|
Naval maintenance was at 100% and the tech was too early for there to be a new form of galley. Every single thing that could be wrong wasn't, and yet it still managed to be the worst outcome possible.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Bad dice rolls, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Why is the warn function in the game. I feel it only exists to make hard starts even harder. You can only use it on countries way weaker than you so there's absolutely no reason to ever use it as a player except to randomly get drug into wars when that tiny country manages to get a big ally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Considering what they have done for Poland and England's governments, plus the special religious stuff in the Americas, I could definitely see them continuing to give major historical countries special government types in new expansions. The Turks and Muslims in general, hordes, and China all could use some extra flavor that would add to the game as a whole even if the player was not playing those countries (like Poland's government works). I would love to see a Turkish succession crisis every succession because they add historical flavor to it...let outsiders support one faction (one of the dead sultan's sons) while he vies for power with his brothers. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
TTBF posted:Naval maintenance was at 100% and the tech was too early for there to be a new form of galley. The galley from the end of the game is only like 3 times more effective than one from the start, that wouldn't be a factor with those numbers. I just checked though, and the coast of Olga is outside of the starting Ming supply range. You'd probably just eaten attrition for a while and ended up having really low health. They attacked you, so they definitely thought they had favorable odds, and that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that'd make them think that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The galley from the end of the game is only like 3 times more effective than one from the start, that wouldn't be a factor with those numbers. They didn't attack me on purpose. They were locked into moving into the Coast of Olga and got there days after I did. Like I said, I started that battle at 100% durability for all my ships. At one point I rolled a 6 and they rolled a 0 and I did no damage. I don't know what's up but I've never seen this before so I'm going to assume it's just a one off bug. A really, really funny one off bug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Why is the warn function in the game. I feel it only exists to make hard starts even harder. You can only use it on countries way weaker than you so there's absolutely no reason to ever use it as a player except to randomly get drug into wars when that tiny country manages to get a big ally. It's got its uses. When I wanted to force-vassalize Flanders as France, I warned a couple of Dutch minors who had claims on Flander's land. Kept them from attempting to annex my future vassal until I was in a position to declare on Flanders. It is pretty niche though, and I only used it because IIRC I couldn't guarantee Flanders for some reason (probably their development level but I don't remember).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Deutsch Nozzle posted:It's got its uses. When I wanted to force-vassalize Flanders as France, I warned a couple of Dutch minors who had claims on Flander's land. Kept them from attempting to annex my future vassal until I was in a position to declare on Flanders. Revoking a guarantee generates a truce, that's probably why you didn't guarantee Flanders. Bort Bortles posted:This is hilarious and have no loving clue. The problem is that if they put in some kind of "Emperor doesn't defend against outsiders in wars with CB X" rule, then anybody playing Poland or France or Sweden would exploit that rule and be able to take the HRE land if they're willing to eat the diplo & AE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Revoking a guarantee generates a truce, that's probably why you didn't guarantee Flanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
I do hope they eventually enhance the AI's smarts when it comes to how much they want to contribute to a war. Like the earlier in the game it is (tech?), the less willing the AI is to send its entire army half-way across the map to some fight they have no real dog in. Or some other improvements? It's just weird and frustrating when you (as Muscovy) declare war on Novgorod and friggin' England strips their island bare and has 40,000 troops marching around in Russia attacking Moscow in 1450.  Maybe give the AI some other ways to help? Like instead of sending their entire army they send war subsidies or something? That might be an interesting feature where you can, as an ally, commit a certain amount of war subsidies for the duration of the war (can't easily cancel without breaking alliance) but don't actually enter as a combatant. I guess part of it is also the 'All or Nothing' nature of war in the game. It's probably too complex for a DLC, but maybe in a sequel or something I'd like to see some sort of scale of war escalation. Like in a minor war you can only attack the province the CB involves and the adjacent provinces, stepping up through several levels to the current TOTAL WAR EVERYWHERE. Either side can 'escalate' the war up a level with various costs/penalties/bonuses (like being able to call allies, the allies willingness to contribute, etc). Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I do hope they eventually enhance the AI's smarts when it comes to how much they want to contribute to a war. Like the earlier in the game it is (tech?), the less willing the AI is to send its entire army half-way across the map to some fight they have no real dog in. Or some other improvements? edit:I would find that more enjoyable because I hate that wars are all or nothing and I have to take max warscore and a ton of AE every war because I had to 100% occupy the wartarget just to get ANY concessions. Common Sense tuned that down a little but it definitely could use some work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
