|
Pellisworth posted:I still like the idea of being able to declare limited wars, where once you achieve your specified (limited) objectives, the AI opponent and allies would be much more willing to negotiate a peace rather than everyone involved fighting an existential all-or-nothing war. It would be very expensive (or impossible) to take things other than your limited demands, in exchange for AI willingness to end a war short of near-100%'ing everyone involved. Yeah EU4 could really benefit from some aspects of how V2 and CK2 work with regards to war goals, especially the AI.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I still like the idea of being able to declare limited wars, where once you achieve your specified (limited) objectives, the AI opponent and allies would be much more willing to negotiate a peace rather than everyone involved fighting an existential all-or-nothing war. It would be very expensive (or impossible) to take things other than your limited demands, in exchange for AI willingness to end a war short of near-100%'ing everyone involved. A limited war goal option would do would be to serve to clutter up the interface and add complexity without any content. Also, the ticking war goal serves as a way for wars to be limited to a specific goal, things outside that goal are typically more expensive, especially with early game CB's. So most wars aren't even existential fighting, the AI will usually peace out after a year or two of fighting if you're just going for what the war is declared for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Anyone know what happens if I allow the Revolution to succeed while I'm the Emperor of the HRE and have revoked the Privilegia? Because I'd like to try out that event chain, but not if I lose 30+ free vassals in the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Shayu posted:A limited war goal option would do would be to serve to clutter up the interface and add complexity without any content. Also, the ticking war goal serves as a way for wars to be limited to a specific goal, things outside that goal are typically more expensive, especially with early game CB's. So most wars aren't even existential fighting, the AI will usually peace out after a year or two of fighting if you're just going for what the war is declared for. The problem is that year or two of fighting will include enough battles to drain nearly every participant of man power, near bankrupt 3 countries and utterly sink 4 navies. All to defend some off culture, off religion, 5 development poo poo hole not even connected to their main holdings. Thats the problem. Now if you want to take something valuable that will destabilise the region and people already think your a dick that may be an appropriate response the problem is that it's the only response.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Shayu posted:A limited war goal option would do would be to serve to clutter up the interface and add complexity without any content. Also, the ticking war goal serves as a way for wars to be limited to a specific goal, things outside that goal are typically more expensive, especially with early game CB's. So most wars aren't even existential fighting, the AI will usually peace out after a year or two of fighting if you're just going for what the war is declared for. Wars in general need more clearly defined goals and quicker resolution of an appropriate peace once it's clear that one side has overwhelmingly achieved its goals. Wars to the death should be declared as such. EU4 needs to find a way to make most wars resolve more quickly and resolve only or primarily for the goals that were declared at the outset. It will never not be gamey to e.g. declare a colonial war on Portugal, get full ticking off of the colony, siege a fort in Europe and take Algarve instead. e: part of the problem is over-specificity of war goals. I shouldn't have to declare a colonial conquest of Bonny. I should be able to declare a colonial conquest of Portuguese West Africa in general. I should be able to get a 100% warscore from occupying all of Portuguese West Africa, even if I don't hold anything else. I should only be able to demand territory inside of that region, but should be free to grab any other non-territorial concession (humiliation, trade power [forced trade power shouldn't take a diplo slot], etc.). This doesn't mean I can't just declare a general "conquer all the poo poo" war on Portugal and take whatever I want. However, by carefully delineating the scope of wars within the code, both the AI and players can determine what the appropriate response level is. Going back to the Africa war, if the entirety of Portuguese West Africa is Bonny, they might not care to defend it at all. It would be pretty easy to calculate a level of "importance" for a war that translates directly to how many men/ducats a country is willing to spend. Eclipse that threshold, and their war enthusiasm is gone. The higher the stakes, the higher the enthusiasm. Essentially, if the AI (or players)know that they can't lose other territory, then they can choose how seriously they want to take a threat. As it stands currently, it is impossible to determine that a war is not worth your time. Even the smallest conflict puts all of your territory on the table. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Shayu posted:So most wars aren't even existential fighting, the AI will usually peace out after a year or two of fighting if you're just going for what the war is declared for. This isn't really my experience, at least in major wars against powerful nations and their allies. I find it's particularly annoying with strong allied nations, for example France. If you declare war on an ally of France, you will either need to: 1) beat the poo poo out of France to force them out of the war, you'll need to siege a few forts and burn through most of their manpower in fights before they'll peace. 