|
Mr. Peepers posted:There is a bit of a trade off, sort of. If you stay at low piety you get some bonuses (I think higher tax income might be one) at the cost of slower religious conversions and some other penalties. There are no penalties to being pious or not pious, only bonuses that are mutually exclusive. If you are not pious you get -10% research costs, 25% more tax income, and 25% more manpower . Pious you gain +3 missionary strength, +1.00 morale to army, and +50.00% fort defense. Being not Pious really helps with not falling behind tech-wise.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, I understand you wouldn't have to, but you have 3 Missionaries just doing nothing. I can't help but convert them so they won't be uppity if poo poo gets real, apparently even if it's a demo that only lasts 30 years. I think they need to find a way where there's some benefit from not converting them, or even if converting provinces was a big hassle. Which it probably should be really. Agreed, basically like in EU3 there's not much reason to not paint your whole empire to your religion. Maybe if Jizya (the extra tax for non-muslim people) was better implemented in game, and conversion was harder, it would be interesting to have the choice to convert (for less revolt risk after converting and better religious unity) or not to convert (no revolt risk now because of conversion, more money, better relations with neighbors having that religion). Still, the change on the conversion mechanics (progress instead of of a random chance) is GREAT. Same for diplo-annexation and colonizing, the removal of arbitrary dice rolls is really welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Puella Magissima posted:As Portugal, it took me five months to convert each province I took from Maya to Catholicism. That is some serious poo poo. Yeah the baseline "time for poo poo to happen" for various actions is just way too low, the only thing that actually takes a decent amount of time is annexing a vassal and even that only takes about 10-15 years. At least the timer system doesn't give you magical 1 month conversions like you could get in EU3, but it seems weird that they make all these cool new mechanics around religion and render them basically meaningless because you can convert provinces so drat fast. You should have to at least invest in an appropriate idea group if you want to convert provinces so quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
EU4's battle AI is still incredibly frustrating. Allied troops will still happily let all of your soldiers get slaughtered as they sit around sieging useless provinces right next to major battles even though your forces combined could repel the enemy. And then once your forces get defeated of course theirs gets slaughtered in turn. Maybe one day this issue will be fixed in Paradox's games and the AI will actually co-operate with the player in warfare, but it's not in this iteration, which is a really big disappointment. Also it took me like 8 years to convert Cueta as Portugal so I'm not sure what's the cause for the difference between our experiences is here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Also it took me like 8 years to convert Cueta as Portugal so I'm not sure what's the cause for the difference between our experiences is here. The ones that took five months were Mayan Animist provinces. Ceuta took 101 months for me too, but that still seems a little short, especially for a high base tax province. Casablanca was only 52 months, which is definitely too short.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
When should you make a node a center of trade and when should you have it move upstream? Like as Portugal I was colonizing Brazil and I had a node there that was worth 10ish gold. I'm really not sure if I should send a merchant there to bump it along to my capital or turn that node into a center of trade....
