's more fun if all colonizers start at the same time in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Omelette du Fromage posted:You can get both France and Austria to support your independence right away as Holland, and you can snipe the one province you need from Burgundy in that war. What? You need more than Breda from Brabrant, Burgundy's junior PU partner. You need Utretch, Gelre, and Friesland too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Borders! Featuring Novgorodian Russia and Poland as a junior PU partner under France.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
That's gross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Honestly I'm angrier about Austria/Venice/Tuscany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
The entire Russian/Siberian region always ends up having hosed up borders in my game because Muscovy inevitably overextends and then starts getting cut to pieces from all sides. Then it's a race to see who can grab the most land from them while also making them release Perm/Pskov/Yaroslavl, making the whole region into a giant mess of borders and unconnected provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Gitro posted:Borders! That Crimea is amazing, sitting there in the eye of the storm, a humble oasis of beautiful borders in what otherwise looks like the work of a bulimic cartographer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Gitro posted:Borders! I imagine that you probably have Munster on the vassal feeding plan but I prefer my Munsterlands interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:I imagine that you probably have Munster on the vassal feeding plan but I prefer my Munsterlands interpretation. That's probably the German minor Münster instead of Irish minor Munster
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:That's probably the German minor Münster instead of Irish minor Munster Good call, the Irish minor is kind of a bluish grey. Still, those umlauts are drat near invisible and I just kind of assumed when I saw he was Tyrone
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Gitro posted:Borders! I think my favorite part of the map is the Livonian swastika hanging out in the Baltic like a WW2 propaganda movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:Good call, the Irish minor is kind of a bluish grey. Still, those umlauts are drat near invisible and I just kind of assumed when I saw he was Tyrone Aside from Iberia, I have had nothing to do with continental Europe all game. Thatts all AI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
It'd be cool if- once you grow your starting nation to a certain point (maybe doubling your provinces or your total development points or changing from Duchy -> Kingdom -> Empire)- you got to change your country name/color/shield.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Gitro posted:Borders!  Import that save to Hearts of Iron just so you can nuke the loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Node posted:
I've got Russia as an ally, so if I have time after annexing the rest of England I might play border police. My troops suck though so probably not. Is maritime much use if you've already got a ton of boats and the money to support them? I don't know how good a force multiplier it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Gitro posted:I've got Russia as an ally, so if I have time after annexing the rest of England I might play border police. My troops suck though so probably not. No, do not take any boat ideas. They probably offer the least value, of all idea groups. Even Espionage can have uses when any naval group does not. I find naval games to be either "have the best navy, or have 10 transports." If you eventually own all of England, you will undoubtedly have the best navy in the game. Mostly coastal. Perfectly placed for colonising, to give you FL boosts. You won't be needing for more boats. If you really need more boats, get Quantity, and get some other great bonuses alongside that because Quantity is the best idea group. Just build a shitload of heavies and barques, and dock the heavies and leave them in your best port (don't put it on your capital, or London, put it on the next province over so you don't waste a build slot on bloody boats) on mothball. Upgrade them every century or so. Naval action in this game really sucks in a sad way. It comes down to "Don't play it" or "Have bigger number". Very rarely it comes down to "hire a general and go in with a still bigger number". Another Person fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Another Person posted:No, do not take any boat ideas. They probably offer the least value, of all idea groups. Even Espionage can have uses when any naval group does not. I find naval games to be either "have the best navy, or have 10 transports." If you eventually own all of England, you will undoubtedly have the best navy in the game. Mostly coastal. Perfectly placed for colonising, to give you FL boosts. You won't be needing for more boats. If you really need more boats, get Quantity, and get some other great bonuses alongside that because Quantity is the best idea group. That's exactly what I've been doing, and