|
RabidWeasel posted:I actually had an AI give me a good peace deal earlier today without me having to take a single province from them, I was amazed. Had the same thing happened to me. I'm Ethiopia and Yemen had attacked me while I was losing in another war which is nice and clever of him. I quickly finished the lost war by giving away some land and was able to slowly and repeatedly beat Yemen. I had no way of crossing the straight cause I had no navy at all (only recently captured some coast provinces). In the end AI begged for peace throwing money at me, I was able to get war reparations and a nice sum of gold - but he would never give away land I had a claim on.
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Yeah, France is not as good as you think in the beginning, it's extremely easy to get overextended and dogpiled. It's also very sad that the game is supposed to be played since 1444. Later dates are not just underdeveloped but neglected in many ways. E.g. some game mechanics are not updated with time. Native Americans exist in a stasis and won't get any ideas or reforms passed even if you start as surviving Native Americans in 1776 start date, development doesn't change at all AFAIK. 1444 also reflects some current affairs of nations, but if you start as, say, France 1 day before the Revolution you won't have anything like a pre-Revolutionary situation, just a normal stable country. So if you're thinking it'll be fun to try to survive as some specific country in some specific historical moment then you're out of luck, you'll only get very basic setup like current wars and alliances.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
Another Person posted:it won't even be stable. the pre-revolution start for france is a mess because they have a huge army but no buildings iirc. so, you are running a massive defecit. i think this is the same for a lot of start dates, they just don't have buildings down anywhere really. It's still stable, you can disband most of the army in a single click. The point it that you might at least expect that it would have stats defined for the revolution disaster to fire. And yes, they didn't go over rebalanced buildings. A pity, really. On release EU4 was much better in that regard. Some provinces even got historical buildings in them IIRC, like universities appearing on the right dates. It was still out of touch and provinces were underdeveloped compared to what you or AI would have by that point but it was playable. I remember in pre-release videos they've even talked about how 1492 start date might be more interesting as you can start colonizing, tech allows for better money flow and you already get some historical ideas which further define your country. Right now you'd only play later dates for very specific challenges.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Another Person posted:my issue with muscovy is that they are so easy that they end up being fairly boring due to total safety, didn't want to recommend something i find boring to play, where your options are very limited. On the other hand I think you have a very clear "historical" goal of reaching the Pacific Ocean and if you're new you'll screw it up, discovering Portugal or something like that there. With institutions you can also have a challenging midgame: you won't be that far ahead of Central Asia in terms of tech so depending on what happens there you might fight some powerful countries. And in midgame you'll be behind Europe in institutions (unless you're advanced enough to know how and when spawn institutions youself) so conflicts with Poland/HRE may pose a threat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
I very rarely use convert culture. I guess if you're not going for WC and just have a Europe-spanning empire you'll be able to accept a lot of cultures so your core domain doesn't suffer that much. The effect of non-accepted culture (so it's not in your culture group) is: −33% Local tax modifier −2% Local missionary strength −33% Local manpower modifier −20% Local sailors modifier +2 Local unrest Note that trade is not affected. Also note that merciful Paradox devs allowed those provinces to give us healthy amount of sailors, the joy. The cost is 10 diplomacy monarch power per development. I can see it being useful for developed provinces bordering your culture province (-25% discount) but even then it's costly. I guess it works well if you stack modifiers, wait for enlightenment, and for some reason take Religious instead of Humanist - and then you'll mostly do it for manpower.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:No that's something only the player can do. And all it does is make the AI unmothball their forts and raise their maintenance, and make them more likely to answer calls to arms in the next six months. That's +20 readiness to join your war and it might be deal breaking. (ah, others had already pointed it out)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
Drone posted:Where's a decent place to play tall outside of Europe? Britain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