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:When should you make a node a center of trade and when should you have it move upstream? Like as Portugal I was colonizing Brazil and I had a node there that was worth 10ish gold. I'm really not sure if I should send a merchant there to bump it along to my capital or turn that node into a center of trade.... The Brazil node is pretty lovely in terms of trade routes, there's no way to steer trade into it, only out of. Maybe while it's exclusively available to you, you should try to pull income out of it directly. If you can somehow prevent other people from steering from it (not sure how viable that is) then maybe you should keep it that way. It's hard to say, since it has to move through two other nodes to get to Lisbon, so that could be a really lossy route that would require a lot of light ships to effectively steer. If it turns out that keeping all of Brazil's trade value in brazil is too hard, then just go with the flow and try to steer as much of it as possible into Lisbon, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
The trade depot building does +25% trade power and +1 trade value, what's trade value?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Wow the Clausewitz (?) engine is looking really nice in eu4. The seasons and little details are fantastic. Only played a few minutes to check out bits and bobs but looking forward to ploughing time into this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
If anyone was wondering whether it is in fact possible to survive as Albania, the answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:EU4's battle AI is still incredibly frustrating. Allied troops will still happily let all of your soldiers get slaughtered as they sit around sieging useless provinces right next to major battles even though your forces combined could repel the enemy. And then once your forces get defeated of course theirs gets slaughtered in turn. Maybe one day this issue will be fixed in Paradox's games and the AI will actually co-operate with the player in warfare, but it's not in this iteration, which is a really big disappointment. The AI does cooperate with you, but the inability to reconsider goals when sieging is not something I've fixed yet. Working on it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Wiz posted:If anyone was wondering whether it is in fact possible to survive as Albania, the answer is yes. Wiz posted:The AI does cooperate with you, but the inability to reconsider goals when sieging is not something I've fixed yet. Working on it though. Awesome. Both awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Hey Paradox devs Nope, fixed that and "is wields" now, thanks. Might not be in release version though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
I've downloaded the demo, i was going to blindly preorder it on the strength of ck2's release and my love of EU3 but i was so lazy a demo came out. Might as well try it now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Vaos posted:Agreed, basically like in EU3 there's not much reason to not paint your whole empire to your religion. Maybe if Jizya (the extra tax for non-muslim people) was better implemented in game, and conversion was harder, it would be interesting to have the choice to convert (for less revolt risk after converting and better religious unity) or not to convert (no revolt risk now because of conversion, more money, better relations with neighbors having that religion). I'd like it religious and cultural conversions in CK2 (and presumably in EU4) would be harder. They are one of the most juicy aspect of althistory, but given how easy they are the fun goes out of them. Cultural conversion especially feels no longer something rare and special. Paradox, please drop the conversion rates by 20% or something!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
Vodos posted:The trade depot building does +25% trade power and +1 trade value, what's trade value? Assuming it works the same as in EU3, trade value is the end value from which both production and trade income are calculated. It's mostly based on the good produced in each province, plus modifiers from buildings, NIs, etc. Wiz posted:The AI does cooperate with you, but the inability to reconsider goals when sieging is not something I've fixed yet. Working on it though. This is great news, I noticed that the AI was actually making some very good tactical movements with obvious goals but would go brain-dead while besieging (usually wasting far too many men in a siege when splitting forces would have been more sensible)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Rurik posted:Cultural conversion especially feels no longer something rare and special. Absolutely. It takes a lot of the historical narrative out of the game to just pay to transplant your culture. I used settlement policies quite a lot in EU3, but it felt like I was making an effort and paying a price to achieve something that didn't happen on its own that often. It was a big part of the roleplaying for me. Now it just feels like a utilitarian gameplay mechanic. In my opinion, there should be options for minority policies that affect the MTTH of a culture change event. Outlaw the language and encourage assimilation: +4 revolt risk, 50% MTTH Use *your culture* people as administrators, but let the serfs be: +1 revolt risk, normal MTTH Let them keep their own culture: -2 revolt risk, 300% MTTH Plus, unless you count genocide and population transfers, which you shouldn't, it's not very historical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
