Europa Universalis 4 Thread 2: Comet Sighted!

[Grif]

Interestingly powerful Papal State there. How good have Diplomacy/Influence been? I haven't tried a truly diplo-focused game since they made diploannexation cost monarch points.

Also, that reminds me - Poland and Lithuania never formed the Commonwealth in my game, despite being in a PU for quite a long time. Do you folks know any reason the AI never used the "form Commonwealth" decision?

Diplomacy/Influence allows you to sustain more vassals, and allow you to annex them more rapidly. (Both give +Diplomatic Reputation) Influence in particular also gives a discount to diploannexation, quite similar to Administrative Core-Creation discount. Plus, I just like vassal swarms.

With Art of War, they become even more powerful, since you can declare on behalf of your vassal's claims (*hint*hint*nudge*), and you can simply hand over territory to them to core on your behalf. It allows you to bypass all that nonsense with dealing with wrong culture/wrong religion. Though vassal claims itself can be finicky. Sometimes they forge claims, sometimes they don't. I'm not sure why.

As for your PLC thing, it's possible the AI somehow got itself into another PU, which means Poland now can't form the PLC so long they hold more than one PU.

EDIT: Wow, both Crimea and Iraq (my vassals), just westernised. I think I'll keep them.

[rweird]

Forming the PLC requires admin tech 10, IIRC, and the PU often breaks before then. I've never seen the PLC form in games I've played (although I've only played two for a decently long time).

[Azimov]

The personal Union also requires that both countries have the same government type (At least from my experience as Lithuania), and since Poland is normally an Elective Monarchy This means that Poland needs to change it Gov Type before the union can form. Does anyone know if Lithuania can even become an elective monarchy? I certainly couldn't find the option when i was playing as them, and so despite being allied with poland for literally the entire game and pushing every claim i had, the Commonwealth just never formed.

[Leecros]

The personal Union also requires that both countries have the same government type (At least from my experience as Lithuania), and since Poland is normally an Elective Monarchy This means that Poland needs to change it Gov Type before the union can form. Does anyone know if Lithuania can even become an elective monarchy? I certainly couldn't find the option when i was playing as them, and so despite being allied with poland for literally the entire game and pushing every claim i had, the Commonwealth just never formed.

Poland-Lituania is a special Union. Poland can form it through a decision rather than any event or mission or deaths.

The requirements for this is:
*At least 1 Stability
*100 Diplopower
*(Poland) has a regency council
*(Poland) has no heir
*(Poland) is not a subject nation
*(Poland) is at peace
*(Lithuania) ruler is Kazimierz Jagellion and not a subject nation

Poland isn't elective at the start of the game and by the time they go Elective, it's too late. They no longer have issues with heirs or regency councils. Also I don't believe Lithuania can have some sort of reverse union over Poland to form their own example of the commonwealth.



Also, that reminds me - Poland and Lithuania never formed the Commonwealth in my game, despite being in a PU for quite a long time. Do you folks know any reason the AI never used the "form Commonwealth" decision?

The biggest problem(outside of losing the union) that i see is that the AI integrates Lithuania rather than takes the decision. The decision to form the commonwealth requires Lithuania to be under a union, so If Poland integrates Lithuania, they'll never form the commonwealth.

The decision also requires Krakow, Warszawa, Danzig, and Marienburg. Also Mazovia can't exist. Basically Poland has to conquer the Teutonic Order and annex their vassal. Of course, like all nation forming decisions, they also need Admin tech 10. If they don't meet those requirements before integrating Lithuania, then they'll just be Super-Poland.

[Azimov]

Ah, fair enough, I've never played it from the Poland side thinking about it, But Lithuania can definitely form the commonwealth (at least technically) as they also have a special mission for it. It does however, require them to both be the same Gov type, which makes it really hard to do unless you get it done really early. Looking at the Polish requirements, that certainly seems much more likely to happen.

Edit: having just checked a couple of Wiki's it looks like the same gov thing might be a recent addition, and again, only on Lithuania's side. giving you a teeny tiny window of about... 4 years? ish? Im just firing up EU4 now to double check the requirements and which version I'm running.

Edit Edit: The wrong Gov type message is what you get occur if the polish succesfully form an elective monarchy, so yeah. You need to wipe out Mazovia and get your ruler on both thrones regardless.

