|
Weyd posted:I remember reading something about Japan getting to keep its vassal swarm mechanics after being formed in 1.29 . Was that ever a thing or am I dreaming this up? It was never a thing. The devs seem very dedicated to keeping "form Japan" a dumb trap decision. And then gating a ton of missions behind it.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
So the Spain dlc patch made colonial nations not convert. So if you don't want nahuatl and mayan Mexico until 1821 in a Spain game, you have to buy the Islam dlc, that allows you to convert vassal territory. Cordoba's revenge or terrible dlc policy? You decide. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
It's mostly just the missionary cost going way up, so your colonial nation doesn't spend money on it given that it doesnt hurt their unity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Yeah I think if you hand them subsidies they'll usually do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 20:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah I think if you hand them subsidies they'll usually do it. I'll try that. It doesn't hurt my game but man it is bizarre that the conquistador bulldozer goes full kumbaya after hitting five provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
I'm hoping this is the last DLC for EUIV and one of the secret teams is working away on EUV the way CK3 has apparently been under production for several years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Also I'm pretty loving disappointed that there is not incoming change for conditional access or the general AI propensity for pisscoward suicide sieges. Current game: Austria supports Sweden vs. Denmark. War results: Denmark takes most of Sweden. Austria takes most of Denmark. Denmark takes most of Austria. Austria murders danes in Austria while Sweden retakes homeland for the win. Austria had no hope of ever moving into Copenhagen or Sweden proper and turning the tide, and Sweden was war leader, but ved Gud... those forts... e: also warscore and war goals need a complete relook. I'd honestly rather get an EU5 cuz CK2 is in a way better state than this dumpster fire. EU4 works as a more interesting version of Risk in MP and nothing else. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jan 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Honestly after finishing up a CK2 campaign, it is absolutely insane how much nicer wars feel (with the exception of Crusades maybe). Holding the war goal actually matters, taking forts in the rear end end of nowhere does not, wars routinely end in less than 5 years without one side getting wiped out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
who can forget the famous venetian siege of dublin that decided the hundred years war, even as 100k austrians and french sat starving in the alps to war for venice while the entire english army ignored france and invaded scotland and lithuania.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
Does the capstone from Maritime Ideas that lets ships repair in coastal zones negate the attrition from the new coastal forts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
Looking at the EUIV Achievments I see Austria is have 3 PUs and it's called "The Pen Is Mightier." And I was like, I don't get it and then today...I was like OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH I get it after looking at the icon. it's me, I am the dumb one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Looking at the EUIV Achievments I see Austria is have 3 PUs and it's called "The Pen Is Mightier." It's alright. Warriors do not read books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Looking at the EUIV Achievments I see Austria is have 3 PUs and it's called "The Pen Is Mightier." I wasted a pretty penny on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Looking at the EUIV Achievments I see Austria is have 3 PUs and it's called "The Pen Is Mightier." You're sitting on a gold mine there, Austria.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Poil posted:Does the capstone from Maritime Ideas that lets ships repair in coastal zones negate the attrition from the new coastal forts? Yepp
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yepp 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
It's a rule in my games that whenever I play anywhere near Ming, they'll be an unstoppable monolith by themselves unless I do something, and will implode every single time I don't really care about the area. Similarly, whenever I start a "chill, relaxed, tall play for achievements" I will be showered with PUs. Like my last Bohemia run for the Bohemiens achievement: got a PU on Portugal (had to fight Spain for it) and not even 20 years later I got a PU on Spain; this time, had to fight France. France that had a royal marriage with me. And what do you know: at the end of the war, their King died and yep: a z Podebrad ascends to the French throne. I ONLY WANTED TO CONQUER PALE  Next run is going to be Gold Rush - any good strategies? From the looks of it, it's similar to playing Kazan and murdering Muscovy immediately, only you have a timer to get everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Next run is going to be Gold Rush - any good strategies? From the looks of it, it's similar to playing Kazan and murdering Muscovy immediately, only you have a timer to get everything. YMMV but I saved Muscovy for last, I had enough favors with the Ottomans by that point to call them in and they were happy to help. I would definitely get the Ottoman alliance as soon as you can, it was easy with their help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Yeah I've seen a lot of guides say that you need to shiv Muscovy as soon as possible, but IME you'll just get curbstomped by their massive manpower and vassal swarm. Take Crimea and Ryazan first, start building alliances with Ottomans and Poland, and build yourself up while cutting off Muscovy's avenues of expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
I did Muscovy first when they attacked Novgorod and I had military tech 4 advantage. I only fought their troops on the steppes, but was pretty in debt from mercs by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
