|
I don't care if the Ottomans are weak, this still feels pretty drat good. Now I'm Ottomans 2: Rum Boogaloo.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Even as a non-horde you can pretty consistently stack wipe equal tech armies if you have a full front line of cavalry. The difference is insane. It could be nice if there was a button on armies that would toggle between current behavior and trying to deploy as much cavalry as possible. There's already a bunch of buttons nobody uses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:It's almost as if EU4 combat is an incredibly obtuse and incomprehensible mess and needs revamped. quote:It's absolutely a good game but many of us who have been playing since launch are getting tired of the DLC model. quote:The combat system is a good example-- it's very complex, needlessly so, and based on rolling actual physical dice because EU started as an adaptation of a board game. Maybe you're just really pissed off at the way Paradox does DLC or something, I think we get it!! I'm still enjoying the combat and for me EU4 is more fun the past 3-6 months than it has been in quite a while, pretty happy with the latest changes. I still would like to see a way to automate armies for huge empires / lategame. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Looking for advice for my first real Ironman run. The early 17th century and late 16th was a strange and good time for France and Europe. Brief highlights, in not strictly chronological order: 1) I goofed on a GP intervention and joined the League War on the wrong (Catholic) side, turning an endless Austria-Ottoman hellwar into a roflstomp. While France is Catholic too, I wanted the HRE weakened more than I wanted my faith to prevail. See also Louis XIII and XIV. 2) I got a Valois on the Commonwealth throne just in time for them to abandon elective monarchy. 3) The Reformation was an essentially German affair; the Catholics winning thoroughly screwed up the HRE. 4) This led to a disastrous consequence: Commonwealh became Emperor and promptly put everything up to the gates of Moscow into the Empire. They seem to have a lock on the spot, turning my natural friend and ally into serious problem (and probably the largest duchy I’ve ever seen). 5) I found myself unable to plink away at Germany without facing an Austria-Commonwealth alliance. 6) Through a bizarre stroke of luck, I PU’d Spain in 1616. 7) Through an even more bizarre stroke of luck, an event gave me a 6/6/6 princess after my King was ready to retire. Adélaïde Ier, l’Imperatrice Soleil, has ruled France for the last 36! years and I am rolling in MP. 8) With my ambitions in Germany and Spain thwarted by friendship and powerful foes, I attempted colonialism but had gotten into the party way too late. I gave up on Exploration after bringing the true light of French civilization to Greenland. 9) I have filled out la France to its historical borders, except for Sundgau, which I look upon with envy. I’ve spent the last 100 years or so taking over all of the provinces of Northern Italy, and am now beating up the Pope to gain control of Tuscany. The Papal States is all that separates French territories in Italy from Spanish territories in Italy. So I’m now wondering: what next? It’s just turned 1666, so I can integrate Spain. I’ve got about 1600 development, and they have around 700. Problem is, integration is going to cost me about 3500 DIP. Do you folks think I should do it? The big powers are myself, Ottomans, Russia and Ming, with everyone else in Europe looking somewhat smaller but non-European powers doing quite well. What do you suppose my next move should be? I am coveting the Low Countries, but unless I can get Russia to change it’s mind on the whole rivalry thing I’d have trouble with essentially the entirety of Germany, Austria plus Commonwealth and Netherlands coming at me all at once. My French soldiers are pretty good. 128% discipline, full professionalism, full drill (which never lasts long), full quantity, quality and offensive. I have about 200k of them. If I was playing non-Ironman, I’d kick off the war and revert if it turned out I was a moron who couldn’t handle it, but in Ironman I feel a bit more cautious. I do have Spain and maybe Denmark-Norway backing me up, but I don’t trust their competence. Final comment: I am just getting savaged by full professionalism events. They’ve been overwhelmingly negative. “Hey, how about you lose another 50,000 men integrating the militias for the fifth time! And now we’re short of officers! And let’s have you lose ducats once again preventing them from taking jobs, because your army that’s been at 100% professional for three generations keeps forgetting...” e: to keep cultures down, I split Ligurian and Piedmontese beteeen Lombard and Occitan but I am still at 3 accepted cultures: Lombard, Romagnan and Venetian. Annexing Spain would put me way over the limit, even if I wiped out Venetian. Lombard is probably too big to get rid of now. I think I have about 17 extra states, so Spain should be doable from that perspective. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Detheros posted:I don't care if the Ottomans are weak, this still feels pretty drat good. What was your strategy for this? I'm not exactly having difficulties but the Ottomans don't seem to be having trouble in any of my games so far and the Mamluks always seem to be wildly behind on mil tech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:What was your strategy for this? I'm not exactly having difficulties but the Ottomans don't seem to be having trouble in any of my games so far and the Mamluks always seem to be wildly behind on mil tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFv9yo04yjA