I'm irritated by the fact they don't spell out that pirates themselves are paid feature. I'm almost sure they are but DD only says that you need expansion to play as pirates. On the other hand, they might be hesitant to sell the expansion with this feature because for 99% of nations you'd only notice constant raiding. All the other features are situational, can be ignored or only affect Iberia, but that thing will haunt you wherever you are. So they might add pirates in a patch, similar to how colonial nations - another feature that makes a player less powerful - came in a patch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:So, what's stopping players or AIs from just sending 50k troops to the pirates nation capitals and crush them the second they come out, exactly? It's strange. Previously Berbers had a national idea that made coring them painful. And they could take Aristocratic national ideas that made their land even more undesirable. But pirate ideas do not seem to have anything like that, or even anything about attrition and defense, which Knights have. Being Republic they're unable to get core cost modifier. It seems like they already had a good idea of implementing pirates with Berbers but here they forgot about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Mans posted:This is an amazing game, but it needs a EU5 sooner or later. DLC just adds more on top of this and we need something that envelops all the new mechanics into a fully working and fluid structure. Note that this stuff had started from a very beginning. First couple of DLCs had violated existing features and UI. For example, Conquest of Paradise added special Native American mechanics but forgot that the game has date picker in the beginning, so if you start in 1776 every Native American country is still in its 1444 state. Then extremely important features like National Focus are less visible than some Easter Eggs. Province view is the biggest offender probably: now it has separate tabs for institution and buildings/Estates (which was especially funny for those without expansion). The most important tools for province development are little buttons near corresponding numbers. And there are those exploit province buttons there also! And on top there's a small "move trade capital here, I bet you didn't even know that trade capital is a thing dude" button. It's a mess even from UI point of view, not mentioning Paradox systemically adding some mechanics forgetting that other mechanics or events exist and in an awkward way you may get three things with the same name doing different things or three different names for essentially the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I agree with the broad sentiment that there's bit of feature bloat and the UI has gotten a bit cluttered, but Innovativeness doesn't strike me as a particularly good example of those criticisms. It's pretty simple, it does what it's supposed to, and it doesn't clutter up the UI? It doesn't even compete with any similar mechanic. It's a good example of a bloat. It's a number that doesn't affect you in any way really. On 100 it gives you -10% to all power costs which would compensate the most noticeable effect of just 10 corruption. It ticks down unless you're ahead of time in a tech. As it's raised for being first to take an idea you'll probably get in the 15th century more than any time later which is counter-intuitive. All that it does is making obvious decisions more obvious and dumb decisions dumber. Would it really make more sense to get a diplomatic tech when it has +20% cost (so ~120 diplomatic power) to get this boost of 0.2% discount for all power costs that will fade away soon?.. Even if you stockpiled 2000 MP to use right after this innovation boost it would mean saving ~40 MP. Does it make your decision to get military tech ASAP cause you're in tough war any more motivated? It is boosted by events and missions for England but other than that it's a number that doesn't affect your decisions. The final nail in the coffin is how obviously disconnected from the rest of the game it is, which is a plague of those DLC features. You'd think adopting Innovativeness ideas would have some effect on the innovativeness stat, but no. Somehow also universities and various reforms like Tribal/Native American/Nomadic reforms have no effect on it. Same with events: even when they speak about innovativeness they don't affect that stat because they existed before this stat or don't want to check whether you have the DLC. Remove this feature and nothing will change, no one would notice. This statistic would be much more interesting and important if this game would be more like a simulation a la Victoria 2 and it would represent one of few ways to nudge a nation into the right decision. But now it's useless and boring.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Staltran posted:What do you mean by the discount fading away soon? Are you consistently behind in tech? Innovativeness ticks down if any of your neighbors are ahead of you in any technology. Many technologies you don't really care about and if you wait for a year you get -10% cost so you can grab that bonus to trade range later and save ~60 diplopoints. If you are grabbing tech ahead of time you get +20% production/trade bonus and Innovativeness ticking up till the tech is no longer ahead of time. But you have to pay +10% cost of tech, i.e. 60 monarch points per year, and you get just +0.005 Innovativeness per month, or 0.06 per year. So if you for some reason play ineffectively and try to be ahead of time in all tech for some reason then Innovation makes this mistake not so dire. Even so it only compensate a fraction of what you lose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Even