Minor note that I thought interesting - I noticed that military tech seems to modify the "maneuver" rating, but wasn't quite sure what that entailed until I looked over the EU3-E4 change summary. Seems that maneuvering is the same old "which units can attack which units?" rating it was in EU3. Apparently, though, high levels of tech will not be able to increase that rating - even for infantry units. Combined with the combat width advances, it seems like, more than EU3, the late-game will strongly emphasize the importance of outnumbering and outflanking your enemies - with enough research, having even a slightly longer line than your enemy does should lead to the flanks of the enemy army getting torn apart very quickly, causing an accelerated collapse further down the line. That was always true to an extent in EU3, of course, but if even infantry can strike up to two squares away, with cavalry getting much longer reach themselves, the effect should be even more exaggerated in EUIV. Like I said, not that important, but something I thought interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
I'd actually forgotten that you can just change a province's culture by clicking a button, that's kind of hosed up 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The AI does cooperate with you, but the inability to reconsider goals when sieging is not something I've fixed yet. Working on it though. Thanks for looking into it, and sorry if I'm coming off as sore or something, I'm actually enjoying the demo quite a bit. I like a whole lot of the changes and it really does seem pretty great right out of the gate, and I'm eager to see where you guys take it from here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
After spending 3 hours with the demo as Portugal, I feel really good about my pre-order: The power points system feels really intuitive and I always felt like I was in full control of whatever was happening and driving the country towards specific directions that I had wanted. I cannot wait to play the full version. That said, some questions: * How lucrative is Africa? I did most of my colonizing there so I could play around with colonies without having to worry about exploration, but how does it compare to going for the New World? * One mission I had was to increase relations with Morocco to +50, but after taking Casablanca from them in a previous mission there were just really a lot of negative modifiers. How should I have approached it? * A primer on trade! It feels like the system should be intuitive and easy to understand, but right now I can't suss out what I should actually be doing. I remember reading something like "If you have full control of a node, draw gold directly from it. If you're splitting it with someone else, redirect it towards a node that you do control", but then I have no idea how to tell who really controls a node or not. * How to enact a change in gov't? I had already researched the Noble Republic, but the only alternative gov'ts listed were various flavors of Monarchy. I'm thinking its more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* A primer on trade! It feels like the system should be intuitive and easy to understand, but right now I can't suss out what I should actually be doing. I remember reading something like "If you have full control of a node, draw gold directly from it. If you're splitting it with someone else, redirect it towards a node that you do control", but then I have no idea how to tell who really controls a node or not. Switch to the trade map mode. If you control the majority of the provinces that belong to a node, draw. Otherwise, redirect it to one where you do. gradenko_2000 posted:* One mission I had was to increase relations with Morocco to +50, but after taking Casablanca from them in a previous mission there were just really a lot of negative modifiers. How should I have approached it? You shouldn't? You'll be conquering them anyways, so spending resources on increasing your relations with them is pointless and the reward was probably just some prestige that is completely eclipsed by the prestige you'd get from beating them up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:After spending 3 hours with the demo as Portugal, I feel really good about my pre-order: The power points system feels really intuitive and I always felt like I was in full control of whatever was happening and driving the country towards specific directions that I had wanted. I cannot wait to play the full version. 1) No idea, I went to Brazil and it was a good value, but I only colonized a few provinces. I thought about going to Africa first but the native hostility scared me. 2) Just ignore those. That's why they give you a choice of 3 missions. Those "Improve relations with X" missions tend to come up for nations you're actively hostile against and often run counter to your overall strategy. 3) I only barely understand trade at this point. Basics as I see it is that you always collect from your capital node, and if you hold the majority of power in any other nodes and can very easily steer them to your capital, do so, otherwise collect what's there (steering through multiple nodes isn't really possible without trade ideas for more merchants and a lot of light ships to go around). As Ottomans I moved my Ragusa merchant to Crimea and steered it into Constantinople, that seemed to get me the most trade income. As Portugal I would keep the merchants as is until you get Brazil up and going, then I'd probably collect in both Lisbon and Brazil, since Brazil is too far away to efficiently steer. You can tell what your power rating is by clicking on the node itself. The pie graphs are a good visual indicator of your relative power. 