What's worse is the AI, as France or Poland, saying they'll join your war against Austria only to watch you in silence as you get your poo poo stomped. I am pretty glad that you can take capital provinces now without needing to encircle though. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:What's worse is the AI, as France or Poland, saying they'll join your war against Austria only to watch you in silence as you get your poo poo stomped. It's the closest they get to human behaviour, savour it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
So here's a fun thing to do. Ternate and Tidore start as Animist and have a pretty excellent NI set with +3 trade goods on each island to make them deceptively strong OPM starts. Since you've got sizable Hindu and Sunni neighbors, it's pretty easy to convert yourself to Hindu. Note that religious decisions do NOT get removed when you convert, so an Animist -> Hindu convert owning at least one Sunni province (easy to do in your position) has access to the following decisions: Encourage Divination, Religious Sacrifices, Vision Quest, Ritual Education nets you +2% Missionary Strength, -10% Stability Cost, -1 RR, +1.5 yearly Prestige then after you go Hindu you can get -6% tech cost, +2% Missionary Strength (+0.5% more in exchange for -2 Heathen Tolerance), choice of -1 RR or -10% stability depending on sect chosen You could conceivably then convert to Sunni and stack all of the per-ruler decisions on top of those. I'd say it's up for debate whether staying Hindu or converting again to Sunni would be the better option. Anyway it's not too difficult of a start with great NIs and once you get rolling you can grab silly amounts of bonuses by converting to neighboring religions. Only significant downside is if you want to get the Spice achievement for forming Malaya you'll need to culture convert. Edit: like if you could somehow go Pagan -> Hindu -> Shiite that would be a powergaming wet dream. Maybe Oirat could pull that off? I only really mention it because Ternate/Tidore needs to expand into the Hindus and Sunnis anyway, so it's convenient for them. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I would love it if I could declare a limited war with my declaration of war declaring what I will take if I win. Then the warscore derived from battles and occupying land could scale with how much my war is for and how willing someone would be to sail/march across the continent to help their ally. E.g. France and the Ottomans fighting a Total War in 1465 because the Ottomans declared war on France's ally Venice for x, could instead turn into France sending subsidies to Venice because mobilizing their entire military and marching it to Greece isnt worth it if the Ottomans are only claiming Negroponte. I really like the CKII system, where you declare what you're going to take and then can force a peace once you take it/smash the enemies armies a few times. It wouldn't be suited to port straight over, but using it as a basis for some sort of limited war system would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Take the Hindu decisions and then go Sikh
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Ternate/Tidore are probably the easiest OPMs in the game, you fight a couple of "tough" fights in southeast asia and then you're free to colonize the entire world with your super early colonist and the license to print ducats the spice island modifier gives you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Always stay pagan.  What exactly does the +25% garrison number in Quantity do? Increases the number of people who need to siege or extending the time somehow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:Take the Hindu decisions and then go Sikh Or just stay Hindu because it's really easy to get +2 to one monarch stat which makes it the objectively best religion especially with the other decent bonuses. I've posted about it a few times lately but Khmer can also abuse religion swapping, if you go up to +1 stab on day 1 you can take the Buddhist +2% missionary chance decision before going Hindu. E: My lovely 0/0/1 monarch died in the middle of my first mega war with OE as Karaman, the regency council was 1/2/3 and the heir is 6/6/3 and actually managed to live 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Poil posted:Always stay pagan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Zettace posted:When you assault a fort you have to defeat the garrison. Thus increasing the number makes it more costly to assault it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Poil posted:Ah, thanks. That's really situational then? I'm also pretty sure that +Garrison Size also increases the minimum size of the siege stack needed to siege it, correct? It's +Garrison Growth that is kind of terrible IMO
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I'm also pretty sure that +Garrison Size also increases the minimum size of the siege stack needed to siege it, correct? Yeah if I recall right it's minimum size of siege stack = 3x the size of the garrison. Makes a really big difference to how much of your army a fort will tie up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I'm also pretty sure that +Garrison Size also increases the minimum size of the siege stack needed to siege it, correct? I dunno, the AI tends to like assaulting a whole bunch, especially if the fort is low strength at the time. Forts too low on strength don't even get their bonuses, so regaining the garrison quickly can be pretty good. For the like 25% at least, the like 10% growth some ideas get seem pretty pointless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
The number of troops needed to siege is only dependent on fort level. Increasing fort level increases the number of garrisoned troops (making it harder to Assault), but I don't think the opposite is true. I'll check in a bit when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's 3x the fort level and not the garrison size. Increasing the fort level does add +1000 extra garrison though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