if you always waited a year after the tech has no ahead of time penalty it'd take you 6 tech levels to decay 2 innovativeness, which isn't really soon is it? And that's assuming that no AI in your tech group has taken any of the three techs ahead of time. In Europe I'm pretty sure England/GB takes diplo tech at least a year early pretty consistently, so you can get it for -10% without losing any innovativeness. But again, getting diplotech early isn't something you need otherwise except if you're trade focused or want to fight corruption in a weird way. Getting it early gets you a small bonus to all MP costs but you save hundreds of MPs if you wait for a few years, and the only reason to get many adm/dip tech levels that don't give important bonuses is that you don't want to get corruption from mil tech going too far. I can see how tweaking it up too much would allow you to potentially break the game. So I can't see the way for this mechanic to be meaningful beyond a little rubberband. Maybe it would feel more meaningful if there was some other reliable way to get it, like a single boost from building a university or something. Also here's some old Reddit thread discussing it with some math. It's 7 month old but I don't think anything had changed since. https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/8bri8e/is_innovativeness_worth_it/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
Yeah, it's "ahead of you in any technology while you're not ahead of time in that technology". You don't lose Innovativeness while you're ahead of time in tech, but it's a very questionable decision to be ahead of time for most techonologies thus I'm talking about it as a rubberbanding allowing you to save a few MP after you've spend hundreds of MP to get some minor bonus a few years early.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Also I'm down on it because last few games I've played were outside of Europe and I didn't concentrate on spawning institutions so I only saw innovativeness appear after getting some ideas and events.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
At least Professionalism feels like it's adding to the game even if army drilling and such is rarely a good choice. It unlocks new abilities and represents some sort of change in your country. Innovativeness doesn't even do that and doesn't feel like it represents anything historical apart from British events. Even Splendor (and I dare anyone to explain what does it mean in-universe with a definition that wouldn't cover some other stat presented in game) has some connection to our vague understanding that some nations have passionarity or something. At the same time Professionalism amusingly can be lowered to give you a lot of soldiers that are just as good as your current one, but it's because of general EU4 philosophy of no penalties, spending resources is a penalty in itself. I'm still hesitant to click that War Taxes button even though I know it has no penalties anymore!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2018 08:17
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah that was basically my reaction to navy automation, and that's a system that's actually a pain in the rear end to micro, unlike armies where it's only really a problem in the super late game or if you're doing dumb WC stuff. I think if the game is designed for it from the start it might work better though, and especially with how many loving provinces there are gonna be in (I assume) all the games going forward it might start to be more necessary. I totally forgot that navy automation is in the game beyond help with transports. I think you can give order to blockade enemy country, right? Does this automation include anything about your fleets fleeing from enemy doomstack? If not then it sounds like the feature they've implemented for AI and then decided to give player a weaker version of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
skasion posted:We have revanchism (certainly has to be high up on the list of most ignored features), but not irredentism I'm sure if it would be released today devs would use their experience to make this feature much more relevant. Like adding a progress bar near your country's coat of arms in a top left and "Your revanchism is ticking down!" alert.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
I am very glad those features are transferred into the base game. Even if I don't care about people who play without DLC and balance I imagine it's a huge design and programming problem to support a game where such important features can be turned on or off. With Estates it was more of a thematical problem - it *feels* like Estates should be deeply integrated into internal politics but they were just a small unnecessary feature. Now they're in the base game and it's for the better even though they didn't get integration treatment they deserved (I expected them to be aware of missions, parliaments, institutions and so on but they only rarely concern themselves with anything, mostly through events and IIRC there's some parliament debate about them). Hope now this means that Paradox model would be more like Stellaris, game-defining features would only be in paid DLC for a short time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:People whining about 2 year old DLC features being made free are idiots. Like you got your money's worth out of that already. I'm pretty sure it's a very insignificant minority. Completely irrational. Guess they sue Bethesda over giving out Daggerfall for free, same for Red Alert, Starcraft 2 and so on and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