[Flickerdart]

Are there any advantages to forming the Commonwealth? Killer ideas? Some kind of national modifier? More powerful vodkas? Seems like screwing around with government types (what type is the PLC anyway, merchant republic?) when surrounded by angry monarchies is just as terrible an idea as it was in real life.

[rweird]

It is an Elective Monarchy (typically, government type doesn't change when you form it), I believe, and has Polish ideas. A big advantage is forming it causes you to inherit the other country (at no DIP cost), so Poland that integrated Lithuania isn't significantly different, but forming the PLC does that for free.

[Grif]

Forming the PLC requires admin tech 10, IIRC, and the PU often breaks before then. I've never seen the PLC form in games I've played (although I've only played two for a decently long time).

Quite the opposite of mine. Ever since Poland got "lucky", the AI tends to keep the union more often than not, and wrecks the Teutonic Order and Livonian Order within twenty years of starting.


Are there any advantages to forming the Commonwealth? Killer ideas? Some kind of national modifier? More powerful vodkas? Seems like screwing around with government types (what type is the PLC anyway, merchant republic?) when surrounded by angry monarchies is just as terrible an idea as it was in real life.

You just inherit Lithuania for free, I believe. Aside from that, it uses Polish ideas and such, and keeps its Elective Monarchy government.

Elective Monarchy is basically a monarchy without some of its downsides like regencies or incapable rulers. Plus it also gives reduced autonomy and free reduced unrest.

[OrcusMcP]

Are there any advantages to forming the Commonwealth? Killer ideas? Some kind of national modifier? More powerful vodkas? Seems like screwing around with government types (what type is the PLC anyway, merchant republic?) when surrounded by angry monarchies is just as terrible an idea as it was in real life.

I think you need to form the Commonwealth in order to take a few other unique decisions (move Capitol to Warsaw is one) and opens up more event possibilities.

[rweird]

Quite the opposite of mine. Ever since Poland got "lucky", the AI tends to keep the union more often than not, and wrecks the Teutonic Order and Livonian Order within twenty years of starting.

Yeah, my first time was before they were lucky, and I think that I was responsible for the union breaking. I was Brandenburg, and allied them, got two wars with Denmark, Sweden (PU), Norway (PU), the Hansa Muscovy, and a few HRE minors. Denmark warned me, but was my ally, so I didn't know they'd join against me anyways. I called in Poland+Lithuania, but Muscovy and Denmark smashed their armies, probably brought Poland to negative prestige, as the union broke by the next war. I also conquered Danzig and stuff to form Prussia, so the Commonwealth couldn't have formed.

The second time, I don't think the union ever formed, or if it formed, it quickly broke (maybe in some war Crimea declared on Lithuania which I helped out in, I don't remember if Poland was an ally or overlord). Lots people died and got in PU with other nations, in that game, just yesterday, I saw France defending in an independence war with Tuscany (which they obviously won), while Lithuania and Austria fought a succession war for Sweden. England is in a PU under Portugal… Damn, it seems like half the lucky nations are being PU-ed, and the other half are busy PU-ing.

Those are the only two games I really remember anything about. The others were short, me getting a feel for playing, modded, or ones I didn't pay attention to eastern Europe.

On Elective Monarchy, the problem is perpetually having low legitimacy.

[IthilanorStPete]

Poland-Lituania is a special Union. Poland can form it through a decision rather than any event or mission or deaths.

The requirements for this is:
*At least 1 Stability
*100 Diplopower
*(Poland) has a regency council
*(Poland) has no heir
*(Poland) is not a subject nation
*(Poland) is at peace
*(Lithuania) ruler is Kazimierz Jagellion and not a subject nation

Poland isn't elective at the start of the game and by the time they go Elective, it's too late. They no longer have issues with heirs or regency councils. Also I don't believe Lithuania can have some sort of reverse union over Poland to form their own example of the commonwealth.


They took that decision to form the PU at the start of the game, but didn't form the Commonwealth later.


The biggest problem(outside of losing the union) that i see is that the AI integrates Lithuania rather than takes the decision. The decision to form the commonwealth requires Lithuania to be under a union, so If Poland integrates Lithuania, they'll never form the commonwealth.