4) I doubt you're able to directly move from a Monarchy to a Republic. In EU3, there were special steps involved. You typically can only move within the same type of government, so Fuedal Monarchy to Administrative Monarchy for example. Cynic Jester posted:Switch to the trade map mode. If you control the majority of the provinces that belong to a node, draw. Otherwise, redirect it to one where you do. I think there is more nuance to trade than this. There is a pretty hefty negative modifier to trading in a node that isn't in your capital so there are definitely instances in which you wouldn't want to collect from those nodes and instead would want to steer them to your capital node. And you can run into situations where you hold the majority of provinces in a node but not the majority of power, and power is the real number that matters. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:4) I doubt you're able to directly move from a Monarchy to a Republic. In EU3, there were special steps involved. You typically can only move within the same type of government, so Fuedal Monarchy to Administrative Monarchy for example. That's not actually true for EU3, but from what I remember from the DDs I think you'll need a revolution or some kind of special event to move between republic/monarchy in EU4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
From browsing the mod files I think Italy is the only country that gets its own set of NIs when it forms, they aren't all that exciting though (and annoyingly reference the Roman Empire a whole lot  ). They do get cheaper core creation which is kind of nice but it comes fairly late.There are events for some historical coalitions which is really cool! There is a bit of "EU2 syndrome" in some of the historical events in as much as you need to know that they're there to take advantage of them; for example, Brandenburg will randomly form a PU with Prussia as long as Prussia is AI and has good relations with them. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Rurik posted:I'd like it religious and cultural conversions in CK2 (and presumably in EU4) would be harder. They are one of the most juicy aspect of althistory, but given how easy they are the fun goes out of them. Cultural conversion especially feels no longer something rare and special. It's interesting that think culture conversion is too easy, as a lot of our beta group think it's fairly useless, or at least a very low prio. It might just be that you only have 30 years to play, so you don't really need to worry about the long-term costs of spending your DIP points on culture changes rather than tech and ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:It's interesting that think culture conversion is too easy, as a lot of our beta group think it's fairly useless, or at least a very low prio. It might just be that you only have 30 years to play, so you don't really need to worry about the long-term costs of spending your DIP points on culture changes rather than tech and ideas. I'm kind of confused as to what I should be doing with my ADM power as the Ottomans. I really want to take out the Mamlukes but that's really expensive on ADM power and I ended up lagging behind in government tech. I have a feeling that was a fair tradeoff, even if it means getting my desired idea group later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:It's interesting that think culture conversion is too easy, as a lot of our beta group think it's fairly useless, or at least a very low prio. It might just be that you only have 30 years to play, so you don't really need to worry about the long-term costs of spending your DIP points on culture changes rather than tech and ideas. I just think I should have relatively small power over converting a province's religion and even less over converting the culture. Religion and culture are framework in which I as the player or the nation in the game operate. If it's too easy to manipulate the framework, it doesn't feel realistic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Forwarding trade actually increases its value, but I still can't quite figure out what that is based on, possibly trade efficiency. It seems to be capped at +10%. If you have decent control over all the nodes, forwarding from Brazil to Ivory Coast to Mauritanian Coast to Seville adds +10% for each step.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Vodos posted:Forwarding trade actually increases its value, but I still can't quite figure out what that is based on, possibly trade efficiency. It seems to be capped at +10%. I can't tell from the demo but I suspect that if Brazil gets valuable enough and most of Europe can trade there, they'll do most of the steering for you and you'll only have to worry about making sure as much of it gets steered from Mauritania to Lisbon as possible, and making it stay there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Some small bugs I've noticed:
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I can't tell from the demo but I suspect that if Brazil gets valuable enough and most of Europe can trade there, they'll do most of the steering for you and you'll only have to worry about making sure as much of it gets steered from Mauritania to Lisbon as possible, and making it stay there. Or, since you presumably have a lot of trade power in Brazil, collect money from that trade node directly and skip the middleman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