New patch is live.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
I know CK2 save file transfer is not supposed to be always consistent but I had an irrational desire to play as Armenia in EU4. So I've started Mongol Invasion start date in CK2 and there you have a very strange case of Armenia somehow existing near Anatolia. The position is terrible but I managed to survive as a relatively big vassal of a Muslim Empire and enjoyed mechanics of Realm Peace that forbid me from fighting for my independence from a duke when the king enacts it. Anyway, I've exported the game before Golden Cost came out and it looks like CK2 converter was updated later. What I got was new provinces had 1444 vanilla owner... but it was still adjusted for reality. E.g. Iberia in my game is divided between Muslims and Portugal and Castille spawned as a Muslim kingdom. I like that someone put enough effort into this kind of things to work properly. Makes me wondering if CK2 world generator is coming. I know that we already have the randomized world but it'd be interesting to see something more robust with more varied empires and religions and cultures as well as established relations. CK2 is about playing as a character and I feel that historical context is much more important there. It's one thing to conquer the empire of Randomland as a republic of Whateveria in a unique geopolitical situation and the other to try to roleplay as Duke John Nobodyvich.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
Ah, so Scottish pirate republic is alright.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
Do you people use some music mods? I have a lot of problems trying to plug in older mods. Like music from March of Eagles - it's a pity this game has fallen into oblivion and OST is lost - never plays. There's a lot of "authentic music packs" but they all fail in a variety of ways. Like all the classical music for Europeans which doesn't feel right till you're well into 18th century. And it's all of varied quality and volume. Nothing fits quite as well as good old Stonemasons. But the original OST is far too short for thousands of hours played and most DLCs add music to specific regions. I don't think I ever heard most of DLC music. I understand that best OST is your own background music player but still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Poil posted:You can to open the music player and change the game to random all music instead of just region specific. There is a tiny button in the upper right corner of the screen. Thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
Poil posted:I believe it works for anyone colonizing the new world. I don't get those arbitrary restrictions. In Vic2 I can live with USA getting a bonus to immigration and stuff, it sorta represents a special political and cultural structure. But why is America special in EU4? Why don't I get colonial nations in Africa (I think Australia has them too)? Is it because in America you mostly rule over your own colonists while in Africa you govern over natives? Is it because America is farther away? It's easier to get from Spain to Mexico than from Moscow to Eastern Siberia so it's not it. There should be a better gameplay modifier than America just being a land of magical colonial stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
How do you think colony region/trade company region system could be enhanced without a major rework? It might make sense to allow you to have a trade company or colonial state anywhere outside of your continent. Perhaps a trade company is only possible in trade nodes that flow into your trade capital (and then changing trade capital is a scary can of worms) and colonial government gets created if you get too many off-shore provinces in the region?.. It might also make sense to have those features locked behind ideas like expansion or trade. Without them you have a relatively useless and vulnerable land that only sends you some tariffs and trade. It might not work well with a current state of trade companies because I think they're in general more beneficial than colony states.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 08:55
|
|
|
Part of problems with vassals is that various features are all over base game and DLC. Thus you have special diplomatic actions for vassals - you can turn them into marches and annex them through the diplomacy menu. However, you also have interactions through the vassal menu and I think they're there only if you have Art of War or something. It also looks like Estate interactions for some reason and those are the only two places where this kind of menu is used, I think. It's not a complete copy of diplomatic actions cause you don't use diplomats there. Still, it feels like spaghetti code and kitchensink features. Previously we also had Protectorates which are gone now, so the system could be even more screwed up. I think most of people have Common Sense and Mandate of Heaven and Art of War and Rights of Man, but if you don't have those then some of vassal interaction features are missing. I doubt even developers can tell you how would vassal interaction look with a specific combination of DLCs and yet they sorta support all of them. So I don't think that vassal interaction is basic, I'm OK with basic and not OK with it being needlessly overloaded. Looking at the list of possible interactions ( https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Subject_nation#Subject_interactions ) makes you feel like there's some great depths in there but really it's just a lot of stuff you barely use.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