2) Mostly occupy your war target for a couple years to rack up war score to get them to accept a peace, meanwhile France is throwing everything they have at you. The worst is if you're trying to annex or vassalize someone, there's a large warscore penalty for being wholly annexed/vassalized. Edit: in that scenario it would make more sense to me for France to become war leader and thus I negotiate a 15% warscore deal with them rather than the OPM I'm trying to annex who won't peace until they're at 75% or whatever. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Has anyone ever done hardcore math to figure out if it is better to control 100% of the provinces in a Trade Company node or if it is better to own 33%-50% and protectorate the rest so they get that sweet +% to good produced, which you then whisk away to your home node? I'd say it's always better to own a province, because then you get 100% of the production value as well. The merchant republic trading bonus just gives you a large percentage, but it can never exceed what you'd get from production unless your trade efficiency is significantly higher than your production efficiency. From a competitive standpoint, it's also better to own the province to prevent the production income from going to your potential enemies. For example, let's consider a node with 2.0 base production for a good which is valued at 5 ducats. That's 10 ducats/year from production before PE is applied. If you have 90% of the trade power share in the node and don't own the province, the trade value gets increased to 19 ducats, of which you would receive 90%, or 17.1 ducats/year before TE is applied. If you DO own the province, you get the full production value plus 90% of the trade value for 19 ducats/year. Again, that's before efficiencies get applied. I did some napkin math, and discovered that if the ratio of your production efficiency to your trade efficiency is greater than the square of your trade share, then it's better to own the province. That being said, the merchant trading bonus is still insanely good because it means you can save a bunch of monarch points from not having to acquire the provinces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I occupied the 4 (Normady, Caux, Gascone, Labourd) English continental holdings that I could reach (could not get access to get to Calais) and could not take all 4 in the peace deal. There just isnt enough warscore even with a full ticking warscore bonus, to take all 4 in the peace deal. Day-one declaring for Caux, occupying the four English provinces, and then eventually winning a pretty terribly-fought (on my part war) with England that flattened both of our manpowers, led to huge mercenary armies, and put us both deeply into debt got me Normandy, Caux, Gascone, and Labourd in a single war (I think the peace was probably 1452 or 1453?). This was earlier in the week, so it should be up-to-date with the current patch. Your screenshot shows you demanding Calais too. Without the 14% warscore for Calais it should be doable? Pellisworth posted:Edit: in that scenario it would make more sense to me for France to become war leader and thus I negotiate a 15% warscore deal with them rather than the OPM I'm trying to annex who won't peace until they're at 75% or whatever. This brings back memories of cascading war leaders and calls to arm when Divine Wind came out and the insane thunderdome that basically the entire world became by about 1410. What a time to be playing these games 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I occupied the 4 (Normady, Caux, Gascone, Labourd) English continental holdings that I could reach (could not get access to get to Calais) and could not take all 4 in the peace deal. There just isnt enough warscore even with a full ticking warscore bonus, to take all 4 in the peace deal. Also, I can't see, does England have any allies? If so, that'll lower your warscore percentage from holding those provinces. Knocking out/white peacing an ally or two will help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
So, this is a new situation for me. And of course my ruler is a 52 year old woman, so I doubt I'm going to be getting an heir in time.  In CK2 I know the game is over... what happens in EU4? Do I end up playing whoever wins the succession war?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
You end up in a personal union beneath the winner, from where you just declare independence and carry on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:The problem is that year or two of fighting will include enough battles to drain nearly every participant of man power, near bankrupt 3 countries and utterly sink 4 navies. All to defend some off culture, off religion, 5 development poo poo hole not even connected to their main holdings. This is by far my biggest issue with EUIV. I don't know what the solution is, but I feel like I'd like a way to have wars start 'limited' and allow either side to 'step them up' (a big like escalating V2 crises) depending various factors and with various costs and benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
War is wonderfully done in CK2, since each war has a very specific goal, and the reward for that goal is just that. Of course, CK2 is an entirely different game. I wonder if, in the future, you could have more specific CBs, like laying claim to a region. You get normal warscore for occupying that region, and provinces outside that region are much more expensive to negotiate for. That just might not be within the scope of EU4, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Lori posted:You end up in a personal union beneath the winner, from where you just declare independence and carry on with your life. That... is way less eventful then I thought. Good to know though, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Finagle posted:So, this is a new situation for me. Ever since Women in History you have a not-terrible chance to find/appoint a female relative as an heir to avoid a personal union or regency. It saved my Ottomans WC many times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Are there any easy ways to turn the Ottomans into a republic? I'm trying to get 0% accepted culture threshold, and I need a plutocratic policy