They didn't integrate Lithuania, either - the PU eventually fell apart - though I saw that happen with Castile integrating Aragon, then forming Spain militarily instead of just doing it diplomatically.


The decision also requires Krakow, Warszawa, Danzig, and Marienburg. Also Mazovia can't exist. Basically Poland has to conquer the Teutonic Order and annex their vassal. Of course, like all nation forming decisions, they also need Admin tech 10. If they don't meet those requirements before integrating Lithuania, then they'll just be Super-Poland.

The requirement for those provinces might be what caused the issue. I'll check my older saves in a bit.

EDIT: Yep, Marienburg was the issue; Poland didn't conquer it before the PU dissolved. They eventually grabbed it from the Teutonic Order around 1625, just after splitting apart from Lithuania. I don't know what took them so long, the Teutons didn't have any noteworthy allies.

[Leecros]

So, i won The Hundred Years' war as England. After waiting the required time, I then integrated France(which took quite a long time on its own) and in the end...I don't think getting a PU with France was really worth the extra trouble.

Now that may sound crazy, but I'm thinking about all the time and effort that i put into it.

First off, It put be another 4,000 ducats into debt to get the warscore required to force the PU. This led to my economy being in the ground for an extra 10-15 years.

Secondly, it required a diplomat to nearly constantly be improving relations with them. France was always rebellious and always tried every chance they could to get independence. This took up a whole diplomat that I could have used for anything else, because I had to keep their opinion of me at 200(or be in a war)

thirdly, the diplopower cost. At 129 base tax with all of their vassals at the start of the game(and they had even more territory by the time i annexed them). It cost me at least 1290 Diplopower. that's a lot of diplopower. Especially for a nation like England who does best when they're dominating the colonial and trade. Which requires diplopower.

Fourthly, an annexed vassal/union member has 75% local autonomy. this means that even with Administrative Monarchy, it would take ~41.6 years before the land reaches its full potential and do you really think that Spain or Austria is going to wait?


Knowing what i know now, what would i do different? Well, probably just conquer them normally. For those who don't know, there's two outcomes to the Hundred Years war for England winning the war. The Biggest take would be the Personal Union, but by taking Paris,or by completing the mission to take Paris. I don't know which is the exact trigger because I did them both at the same time. You get claims on all of northern France.

I would say that it would probably be best to use those claims to cripple France and then use your newly acquired land to conquer France in the traditional way. With Claims and armies. This way the land becomes more useful more quickly(Conquered land has 50% autonomy), you don't have to burn through all of your diplopower(which hurts your trade and colonization ambitions) and you don't cripple your economy for longer than you have to.

[Grif]

That said. Why would you integrate France? They may take up a diplo slot, but they're easily your trump card in any continental war. (Plus their national ideas and idea groups in general slant towards land military dominance. Something which England/UK doesn't have.)

[Leecros]

That said. Why would you integrate France? They may take up a diplo slot, but they're easily your trump card in any continental war. (Plus their national ideas and idea groups in general slant towards land military dominance. Something which England/UK doesn't have.)

It's largely because until you're larger than them, they're going to be constantly trying to get independence. In order to prevent this you almost have to keep a diplomat on top of France constantly...Which, of course, only gives you one diplomat to play with.

Personally, I'd rather guarantee that the land stays under my control than the risk of France becoming hostile for a month, getting the support of Spain and attacking me. Something that they did do, at least twice(without the attacking part). Sure, i could put France down again, but France and Spain was a bit out of my league. Even with Austria as my ally.

Also, although this was more something for my game, I ended Provence's involvement prematurely by ceding Calais, Gascogne, andLabourd to France. Under the thought process of "Well, it'll all be mine soon anyways". Which of course was a mistake. This meant that eventually I would almost have to annex France to expand in Europe. However, at the time Provence and Lorraine was the bulk of the forces I was fighting and hoped that by peacing them out would bring a much quicker end to the war and on that count i was correct. France stopped really putting up a fight after Provence and their minion left.


Also there's a sense of superiority that I believe that i could manage France's land and armies better than the AI could.

[tonberrian]

Believe me. Holding France is a lot more trouble than it's worth (as compared to integrating it). They will eventually take aggressive action against you unless they're at 200 relations, and that's hard to manage constantly. I had trouble and I was mega Austria.