Poil posted:Strange how they always only fall back on that particular "argument" whenever there is a chance to be misogynic and/or racist. Nevermind that there are tons of historical inaccuracies in the game including several kinda important outcomes that are completely impossible (like the Qing, unless a human does it), gotta oppress uppity minorities who aren't white or male enough or they might think they aren't untermenschen. It's also often used when comparing various nations. E.g. when Institutions are discussed you can hear "ahistorical" for African or Asian power be on par with Europeans at any point. Even though in reality Europeans were less able than they're in the game as the game allows you to send an unrealistic amount of troops all over the world. It's just AI doesn't care enough to do that. And of course it's hard to say what be an appropriate tech level of my African empire if conquers half of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
Poil posted:Yeah, it's like their entire world view would collapse if they were to accept that 100 Spaniards didn't actually conquer the Aztecs on their own. There are plenty of historical problems with the game and it's only natural. The weirdness comes when people suddenly become very sensitive about some specific historical truth. More often than not it's just because people know more about edgy interesting historical facts or myths. And thus every WW2 game has players who ask why can't King Tiger destroy a hundred Shermans with a single shot. Or something about sexuality or racism in any story that touches on those topics. Like that Kingdom Come game where lead dev was not very polite about people wanting ahistorical representation in the game but didn't seem to have ahistorical RPG skills or alchemy or healing or armor in his game. So there are ahistorical things about Institutions but also every other mechanic in the game. Devs have to make sure those do not feel too weird. And it's more of a problem of flavor and naming, I'd say. A lot of people don't care about mechanics as much as terms and they'd be much more content if you'd think of a better name for monarch points or specific institutions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:The Witcher isn't literally earth, but there has been more than a few defenses of the lack of PoC in it as being something along the lines of "Medieval Europe didn't have brown people" Meanwhile, the good defense would be "it's their game and they make it the way you want it, you may not like that they didn't include something but you can't demand it". Same for Kingdom Come really even if the developer was an rear end about it. Justifying both inclusive and exclusive outcomes with history is beyond the point because fiction is rarely about something statistical probably. KCD is about blacksmith's son who rises to prominence and becomes a savior of the realm in Czechia. It wouldn't be less plausible if it was a story about some Ethiopian mercenary ending up in the same land saving the realm. But it's not the game those guys were doing and it is a defense enough. EU4 is good about notifying you about some things historically happening... but mostly through events and decisions. Those are things that people did or wanted to do in some cases. But it's affected by a lot of things from our modern perspective. Like focus on specific countries: if you play the game without learning history you'd think that Byzantines, Japan and, say, Netherlands and England were the most vital and eventful regions just because there's a lot of developer special attention focused on it. When you chose what to tell or not to tell people you're doing sort of censorship or propaganda, even if you're not trying to hide anything and are just limited by time constraints.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, hugely. And for the same reason I kinda disagree with the first part of your post, at least in that, as much as it's the developers' right to include (and not include) what they want in their game, it's our right to criticize them for their choices. I hope you use the benign meaning of "criticize" here. As long as the game or any other art object is not offensive (and even when it's offensive but there is a good reason for that) I can only see this kind of critique being about lost opportunities. Same as me being sad that, say, Crusader Kings 2 doesn't portray Rurikovich unique inheritance Rota system, or alliances between Crusaders and Muslims, or numerous technological updates. Or EU4 estates, parlaments and other types of factions not interacting with each other, or economics not being properly portrayed and so on. Koramei posted:I think people grossly underestimate the impact history games (and media at large) have on peoples' understandings of history; people laugh at it, but I don't think I'm exaggerating at all when I say it's probably way more significant than what most people learn in school. And so IMO representing it well