to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:This is by far my biggest issue with EUIV. You could do something like declare at the choose CB screen the tier of war you are planning to wage, like a "10% warscore war to take back Picardie" or "100% warscore war to take back Picardie", with the percent war score determining how many (if any) allies can be brought in. You could break your promise and go higher in the eventual victory, raising your AE like nuts, or alternatively go lower and lose power projection/monarch point production or something for having humiliated yourself. Obviously there are a lot of issues that would need to be worked out, but some sort of system that allows neighboring powers to fight small wars without dragging in all their alliances would be nice. Anyway this is probably a dumb idea but it's the first thing that leapt to mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:You could do something like declare at the choose CB screen the tier of war you are planning to wage, like a "10% warscore war to take back Picardie" or "100% warscore war to take back Picardie", with the percent war score determining how many (if any) allies can be brought in. You could break your promise and go higher in the eventual victory, raising your AE like nuts, or alternatively go lower and lose power projection/monarch point production or something for having humiliated yourself. Obviously there are a lot of issues that would need to be worked out, but some sort of system that allows neighboring powers to fight small wars without dragging in all their alliances would be nice. Maybe the region system will help. It would become possible to declare e.g. "The French reconquest of all French lands in the French region" which would allow you to get 100% warscore from holding just England's continental holdings, but also would allow you to only demand those continental holdings. Leapfrogging onto Britain by releasing Cornwall would be a dead strategy, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
If they scale down warfare, then they'll need to seriously scale up peacetime options. As it stands peace is just waiting for your manpower, birdpower, and goldpower to recharge. CK2 and Vicky get away with limited wars because there are things to actually do in peacetime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Someone needs to code up a quick program that randomly selects an achievement for you to do that you haven't done yet. I've done 63% of them. I can't decide which one to do next. Bengal Tiger, maybe? Is Humanist the easy first choice for that? African Power? The Iron Price? The Three Moulol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Mygna posted:Anyone know what happens if I allow the Revolution to succeed while I'm the Emperor of the HRE and have revoked the Privilegia? Because I'd like to try out that event chain, but not if I lose 30+ free vassals in the process. Last I knew, once the title of Emperor is hereditary, the only way to change the owner of the title is for the previous title owner to be completely annexed. You should keep the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire despite being a republic. That said, if this is an ironman game I wouldn't risk it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Kalos posted:If they scale down warfare, then they'll need to seriously scale up peacetime options. As it stands peace is just waiting for your manpower, birdpower, and goldpower to recharge. CK2 and Vicky get away with limited wars because there are things to actually do in peacetime. Pie in the sky time... Maybe peace time can be spent creating casus bellis? It still seems like "fabricate claim" is just a crutch to work around the fact that you can't normally fight each other much, but the game is about fighting. If casus bellis were more diverse and more complex, then maybe building them could be a game. E.g. even though the "remove the English from France"-equivalent casus belli is pretty useful, if you set out to create a casus belli between england and france, it's not guaranteed to yield that. Maybe you could have a competitive game where you try to create a crisis and they try to defuse a crisis using diplomats, or even bringing in third parties, replete with events, bribes, etc. "The Duke of Burgundy will endorse your claim on Normandy in exchange for a royal marriage", or code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Last I knew, once the title of Emperor is hereditary, the only way to change the owner of the title is for the previous title owner to be completely annexed. You should keep the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire despite being a republic. That said, if this is an ironman game I wouldn't risk it. I would lean more towards the empire disbanding since it needs a monarch to be emperor, so if you were a republic, the HRE would go poof, even if you revoked the privilegia. But like you said, no way in hell I would risk that in ironman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Node posted:I would lean more towards the empire disbanding since it needs a monarch to be emperor, so if you were a republic, the HRE would go poof, even if you revoked the privilegia. But like you said, no way in hell I would risk that in ironman. If the emperorship is hereditary, it no longer depends on any prerequisite. You retain it if you become a republic / theocracy / heretic / heathen. e: if someone rolled the hereditary monarchy reform back on you while you were ineligible to be the emperor, then you would probably immediately lose the title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
I enforced a PU on Milan, and noticed that my monarch's stats went up. Then the PU broke when I was elected emperor, and upon restoring the union they went up again! Apparently PUing a republic counts as a re-election. Additionally it causes the union to break for more than just monarch death, maybe there's a way to exploit this