I highly recommend taking Ryazan's fort or just vassalizing them. The AI will be drawn to it like a moth to a flame and it's on flat terrain so you can get your sweet, sweet horde shock bonus for all the big fights. Plan your wars with Muscovy so that you declare on them while they're busy with Novgorod so their manpower gets sapped by all that frozen wasteland. Just keep track of their truce timer with Novgorod and do other things until their truce is up. The actual hard part of Gold Rush is getting Crimea. You'll need to restart a few times to get a game where Ottos aren't allied to or overlords of Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
I did Gold Rush as Kazan... found that the gold mine you start with makes it possible to have your economy not totally in the toilet even if you are a horde, so you can afford some periods of peace here and there. The main trick when fighting Muscovy early on seemed to be to realize that it's going to take multiple wars and trying to push for 100% war score is a bad idea... jump them when they're distracted, run around on flat terrain and preferrably kill their smaller stacks at least long enough to trigger the ticking war score, siege down at least one fort and carpet siege as much as you can, and judge when you have enough war score to make it worth signing a peace deal -- take some land and some cash, then do other stuff while the truce lasts, rinse and repeat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
I’m intrigued about this “subscription model” for EU4. There’s still a hilarious amount of DLC I don’t have, plus content packs and music.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
 There we go, Gold Rush with plenty of time to spare. It's not pretty but it doesn't have to be.  Definitely go for Ryazan first, not only to prevent Muscovy from eating them, but also to get Feudalism embraced. Then go for Crimea - if they're allied with the Ottomans, attack one of their other allies and force them to break the alliance. In my game this was Kazan, my rival, which let me humiliate Kazan for some MP and splendor (the age ability that gives +1 to combat on your capitol's terrain is extremely good here). Meanwhile you should be building alliances with Poland or Ottomans, preferably both. Call Poland into your first war against Muscovy for an easy time. If Muscovy conquered Kazan you won't be able to take all the provinces you need, but you'll still have plenty of time. In my game, my second war against Muscovy was actually defensive, with Poland and the Ottomans defending me, so that made it extremely easy to finish. The major thing to keep in mind is that you're not playing for the long term, only for 50 years. Go hog wild with loans and never pay them back, and then when you're at your loan cap start debasing currency. You could even declare bankruptcy after your first war with Muscovy if your alliances are strong enough. Don't bother embracing Renaissance, it's never going to be an issue assuming you can get a not terrible monarch in a reasonable time frame. The only tech you actually need is MIL. ADM and DIP should be spent on coring and war exhaustion. Raise autonomy on all your conquered provinces and give them to your tribes, since all you need from them is manpower. Really it's not that hard as long as you're not planning to play past 1500.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:
Yeah but once you form Golden Horde (or Mongol Empire) you have to do the Great Khan achievement. It's the law. Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m intrigued about this “subscription model” for EU4. There’s still a hilarious amount of DLC I don’t have, plus content packs and music. What do they mean 'We are approaching this in a data-driven way, somewhat related to what we did in CK2 a few years back'? I don't think I'd pay a monthly subscription unless it was cheaper than buying the DLC directly (I assume consistent revenue would be a fair tradeoff for a discount but I'm not a bean counter)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Yeah but once you form Golden Horde (or Mongol Empire) you have to do the Great Khan achievement. It's the law. I have no idea what they mean, obviously, but I tend to play EU in spurts of embarrassing numbers of hours and then not touch it for ages, which makes the current DLC policy extraordinarily frustrating. If I could drop a reasonable fee for a month or two and get the full package, then cancel, then come back in a bit, I'd be far more likely to pay more than 0 dollars for content than the current system where there's about 120 bucks worth of EU I don't own staring me down on the steam store and half of the DLCs just have mechanics people complain about. Also god I hate wars and AI in this system, like I will keep saying- tonight's frustration: AI Castile was slow as gently caress to take Gibraltar for some reason despite taking the rest of Granada. One-province Granada made friends with Ottomans. 10+ year hispano-ottoman hellwar over Granada is ongoing, and I happily moved into Naples as Milan and allied Castile literally months before. I have no desire to keep playing. Neither side can end it. It is a war over literally one poo poo province. But by god the mediterranean will all die for it. There needs to be supply mechanics, there needs to be smarter war goals and priorities, and hell, there needs to be a "fait accompli" peace mechanic, like by now the Ottomans should realize "we can thrash fleets from here to Lisbon, then get thrashed, then thrash again. Millions can die in Italy, North Africa, and for some reason Brandenburg because this is EU4 and we have conditional military access, but we cannot under any circumstances remove Castile's army from Gibraltar." Also both Castile and Ottomans have strong as gently caress rivals at peace who just hand out mil access like candy and refuse to pounce. Why are Austria, Poland, and France just watching instead of steamrolling their enemies? Why is this game so good and so dumb? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Seriously just get rid of military access entirely. If a country can't reach the war target then it has no business being in the war in the first place. Or at the very least you should only be able to get access with countries that you directly neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Suddenly everyone in Europe wants to ally invulnerable Fezzan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Seriously just get rid of military access entirely. If a country can't reach the war target then it has no business being in the war in the first place. Or at the very least you should only be able to get access with countries that you directly neighbor. I feel like there should be some sort of supply range feature that increases with tech. It makes sense to walk over one HRE province to fight with mil access. It makes less sense for Spain to walk around the Black Sea into Libya, but they absolutely will. Also maybe make access painful on your lands so you only give it if you really like or are scared of the receiver, or really hate their enemy. No more Ottomans marching overland from Edirne to Moscow in 1470 because the poles and Lithuanians just don’t care either way and there is absolutely no logistical concern. Imagine Vienna being a difficult siege eh Some kind of supply mechanic would also help Wars actually get decided in battles in reasonable areas instead of the usual AI strat of avoidance sieging Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
I mean, the Ottomans did conduct operations all over Europe. They had an alliance with France (Franco-Ottoman Alliance) and they conducted joint wars in Savoy, Italy, and central Europe. The Ottomans also were involved in the Thirty Years War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I mean, the Ottomans did conduct operations all over Europe. They had an alliance with France (Franco-Ottoman Alliance) and they conducted joint wars in Savoy, Italy, and central Europe. The Ottomans also were involved in the Thirty Years War. Yeah but none of that is at all how they or anyone else operates in EU4. It took more than an entire campaigning season to move a worthwhile army from Serbia to Vienna and that was a risky move. You can enjoy EU being a pure map painter but you can’t really cite history to justify what countries get up to in EU4. The franco-ottoman alliance, I promise, did not involve tens of thousands of ottomans at the walls of french enemies’ capitals, ever, nor did any massed french army ever cross overland to Isfahan to help their allies. Even though the poles and russians were at odds, not even once did the entire ottoman military march across the Commonwealth to siege Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Yeah but none of that is at all how they or anyone else operates in EU4. It took more than an entire campaigning season to move a worthwhile army from Serbia to Vienna and that was a risky move. Yeah the game isn’t realistic, but 30,000 Turks did siege Nice in 1543 and the French sent troops to aid the Ottomans in Hungary in 1544. That’s a lot closer to what the game depicts than ‘nobody should ever be able to get access or declare war on anyone except their physically adjacent neighbors.’ Edit: VVV Fair. Family Values fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:04
|
|
|
I think the main thing should be that countries should actually consider who all is in the war before giving access to everyone by givign it to one person. Like if I'm gonna refuse to give England access because they're my rival it should give a malus to giving access to any allies they have in an active war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
Family Values posted:That’s a lot closer to what the game depicts than ‘nobody should ever be able to get access or declare war on anyone except their physically adjacent neighbors.’ You don't really need to strawman this, you know. It's perfectly reasonable to have a system which allows for cheap, season-based campaigning to contiguous opponents, and expensive campaigns requiring cooperation with the greatest pirate lord in human history. Paradox just hasn't really attempted it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:14
|
|
|
Beamed posted:You don't really need to strawman this, you know. It's perfectly reasonable to have a system which allows for cheap, season-based campaigning to contiguous opponents, and expensive campaigns requiring cooperation with the greatest pirate lord in human history. Paradox just hasn't really attempted it. But it’s not a strawman when that’s the exact thing someone suggested like 6 posts above yours?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
Family Values posted:But it’s not a strawman when that’s the exact thing someone suggested like 6 posts above yours? I'm not really sure where you think Nice is on the map if you think it's only accessible by countries literally right next door, but you play Paradox games so I trust you'll figure it out. I hate posting like an rear end in a top hat but jesus christ, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Anyway, something I've been giving some thought to is if military access itself should/shouldn't be "locked in" at the start of a war. I'm not sure if that means a similar system to the current one, except it stops being changeable once war is declared, or if the war declaration screen lets you set what nations you're trying to get access to, and it's up to them to allow/reject it. That way, if one of your allies is a country's mortal enemy, they'd just refuse access to both sides of the alliance and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
Military access having a downside would help a lot. Also as always the ai considering geography, or even better geography actually mattering and the ai noticing it, would help a lot Please no more AIs swarming the opposite side of the world while you siege and fight on your border and then walk into a peer capital
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Military access having a downside would help a lot. Some system highlighting foraging armies completely ravaging areas would be a big plus yeah, and some vague "supply system" too - an army far off on campaign should be expensive and suffering attrition like crazy, unless some form of back and forth is maintained.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Beamed posted:I'm not really sure where you think Nice is on the map if you think it's only accessible by countries literally right next door, but you play Paradox games so I trust you'll figure it out. Fister Roboto posted:Seriously just get rid of military access entirely. If a country can't reach the war target then it has no business being in the war in the first place. Or at the very least you should only be able to get access with countries that you directly neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:59
|
|