is actually pretty important. Going back to EU4, it's why I still feel kinda uneasy about the development values. Yeah it's a game, and those values are for gameplay reasons, but I think kids seeing Germany be as rich as China and India in 1444 is exactly the kind of thing that rubs off on them, even if only subconsciously. I know that sort of thing absolutely did for me back with Age of Empires. I think the biggest offender in terms of influencing our generation's view on history is Tech Tree from civilization. It gives you a lot of dumb ideas like burning the library of Alexandria has "moved us back in tech tree" or something, or that the invention of stirrups means heavy cavalry means feudalism means renessaince and therefore Huns are forefathers of European civilization. It also carries a general idea of One True Path through history, you start with Babylonian clay village and by the end you get to New York skyscrapers and this is how God intended it. EU4 sidesteps the issue by pretending that a lot of history happens on its own and a lot of it is predetermined at the start, e.g. technology sorta happens whatever you do in the game. You only pay points to be on track or slightly ahead of historical development, and whatever you do sometime around 1710 the Age of Revolutions will come. Also, a funny thing: I find games like Age of Empires and Civilization easier to play without harming my inner historian. They're much more abstract and obviously just mirroring the historical reality. You get 100 hammers or food to produce a warrior and he beats another warrior - it could mean army clashes or just a small skirmish depending on the context. Meanwhile Paradox games will tell me that exactly 15232 people died in a battle and depending on the situation this number may seem ridiculous. It's fine when I build a market for a century or so in Civilization, it obviously represents something bigger - but in EU4 I have exact building time for the market and the detail is huge, so it's harder to swallow that Vienna didn't have a market in 1444 before the state invented and built it. Some mechanics like limits on warscore or attrition also make little sense in a detailed world of EU4 while in Civilization it's easier to pretend that attrition is never strong enough to affect the big picture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
oddium posted:mandate of heaven has the diplo macro which should have been free Be thankful they didn't put minimap in the DLC the way they did with HoI4. DLC policy is garbage but this is a game you'll probably enjoy for ages so I'm buying everything. Eventually. Except unit packs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Decided to play as Ayutthaya. Never played in SE Asia or Buddhist country. And this starting position is very nice, two good vassals and some mighty ideas. Starting tradition is +20% religious unity which makes me think long and hard about ideas. Should I double down on religious unity and get humanist? Or ignore it and take those ideas later? Ambition is +25% income from vassals so it seems that 2nd or 3rd idea set should be Influence and vassal swarm should be the name of the game. Anyway, I've botched my first game being too greedy. Around 1480, last 10 years I was rolling over smaller countries around with 0 manpower and now there are 2 separate wars (one was declared on me) that will probably break the country completely. Even if I loan a lot and get mercenaries I will not get much out of this war and will probably go bankrupt. I was probably too quick to swallow my vassals and seizing their land too aggressively so that they're disloyal and don't do a thing. National ideas also have -15% maintenance of mercenaries so I'm also thinking that administrative might be a good first idea to deal with manpower shortages. This game I've also discovered the joy of non-conquest wars, humiliating and grabbing money seems the way to go. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Feb 25, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Fighting in SE Asia is bloody due to attrition in all those jungle provinces so investing in Mercs may be worthwhile. Humanist may be a good investment because of the cornucopia of religions in SE Asia but its been a while since I've played/played down there so I'm not sure if that is great advice. Yeah, there's a lot of jungle provinces. I also get constant events about monsoons and stuff that usually make things worse. In the end, I've finished wars against me and they've got some factions released - no one actually had any decent claims on my land and I think only Khmer has similar religion and culture so that they're willing to get my lands, and Khmer is already dealt with. So I'm back to my starting land (minus a couple of provinces that are now some newly released country) and a bunch of loans with a small income. Thinking about starting again. First idea to be Administrative, second Influence. I'll try to get more vassals and limit annexation till I get corresponding influence idea. Vassal to the north will probably work well as a March, southern one I'll get a province from and will eventually annex while expanding North-West. I will need to take on Khmer as it's a natural expansion path but they instantly ally with my other rivals so it will have to wait. There are no decent big allies in the region so I'll probably try to fill all the diplorelations slots with vassals. Wish me luck!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