[Artanis]

So, a couple quick questions about switching to Protestant/Reformed:

1) Are there particular situations/plans/etc. where one is better than the other? In EU3, there was a (very very general) "go Reformed if you plan to do X, go Protestant if you want to do Y", but the wiki seems to indicate that that isn't really the case with EU4.
2) Is it better to be one of the first three to convert, or wait until three others have done so? Being quick will speed up getting all your stuff converted, but waiting and then just relying on the missionary strength boost will help make sure more of your neighbors convert as well.

[Grif]

So, a couple quick questions about switching to Protestant/Reformed:

1) Are there particular situations/plans/etc. where one is better than the other? In EU3, there was a (very very general) "go Reformed if you plan to do X, go Protestant if you want to do Y", but the wiki seems to indicate that that isn't really the case with EU4.
2) Is it better to be one of the first three to convert, or wait until three others have done so? Being quick will speed up getting all your stuff converted, but waiting and then just relying on the missionary strength boost will help make sure more of your neighbors convert as well.

That depends. If you have the Wealth of Nations DLC, then switching to Reformed will unlock its Fervour mechanic. It's basically a national foci sort of deal, where you can spend your Fervour points for stability (-national unrest), trade, or war. You're usually able to keep a fervour foci active all the time, and activate two once in a while.

Protestantism is... kinda bland at the moment. The -10% idea cost is nifty, but otherwise unremarkable.

With the new Centres of Reformation mechanic, you can switch early if you like, and the centres of reformation will help you convert the rest of your country. You also get a hefty +10% religious zeal modifier to convert the rest of your country as well when you first switch.

[rweird]

Leecros: For the cost, it is true that France costs a lot to diplo-annex, however, France costs a lot admin points to core (129 base tax would cost 2580 admin power without claims, 1935 with, meaning diplo-annexing is cheaper in total points.

While being at 75% autonomy makes the province rather worthless at first, conquered provinces have +15 revolt risk from nationalism, which often forces me to raise autonomy in them anyways (unless I have humanist ideas). For newly integrated provinces of the same religion and an accepted culture, and high legitimacy, you could safely lower autonomy (not sure how well this would work).

I won't deny that it costs a lot, although taking such a large amount of land almost always does (unless you wait and hope to inherit France). The hundred years war way is paying the cost up front, and from then on, I think it might be cheaper, although possibly slower than slowly eating them. Still, France is just nasty, and there is no good way to deal with them.

[OrcusMcP]

That depends. If you have the Wealth of Nations DLC, then switching to Reformed will unlock its Fervour mechanic. It's basically a national foci sort of deal, where you can spend your Fervour points for stability (-national unrest), trade, or war. You're usually able to keep a fervour foci active all the time, and activate two once in a while.

Protestantism is... kinda bland at the moment. The -10% idea cost is nifty, but otherwise unremarkable.

With the new Centres of Reformation mechanic, you can switch early if you like, and the centres of reformation will help you convert the rest of your country. You also get a hefty +10% religious zeal modifier to convert the rest of your country as well when you first switch.

Protestantism is useful for a few nations:
-Countries that can't get a lot of Cardinals (generally Northern Europe)
-Countries that can maintain religious unity easily (small to medium size countries)
-Countries with awesome trade goods
-Countries that may not have the money to maintain high level advisors (usually landlocked countries)

[Artanis]

Protestantism is useful for a few nations:
-Countries that can't get a lot of Cardinals (generally Northern Europe)
-Countries that can maintain religious unity easily (small to medium size countries)
-Countries with awesome trade goods
-Countries that may not have the money to maintain high level advisors (usually landlocked countries)
But what about Protestant vs. Reformed?

[Leecros]

Leecros: For the cost, it is true that France costs a lot to diplo-annex, however, France costs a lot admin points to core (129 base tax would cost 2580 admin power without claims, 1935 with, meaning diplo-annexing is cheaper in total points.

As any nation that doesn't heavily focus on colonization, I would generally agree with you. However, England and a few other nations are special exceptions where i would rather pay more in admin power than fall behind diplomatically, because of colonization.