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
For some reason I didn't even consider allying Hungary etc., though I did consider the truce break. Weirdly he didn't seem to get warned by the OE (which happens to me every single time) and so was able to take some of Dulkadir's provinces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
"Inquisitor, I have found the heretics!" "How many heretics?" "...all of them." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
So I just got the "recently broke a promise to give land" thing even though I did actually give land. Did they make it so that you actually have to give the 'correct' amount of land in order to avoid this penalty?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:So I just got the "recently broke a promise to give land" thing even though I did actually give land. Did they make it so that you actually have to give the 'correct' amount of land in order to avoid this penalty? Yes, you need to give out land proportional to war participation. If you hover over their flag in the peace deal screen, it should tell you how they feel about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
This has been a thing since Cossacks. The AI wants their fair share if you promise them land. If you let them do all the heavy lifting and then take most of the rewards for yourself, they're gonna be pissed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:This has been a thing since Cossacks. The AI wants their fair share if you promise them land. If you let them do all the heavy lifting and then take most of the rewards for yourself, they're gonna be pissed. Which is kinda irritating, since the measure of war participation seems to be "manpower lost". So if the AI parks huge stacks taking attrition for no reason as the AI tends to do, it drives their participation through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I'm pretty sure attrition does not count toward war participation. Sieges do, however. So you may be seeing them get lots of war participation through sieges and they also happen to be losing loads of manpower to attrition in the process because they're morons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:This has been a thing since Cossacks. The AI wants their fair share if you promise them land. If you let them do all the heavy lifting and then take most of the rewards for yourself, they're gonna be pissed. There have been several additions to this mechanic since it was introduced and you could previously avoid most of the penalties associated with not giving territory by giving just a single province. An AI wouldn't break their alliance unless you went below 30 trust, and you wouldn't get the "can't call in allies with promises of land" penalty unless you actually gave 0 provinces to someone that you had promised territory to. But this whole mechanic is so dumb in terms of how war participation is calculated that people generally just try to exploit the gently caress out of it since it seems to be based on how badly you cripple yourself during a war and doesn't actually measure how meaningful your contribution was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I'm pretty sure attrition does not count toward war participation. Sieges do, however. So you may be seeing them get lots of war participation through sieges and they also happen to be losing loads of manpower to attrition in the process because they're morons. Personally I suspect that "sieges" might calculate in such a way that it matches up with the loads of attrition. Sticking 20 dudes on one province equating the same on two 10 stack sieges going on in the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
The Austrians control a province in the middle of the Netherlands. It has had 150,000 Dutch rebels on it for roughly a century. What is going on
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Which is kinda irritating, since the measure of war participation seems to be "manpower lost". So if the AI parks huge stacks taking attrition for no reason as the AI tends to do, it drives their participation through the roof. Sieges actually contribute a lot to war participation, especially victorious sieges, and especially especially victorious sieges that provide a lot of warscore (such as winning a capital siege). Likewise, blockades provide a good amount of war participation, seemingly because of how much warscore they provide The percentage of your force limit being used in the war also seems to matter, so that a small nation moving 10k troops around can have the same participation as a big nation moving 100k troops around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:The Austrians control a province in the middle of the Netherlands. It has had 150,000 Dutch rebels on it for roughly a century. What is going on Probably an edge case where the rebel faction is unable to enforce their demands (Netherland independence) for military access or other reasons, so they exist indefinitely. Why do you hate the Paradox DLC model??