Puella Magissima posted:Some small bugs I've noticed: But that trade value gets wasted if you collect it there instead of Lisbon because of the non-capital penalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:But that trade value gets wasted if you collect it there instead of Lisbon because of the non-capital penalty. Can we get a notification when someone outspends you on a cardinal candidate you had influence with? It's pretty annoying to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:But that trade value gets wasted if you collect it there instead of Lisbon because of the non-capital penalty. How much is that exactly? I can't seem to find it ingame. It's still probably less than would be siphoned off from rerouting trade to Mauritania to Lisbon, and uses less merchants. E:50%? That's more than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Puella Magissima posted:How much is that exactly? I can't seem to find it ingame. It's still probably less than would be siphoned off from rerouting trade to Mauritania to Lisbon, and uses less merchants. The trip from Brazil to Lisbon goes through Ivory Coast and Mauritania. My point was that later on in the game many European countries might try to steer trade from Brazil to Mauritania on their own, meaning you only need a merchant in Mauritania and Lisbon to finish the job and make sure that trade stays in Lisbon. If that doesn't happen, or earlier in the game when that can't happen, you're probably better off collecting directly from Brazil. This type of trade thinking will probably be trickier in most other parts of the world where the trade routes are a bit less linear. edit: I can't remember the exact penalty off-hand but I remember my Crimean node having a greater than 50% penalty as Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
I have to say, I'm in love with the new trade system. Playing Portugal, which was always one of my favorite countries, really showcases this. Grabbing little outposts on the way to India so you can eventually build a lucrative trade route from scratch is wonderful and has a nice historical feel to it. Can't wait to see trade wars in the full version.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
fspades posted:I'm pretty sure you can steer routes "upstream". One of the Ottoman merchants starts like that in the Ragusa node, in fact. But I can't figure out what's the downside to it. You cannot steer the actual trade value upstream. What you can do is go into a downstream node from whatever your main money centers are and then steer the trade power you have in that node upstream. So in the Ottoman start, they have a sizable number of the Ragusa provinces giving them a good chunk of trade power in that region. However you ideally will have that trade node to be as small as possible since all its trade comes from Constantinople, while Venice, Hungary and a bunch of others basically want to steer the trade that gets produced in that region towards Vienna and Venice. Meanwhile you want Constantinople to be large, as you want to steer trade from the Crimea and Alexandria into this node, as well as plop down buildings everywhere to really pump this thing up. So it's entirely possible that transferring the natural trade power you get in Ragusa anyway from owning drat near the whole area of the trade node back to Constantinople will end up netting you more money than if you tried to collect straight from the small value of the Ragusa node. Maybe later in the game when the Ragusa node creates more value of its own due to buildings and maybe the wiping out of the scum trying to drain your node into Vienna and Venice, it becomes more valuable to collect here as well, but then again maybe also not. unwantedplatypus posted:they also get an NI that gives them enough tolerance to heathans to push them to 0. Making it not really necessary to convert every province. Yeah but on the other hand you have a missionary just sat there doing nothing and there's no real downside to converting other than some increased local revolt risk, so why not go nuts? I feel like maybe converting should decrease Adminstrative or Diplomatic Power Points generation for the duration or something, like having leaders over the limit does. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:It's interesting that think culture conversion is too easy, as a lot of our beta group think it's fairly useless, or at least a very low prio. It might just be that you only have 30 years to play, so you don't really need to worry about the long-term costs of spending your DIP points on culture changes rather than tech and ideas. It's too easy but it's also a poor expenditure of points. I'm not complaining about it from a gameplay perspective, but an immersion one, similar to how I don't like missionaries being able to convert provinces in a relatively short period. Spreading both your culture and religion should be gradual processes; it should take at least a full generation to convert a province to both your religion and culture, except under extreme circumstances (such as forcefully resettling Constantinople with displaced persons and prisoners to replace the fleeing Greeks)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
Trade system is still not completely transparent to me, especially on where I should have light ships patrolling : For instance playing the Ottomans, I had one merchant collecting in Constantinople and one in Ragusa also collecting (which gave me more money than forwarding trade from Crimea), but I am not sure if I should have light ships spread around the different lanes (10 -> Constantinople, 10 -> Ragusa, 10 -> Crimea) or bundle them up where the increase in Trade Power would wield the most money. Is there a diminishing return on the number of light ships in patrol for a given lane?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
So I ran into a little neat thing in my game as Austria. I accidently formed Austria-Hungary in 1519. Bohemia has a personal union with Hungary, and I have a personal union with Bohemia. So you have a Jagiellon as the simultaneous king of Bohemia and Hungary and a Hapsburg as the simultaneous king of Austria and Bohemia. It's pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 13:28
|
|