I'm playing as future SIam and sad about lack of Mingplosion. For a White Elephant achievement, I'll need a couple of provinces they hold and it all might be a little inconvenient in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Azhais posted:I just look for achievements to target and play til they get resolved, and continue if I'm having fun beyond that. I think this is the right way to play. Missions help with some nations too. Otherwise, it's very easy to lose interest after the initial balancing of powers. If you've survived for the first 100 years then probably there's nobody who has the desire and the means to destroy you. WC probably means getting big enough by a certain date and after that it's boring. Never done this so maybe it's better than I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Right now I'm going for The White Elephant (own Burma and Indochina regions) achievement. And I've thought I've reached it like 30 years ago. It's currently 1630 and South-East Asia landmass only has me and 4 of my vassals. Up until a recent time I was a tributary of Ming. My rivals are Timurids and Ottomans, I can also rival Ming. Since I force-vassalized 4 of my vassals (there were more but they're annexed by now) I've beaten Bengal who was my rival (no more, got 2 vassals and 1 tributary released from him for me). Also mopped up Malacca a little. Then I discovered a couple of things. My vassals had aggressive expansion modifier to me at... -230. Ming has it at -100 but I was a tributary and we had a royal marriage so it's fine. But then Ming decided to support the independence of my vassal Dai Vet and other vassals instantly turned rebellious because I and my few allies were weaker then Ming, even though Ming was friendly overlord. I tried to appease them but the modifier was something like +150% liberty desire. I couldn't grant Dai Vet independence cause my prestige was low for some reason. Then I embraced Manufacturies and the hell broke loose. I became #4 power in the world and tributary to Ming instantly stopped. Ming turned Outraged. Vassals still hate me. Couple of years gone by while I tried to be in war all the time so that vassals can't rebel... But now in peace Ming declares war with Dai Vet. Rebelous vassals join. Me, Delhi and several of my vassals VS behemoth of Ming and my other vassals. It's actually a very interesting end to the campaign. I might have overextended because my goal was an achievement and that's about it, I didn't care much about the general well-being of the state. Made me more focused, maybe less rational. The more rational thing would involve colonizing and capturing actually useful land with some income, not traveling around the worst trade node (though I moved my trade capital to Bengal node - I have Pegu and 2 more coastal trade nodes there, very strange placement - and now most of my land send money there through Malacca trade node which I do not control that well). So now I have a final showdown for the achievement. If Ming gets away and my vassals lose Ming support they'll be absorbed - even if this part will be slow and boring. If not then I'll probably have a very different future. The game rewarded me with an interesting endgame for my achievement, something like a better Total War game ending. Feels good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
I haven't tried to deal with achievements till recently so my games quickly became tedious even though I had some fun finishing them. As I didn't have any specific goal it was all about securing my position and it always ended up meaning I'm a de facto world hegemon, WC would not be possible in the time left but the rest of the world combined can't do anything to me so what's the point. When you look at it from a more gamey position and see those non-sensical joke missions are actually interesting. I wish Paradox would do something to make them available outside of Iron Man so that people without SSD or not willing to play Iron Man or most importantly people with mods would enjoy it. Like, allow us to still see those conditions and get satisfaction from their fulfilling even if the game doesn't send it to Steam and save it as a truly achieved achievement. Missions do some of that though, I'd wish they copied more of achievements into missions. Like that White Elephant achievement does not exist as a mission for Ayutthaya which is a shame. And the generic mission tree lacks some uber achievement-class missions. I think the game would benefit from something like that greatly so that you could start as any nation and go for hardest missions, like control every province of your religion, your super-region, be a #1 great power, things like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
They've given themselves a new reason to redo every region with mission system. They've applied it retroactively to some regions that were changed shortly before the mission system but right now many nations feel surprisingly barebones in that regard. Like Ayutthaya I've recently played: it has an achievement for conquering its superregion but not a single special mission, and its religion doesn't have any missions. Even, say, Ethiopia gets plenty of flavour through missions cause Coptic religion has a set of missions for restoring holy places.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2019 09:45
|
|