quantity was my third idea pick partly for the naval forcelimits. I'm continental north America so I've got no shortage of forcelimits, especially now with half the carribbean under my control, and shitloads of heavies is my go-to naval start. I've got more than any other country at 50, if I can build Panama canal I won't even need to split them. Aragon stillwreckedd me with a 4 manoeuvre admiral but eh, lesson learned. It's just unfortunate because I've almost got threedeckers unlocked so dip points will soon be mostly meaningless. At least I can pick up offensive and defensive now. I was trying to think of a good reason to take maritime but the only scenario I can think of is if you've got multiple unsecured sea fronts, can't rely on land dominance and don't have the fl to cover both. Even then building the naval fl buildings everywhere gives you a ton of forcelimits to play with, and quantity is just fantastic. Is it useful in multiplayer? E: trade/expansion's +20% goods produced policy is just ridiculous. I went from -5 ducats a month to +18, and basically all my provinces are 3 development. Gitro fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Gitro posted:That's exactly what I've been doing, and quantity was my third idea pick partly for the naval forcelimits. I'm continental north America so I've got no shortage of forcelimits, especially now with half the carribbean under my control, and shitloads of heavies is my go-to naval start. I've got more than any other country at 50, if I can build Panama canal I won't even need to split them. Maritime might be more useful in MP, where the naval race might be more likely to hot up because players don't really build fleets in the same way AI does. But then, a few good alliances could easily make boats irrelevant. The thing is though, boats are not that expensive to maintain, compared to armies. You can go massively over FL and not feel it for a long time, unlike armies which quickly get expensive. As such, the FL modifiers in Maritime are not that valuable really. The repairing in sea zones is nice, sure, but your boats won't be taking damage often enough to make it important. Breakdown of Maritime: Naval tradition is worthless most of the time. You should not be fighting with light ships, they are not combat boats. They would be supplemental to a really big stack of heavies. Global ship repair speed is nice, but again, you won't be taking much damage on your ships, especially if you are the hegemon. Ship costs is not good. Naval maneuver is good. The only admiral stat worth anything. This is the only reason Maritime beats Naval. Blockade efficiency is alright. Sea zone repair is nice, but again, not necessary. Again, I don't really feel like you should be playing the naval game if you cannot be the dominant power in it. That means it is only really useful for a GB, France, Iberian or Ottoman nation, who already have amazing naval forcelimits due to their land, income which allows them to go waaaay over FL or NIs. e; if you are colonising make sure to get the quantity policy which gives an explorer and +15 settlers, it is one of the best policies in the game for sheer growth power
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Another Person posted:Maritime might be more useful in MP, where the naval race might be more likely to hot up because players don't really build fleets in the same way AI does. But then, a few good alliances could easily make boats irrelevant. The thing is though, boats are not that expensive to maintain, compared to armies. You can go massively over FL and not feel it for a long time, unlike armies which quickly get expensive. As such, the FL modifiers in Maritime are not that valuable really. The repairing in sea zones is nice, sure, but your boats won't be taking damage often enough to make it important. I've been running that policy since whenever I got it, some time in the 1500s, and I'll be running it until the end of the game in all likelihood  I managed some late game success with navies as the commonwealth, but by that time I had extensive coastlines in the Baltic and black seas and a few provinces along the Pacific, almost all of them with the +4fl building alongside quantity. Managed to sink the ottomann, Spanish and papal navies, but like you said an efficient player navy should be league's ahead of what the ai builds anyway. The only positive to light ship combat ability is if you have a big trade fleet in an area with lots of minor naval powers. It's like an automated hunter-killer stack once the big guns have sunk. Naval's been a big deal in this game in a way I've never dealt with before because my economy's been crap for most of it, my armies are crap and my territory is so poor and expansive I couldn't really get good fort coverage. My only hope against European majors has been to sink their transports before they land, and most of my early peaces/losses were forced by a loss of naval superiority. Throwing 50 000+ at a single well led French stack of 24 and still losing is a hell of a thing. Looking forward to a (hopefully) successful finish and a relaxing game to get Better than Napolean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 08:44
|
|