You do not want Spain dominating the colonial scene. As an example, in my Ottoman Empire, Spain was the only nation that was competitive with me financially. They didn't beat my Income, but it was something along the lines of 850-something vs my 920-something ducats/month without expenses. That was all because I took England out of the game and they didn't colonize.

In my current game as England, Spain already has 4 colonial nations(vs my 1). Largely due to me having to invest a large amount of diplomatic power into France. This means that not only can Spain colonize 2 provinces themselves, but their colonial nations can each colonize 1. Techncially they can probably colonize more, but I rarely see Colonial Nations go over 1 colony at any given time. Whereas I can colonize 3, maybe 4. Comparatively Speaking, Portugal has three of their own. While not as big of a threat as Spain, they can still become a major economic power.


While being at 75% autonomy makes the province rather worthless at first, conquered provinces have +15 revolt risk from nationalism, which often forces me to raise autonomy in them anyways (unless I have humanist ideas). For newly integrated provinces of the same religion and an accepted culture, and high legitimacy, you could safely lower autonomy (not sure how well this would work).


Rebellion is always an issue when taking land. Although generally you only have to deal with one or two rebellions before nationalism goes away(If any). Even if you have to increase autonomy though, you don't have to increase it everywhere. You'd be surprised at how much longer it takes the rebels to fire by just increasing autonomy in a few provinces and stationing troops in particularly bad spots.

Worst case scenario, Harsh Treatment is an option...but That generally is only an option when the rebellion is imminent and you don't think you can take the rebel stacks(which is usually about as difficult as uniting your armies to take them down one at a time).


edit:

In other news...How about this Catholic Empire.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/14ybvao.jpg

The only Catholic nations left in the HRE is Austria, Mainz, Trier,Liege(which is being converted), Holland(which is being converted), Munster(which only has one province that's Reformed), and The Papal State. However ,Catholicism is totally the official religion of the HRE...

[OrcusMcP]

But what about Protestant vs. Reformed?

Reformed is really really REALLY good for countries that expand a lot in Europe or do a lot of trade (though usually if you're doing one you're doing both). They designed the new Reformed-fervor system with the Dutch in mind, but even some of the traditional Latin Catholic countries like Portugal, Venice, Genoa, Milan are beastly under Reformed. If you've got all the European land you want and aren't that focused on the trade game, Protestant will do very well. If you're still expanding or you need to defend your trade interests a lot, then Reformed is your friend.

To round out, if big numbers in Stability, Prestige and Legitimacy are your thing, then stay Catholic. Also, Crusades, but not everyone can use those.

EDIT TO ADD: The Reformed mechanic especially synergizes well with the Merchant Republic factions.

[Leecros]

i went reformed as Brandenburg one time and basically stuck all of my ferver into military at all times for synergy with my Prussian Ideas to create an Incredibly Powerful Military Force.

[rweird]

Super-military Brandenburg FTW! I got the five colonies achievement with Brandenburg, without taking Exploration or Expansion ideas. Who needs colonists when you can steal colonial nations from other people?

As for colonizing, I don't recall any diplomatic costs beyond Exploration ideas and dip tech. For Dip tech, with Dip focus, a Dip advisor (level 1) and a decent ruler (2+ dip), you could stay at time on tech while integrating France (assuming integration costs 4 points per month with diplo-rep advisor). With a level 1 advisor and dip focus, you could stay up to date on tech if you don't have a dip advisor. Still, if the integration of France coincides with taking a diplomatic idea group, I see the problem.

[Leecros]

As for colonizing, I don't recall any diplomatic costs beyond Exploration ideas and dip tech. For Dip tech, with Dip focus, a Dip advisor (level 1) and a decent ruler (2+ dip), you could stay at time on tech while integrating France (assuming integration costs 4 points per month with diplo-rep advisor). With a level 1 advisor and dip focus, you could stay up to date on tech if you don't have a dip advisor. Still, if the integration of France coincides with taking a diplomatic idea group, I see the problem.

There's also the problem that England's first ruler is a 0/0/0. Not really winning any prizes in the Monarch Power category there. :smalltongue:

i was slightly sad when he died, because i was only about 10 years away from the Die Please Die achievement.