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I have seen several distinct cases of rebels glitching out in the Netherlands. Sometimes they all stack up on one province. Once I've seen them marching back and forth endlessly on the border with France without actually occupying any territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
funny rebel poo poo? ok. i refused to give anyone access to kill these guys. that was the last screenshot i took of them, but i left them there until about 1740, before ming got through in a war and wiped them
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Would be cool in a case like that where they would just break apart and form a Peasant Republic
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
I've decided to use the Steam sale to pick up a bunch of DLC I was missing (up to Rights of Man, I guess, Mandate of Heaven is 33% off instead of 50% and from the OP it doesn't look really necessary) and get back into the game after a couple of years of not playing. What's the newbie country recommendation nowadays? Usually it was Spain, but I'd rather not play another colonization game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Muscovy (especially if you have Third Rome)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:What's the newbie country recommendation nowadays? Usually it was Spain, but I'd rather not play another colonization game. My newbie recs are France or Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Yeah if you don’t want to worry about colonies the Ottomans is probably the best easy start, even with the current patch having weakened them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Ottoman start is significantly tougher than it used to be. Not just because of the loss of the Anatolian cores, but also because the beyliks and other minor countries in the region tend to seek alliances your rivals, the Mamluks in particular. I'm not certain I'd recommend them for a new player anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Did they really warrant such a change? The Ottos are supposed to be the counterweight to Europe, even historically. And didn't they subjugate the Mamluks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Brandenburg might be a good non-colonizing newbie country. At the least, it'll teach you about overextension. The Pope might also be good, as long as you know ahead of time that the Italians are going to lose imperial protection in about 40-50 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Did they really warrant such a change? The Ottos are supposed to be the counterweight to Europe, even historically. And didn't they subjugate the Mamluks? I don't think it was on purpose, except the removal of the Anatolian cores. They just have a harder time with their weaker troops and run out of manpower quicker. On the plus side, Karaman is kind of an easy start now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Did they really warrant such a change? The Ottos are supposed to be the counterweight to Europe, even historically. And didn't they subjugate the Mamluks? Europe has always been its own counterweight, they don't need the help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
I think the Ottoman nerf was kind of necessary with some of the new benefits that Muslims get now. They are still scary but if they fail early on and let the Mamluks expand then it's a downward spiral. In my current Mamluks game the Ottomans were expanding rapidly until I pulled off an unlikely victory against them, then the Europeans started ganging up on them and forcing them to return cores to Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Europe has always been its own counterweight, they don't need the help. To Russia, then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Yeah the Mamluks are scarier than ottomans now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
They really are, their military is pretty weak at first but the Cairo area is very easy to develop, especially with scholars from a friendly Tunis, and the +2 admin makes it easier to gobble up and core the neighboring minors. So I think an important part of an ottoman strategy would be to follow historic example and crush them early on (in MP at least since I don't think the AI knows how to dev dump for institutions).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Mamluks existing forever and being consistently at least equal in power to Ottomans throughout the game may just be the silliest thing that has been added to EU4, even sillier than the indestructible Ming god-empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Every game I've had so fart the Ottomans expand normally, except every one in awhile they don't eat into europe as much. I've yet to see AI mamluks win against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
oddium posted:ahhhhh i wish i could see europe so badly  scotland  e: teutonic order formed prussia and then got crushed by a migrating lubeck oddium fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
With this new patch it seems England doesn't always gobble up Scotland and Ireland, in my game Scotland is actually slowly eating them and Ireland is fiercely independent. Also in my previous game USA broke free from England in 1700 or so, maybe even earlier. I like it when England fails, for some reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
skasion posted:Mamluks existing forever and being consistently at least equal in power to Ottomans throughout the game may just be the silliest thing that has been added to EU4, even sillier than the indestructible Ming god-empire. All I've learned about them has come from an episode of In Our Time, but according the historians on that, the Mamluks getting wiped out was really not an inevitability at all. It makes a lot of sense for a Middle East expansion so we actually get to see the mechanics for the new nations for a while, and I do like how varied everything is there now, but I think I will miss mega-Ottomans. It's nice to have a genuine end boss in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
TorakFade posted:I like it when England fails, for some reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:57
|
|