VDay posted:The number of troops needed to siege is only dependent on fort level. Increasing fort level increases the number of garrisoned troops (making it harder to Assault), but I don't think the opposite is true. I'll check in a bit when I get home. From what I can tell, the number of troops needed to siege is dependent on garrison size, which is usually based on fort level. If you un-mothball a fort and it has a garrison size of like 50-100 dudes, a 1 stack can siege it. Something I noticed but wasn't able to nail down is that if not enough time goes by on a fort that was recently activated it seems to siege much faster. Not sure if it needs a month tickover before it starts working. So I attacked an AI -> they activated their forts -> I got a stack there that month and was able to siege out their fort much faster than usual. [edit]: quote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's 3x the fort level and not the garrison size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Yeah you were right; if you get the fort before its first tickover it'll have 0 men, and you can just siege it down like a regular province. I'm not sure if the 50-100 dudes thing is 'cause it's based on garrison size though, I think there are just some different rules for unreplenished forts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:From what I can tell, the number of troops needed to siege is dependent on garrison size, which is usually based on fort level. If you un-mothball a fort and it has a garrison size of like 50-100 dudes, a 1 stack can siege it. That's only if you start sieging it before a month passes and the fort officially ticks over from mothballed/unoccupied to active/refilling. A fort with 50 dudes in it will take the full time to siege down if you start sieging it on the second day of the month. e: You can also look at the in-game tooltips, they straight up say that # of troops needed to siege is just 3x the fort level. It says that on forts and on army windows IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Are you sure? I think it might be different. In any case you can assault it when it gets a breach with next to no losses whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm not sure if the 50-100 dudes thing is 'cause it's based on garrison size though, I think there are just some different rules for unreplenished forts. Fair enough, that seems reasonable actually. I'm going to see if I can verify whether a depleted garrison can be sieged with a smaller stack than the fort level would usually require, or whether it was a mothballed fort that threw me off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
A mothballed fort that was recently reactivated (and thus has like 100 men) acts like a non-fort province in that it will fall within the first tick, though. Edit: Actually that's probably just the "Defenders Desert" roll that causes the garrison to hit 0 which causes the instant win now that I think about it. Zettace fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
I finally managed to be the first to sail around the world. Tried it a couple of times with three ships but I didn't have enough fleet access so they sank near the end. But fortunately I found a quick solution, by sending nine ships five survived. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Sieges depends on garrison size, not fort level (even tho they obviously correlate). Forts that have less than 100 defenders automatically falls at first progress tick, no matter what that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Sieges depends on garrison size, not fort level (even tho they obviously correlate). Forts that have less than 100 defenders automatically falls at first progress tick, no matter what that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Sieges depends on garrison size, not fort level (even tho they obviously correlate). Forts that have less than 100 defenders automatically falls at first progress tick, no matter what that is. Which is bullshit, I could fend off thousands of troops with 100 men in Dynasty Warriors. EU4 breaks my immersion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Node posted:Which is bullshit, I could fend off thousands of troops with 100 men in Dynasty Warriors. EU4 breaks my immersion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
I am on a mad war spree as Russia and I just had two 10+ regencies in the last 40 years. And then my 20 year old ruler just died with a 6 year old heir....So I am sitting there thanking the RNG for loving me hard again, and then my heir dies...a year later a 5/5/3 Valois noble takes the throne, still full legitimacy. Alright game, carry on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Keep in mind that adding to your garrison size will probably also increase your garrison growth if it works anything like manpower. e; in a poorly planned assault 100 men in a good fort could possibly kill 1000 men
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Sieges depends on garrison size, not fort level (even tho they obviously correlate). Forts that have less than 100 defenders automatically falls at first progress tick, no matter what that is. Siege speed maybe (I'm not 100% sure on the siege phase mechanics and if garrison size is factored into those bonuses) but we're talking about how many men you need to be able to siege various levels of forts and whether fort level is affected by a bigger max garrison size. As you said, a newly activated fort will fall immediately, which is just to make mothballing forts and actual risk so that you can't just always keep them off until the instant you need them to defend a province. Here's a level 4 fort with a 6,000 man max garrison:  And here's a level 6 fort with a 6,000 man max garrison:  And here's 23,000 men being unable to siege a fort with 640 dudes in it because it's been a month since the fort was turned on so now it counts as a fully active level 8 fort and thus needs 24,000 men to siege: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:22
|
|