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Is there anyway to change the autosave period for ironman? I thought it was possible but may have confused with CK2...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Yeah that's CK2. I think the newest dev diary mentioned that they're moving ironman saves to be quarterly though instead of monthly, which will be nice even if I've gotten used to them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I just finished the game and fully reformed the Empire for the achievement:  Getting the chance to challenge France for a PU over Hungary-Lithuania shortly after becoming the Emperor as Prussia completely destroyed any remaining challenge. Though even before that I won every battle even when outnumbered 2:1, because Prussia has ridiculous super-soldiers: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:If the emperorship is hereditary, it no longer depends on any prerequisite. You retain it if you become a republic / theocracy / heretic / heathen. But republics and theocracies aren't hereditary forms of succession! Only monarchies are. I have no idea what would really happen in the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I dont think they would need Revanchism if every war was not a war to the death. If I could take England's continental holdings as France without needing to invade the island, or take Negroponte from Venice without needing to invade the island, thus in both cases likely utterly destroying my opponent -sapping them of manpower and funds- then we would not need revanchism. I really agree with this. Every war in EUIV, even wars over stupid things like Diplomatic Insults are wars to the DEATH. Fighting the entire Kalmar Union for Orkney is the silliest thing ever - I can imagine the Danish King sitting in Copenhagen,screaming at the English messenger "YOU'LL HAVE TO PRY THIS WORTHLESS ISLAND FROM MY COLD, DEAD, FINGERS!!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Node posted:But republics and theocracies aren't hereditary forms of succession! Only monarchies are. The title of emperor of the HRE is what becomes hereditary though, so it doesn't matter what the emperor's government type is, whoever becomes ruler of said nation also inherits being Emperor of the HRE, so you can switch to a republic and still be emperor forever. I did it with the Netherlands in a game last patch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Node posted:But republics and theocracies aren't hereditary forms of succession! Only monarchies are. I have been a dutch republic emperor before. Once you go hereditary emperorship, heredity ceases to matter, through the magic of Erbkaisertum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
One thing that really pisses me off is how the AI loves to demand provinces in peace deals that it doesn't have claims on. This is especially annoying where, say, you declared a Subjugate CB from a mission on a 2PM or something and you called your ally to build trust except they occupied the capital and won't transfer occupation so now you either sit and wait for your fucktarded ally to give up that random province they don't have a claim on or just white peace out and try later. With the recent changes this gets even more frustrating if they can't actually core it even if they did take it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
VDay posted:The title of emperor of the HRE is what becomes hereditary though, so it doesn't matter what the emperor's government type is, whoever becomes ruler of said nation also inherits being Emperor of the HRE, so you can switch to a republic and still be emperor forever. I did it with the Netherlands in a game last patch. Ah, that makes sense. Dibujante posted:I have been a dutch republic emperor before This makes even more sense. Dutch Republic Goku-Tier government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Pie in the sky time... This. Just for fun I decided to see what the game played like if I just disabled the Conquest CB, and holy poo poo is it ever way more interesting. CBs mean more, since you can't just fabricate them on all of your neighbors. When somebody insults you, by god you get angry. What I'd actually have preferred to do is just remove the fabrication of claims, while leaving event claims and the Conquest CB, but I couldn't see an easy way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Node posted:Someone needs to code up a quick program that randomly selects an achievement for you to do that you haven't done yet. I've done 63% of them. I can't decide which one to do next. Bengal Tiger, maybe? Is Humanist the easy first choice for that? African Power? The Iron Price? The Three Moulol. I hate to sound like a broken record on you Node but just like Ethiopia Exploration is the pro first pick for Bengal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Pie in the sky time... This would be incredibly boring. Adding more obstacles to playing the game sounds terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I hate to sound like a broken record on you Node but just like Ethiopia Exploration is the pro first pick for Bengal. God drat it, you're right. And Indonesia won't be distant overseas. Why isn't that the first idea (heh  ) to pop into my head?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
 Guess the France AI didn't quite realise that challenging the PU meant attacking a HRE member and bringing in Austria with its allies. Also, the one time in absolute ages I luck into a random PU its when I'm playing a casually overpowered Brandenburg/Prussia game where I don't actually need it. Still, should be fun even if I doubt I'll ever be able to annex Muscovy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
I had a babbys first world conquest game with France this week, and near the end there was the stupidest PU threat I have ever seen: The country holding the inheritable emperorship, owner of all Turkey and most of India, liege lord of Muscovy that extends from Neva to the Pacific, is at danger of going into PU under Riga, still an OPM as usual. The royal Kennedy family of the Scottish USA would be there contest this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 18:48
|
|