[Flickerdart]

There's also the problem that England's first ruler is a 0/0/0. Not really winning any prizes in the Monarch Power category there. :smalltongue:

i was slightly sad when he died, because i was only about 10 years away from the Die Please Die achievement.
EU4 really needs some assassins somewhere. So many situations where they would be handy...

[OrcusMcP]

EU4 really needs some assassins somewhere. So many situations where they would be handy...

Maybe it would finally give people a reason to take Espionage. :smalltongue:

Straight up killing monarchs would be a bit too powerful, though. Maybe some ability to snipe a general, that way you can snipe a monarch-heir general.

[rweird]

A level three advisor would make up for it.

Assassination would make getting/breaking Personal Unions much easier.

[Leecros]

Assassination would make getting/breaking Personal Unions much easier.

one might say


too easy

[OrcusMcP]

one might say


too easy

Exactly, we're not playing Assassinator Crusader Kings 2 here.

That's why I think general sniping might be something a bit more balanced and would require full Espionage or something as well as maintaining a diplomat for a while.

[Flickerdart]

You could get a new diplomatic/spy mission to murder people and then every once in a while a random advisor/general/whatever in their court will die and there's a chance you are discovered.

[GnomeGninjas]

So, apparently the pope is "the vanguard of the reformation":
http://i59.tinypic.com/25hfv4k.png

[Flickerdart]

I require your Ideas-related help.

I started up another Chukchi game - awesome 6/3/2 ruler helped me quickly dominate my three neighbours and then push into Ainu territory. I've captured the Kurils, although the Ainu's 6-ship navy completely wrecked my barque and two cogs. I'm bleeding MIL trying to keep revolts down, which is really annoying. I also have a crappy force limit of 4 or something like that because Siberian provinces are all garbage (1 base tax + fur or fish produced).

So I finally got to Admin tech 4 and can pick a national idea. I've given up on colonizing (tried it in a previous game, and the Chukchi can't afford to pay colony maintenance without sinking deep into debt) and my current plan is to conquer the Ainu and then try to seize Japan. Ming has exploded, so there aren't really any regional powers right now. What's a good idea for me to pick? I'm hesitant to select Military ideas because I need MIL to pacify nationalist/patriot rebels and keep up on Military tech (Chinese tech group and +15% cost for Siberian Tribal Council really sucks). However, I feel like I need a military edge if I'm going to hold my own against the East Asian powers and inevitably the Russian Empire.

So what Idea should I pick as my first?

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Innovative for cheaper mercs and all the other nice stuff in innovative?

[Flickerdart]

I'm kind of hesitant about mercs. Are they worth it? With no income (I'm barely breaking even outside of war time by reducing all maintenance to 0; should I have beaten up my neighbours for their gold before doing full annexation?) I might not be able to retain them for long.

Would it be a good idea to take Humanism so that it's easier to integrate conquered people?

[rweird]

Colonization sort of is necessary, from what I've seen, in that region. Even if it would bankrupt you, if you don't have neighbors, you wouldn't need to worry about them picking you off (lowering colonial maintenance, I believe, still allows you to make progress on colonies while bankrupt). Colonies are a more permanent way to gain power.

Still, Humanism, IMO, is never a bad idea group (unless you are a Catholic in Europe during the Reformation, in which case it has a few disadvantages).

[Flickerdart]

Well, beating up the Ainu was easy (plus they took control of Sakhalin through rebellion, so now I have that too) and Humanism has been a huge help in suppressing unrest and nationalism, but Japan has decided to become my rival, and they have 3 times my force limit modifier (and armies). Last time I played Chukchi, taking Plutocracy gave me a huge force limit boost from "mercenary pool" or something like that; does that still exist, or was it patched out (since it's not a listed benefit of the ideas)?

[rweird]

For every additional 50% increase in your mercenary pool, you get +6 force limit. This wasn't patched out, to my knowledge. Anything that increases available mercenaries would do that. It is one of the many things which isn't clearly explained (So Administrative Ideas would do that too, if you don't want to spend the Mil points for Plutocratic).

For Japan rivaling you, has Japan unified, or does Japan itself border/share a sea zone with you? As Japan has rather autonomous vassals, so until they actually can fabricate a claim on you, I don't think they'd be able to attack.

Looking for independent Daimyos to conquer would be a good way to expand without fighting such a massive war. After that, look at the manchurian hordes, some of them could be weak and isolated, making them easy pickings (after you discover them, that is).

[Flickerdart]

Japan is nearly unified - in addition to the central government, there are two daimyos - Date in the north, and some other clan in the south. They each have about a third of the entire nation, and are definitely not independent.

I think I'll try going for the hordes, now that I have Sakhalin and they are technically adjacent. It's the only direction I can still expand in without colonizing or attacking Japan.

While offensive war probably won't work, I think Japan's navy is only slightly stronger than mine, so if I can scrape together enough gold for an early carrack or two, I should be able to hold them off from landing on Hokkaido and therefore managing anything useful with their massive numerical advantage.

[rweird]

I believe Japan has a lot of inland sea around it, so a bunch of galleys very well could do better than a few heavies.

[Flickerdart]

My naval force limit is only 7, currently I have 2 barques and 3 cogs. Should I scrap some to make room for galleys?

[rweird]

If you want to hold off the Japanese land advance, I think it is would be necessary (Especially if Japan has a larger navy, or a one with a lot of galleys). Galleys are dirt cheap to maintain.

[IthilanorStPete]

Just check whether the relevant sea provinces to block Hokkaido are inland seas or not.

[Flickerdart]

Just check whether the relevant sea provinces to block Hokkaido are inland seas or not.
The way I remember it, there are two sea regions that I can blockade. One is an inland sea and one is not. I could be wrong though, as I wasn't really looking at the type of sea when I was fighting the Ainu, since my own navy didn't care.

Agh, it's even worse than I thought - I have to block three sea regions, two inland and one not. What's worse, Japan has 11 ships to my 5/7. And the weak Hordes are all vassalized under Haixi, which is easily my better in military matters. Looks like I have to start colonizing after all.

Double edit: After absorbing Shiba, Japan has 26 armies and basically takes whatever it wants from me.

[IthilanorStPete]

Is there any particular nation that really uses Humanism to its fullest potential? I'm trying to think of ideas for a game where I build a tolerant, diverse, pluralist country instead of the more usual monolithic autocracy.

[Waar]

Is there any particular nation that really uses Humanism to its fullest potential? I'm trying to think of ideas for a game where I build a tolerant, diverse, pluralist country instead of the more usual monolithic autocracy.

The Ottomans?

[OrcusMcP]

Ming would do well with Humanist, anyone in India, Ottomans as mentioned, Byzantium would probably do well if ou built them up, Milan, Savoy.

[IthilanorStPete]

I'll probably try one of the Indian powers (I'm thinking Vijayanagar), since I wanted to explore that region in my next game anyways. Any tips on strategy?

[OrcusMcP]

I'll probably try one of the Indian powers (I'm thinking Vijayanagar), since I wanted to explore that region in my next game anyways. Any tips on strategy?

Don't trust the Tamils. There are a ton of events related to the Tamils hating you, including an option to get an awesome general who then betrays you. Beware.

Other than that, you are pretty powerful and should be an even match for Bahamanis or Orissa. Pick at whichever one is weakest at the moment.

[Grif]

Ming would do well with Humanist, anyone in India, Ottomans as mentioned, Byzantium would probably do well if ou built them up, Milan, Savoy.

Byzantium's national ideas don't synergise well with Humanism, I find. You'd do better to grab Religious ideas and then stack them for mass true faith conversion. No need to worry about non-accepted culture too. (I'm trying a game with Humanist Byzantium. Safe to say, most of the bonus you get are wasted, since there's no reason to mass convert and you'll be rocking 3-4 missionaries with +12% conversion power by the 1600s.)

I'd say Poland is another good candidate, and pre-1.8, England as well.

[IthilanorStPete]

Don't trust the Tamils. There are a ton of events related to the Tamils hating you, including an option to get an awesome general who then betrays you. Beware.

Other than that, you are pretty powerful and should be an even match for Bahamanis or Orissa. Pick at whichever one is weakest at the moment.

Looking at the events, seems like the best way to handle that general is either trying to crush him right away or limit his influence to the local region, then try and lower local autonomy to fire the "Chellappa Marginalized" event.

EDIT: Started my game. Going all right, though a long war against Bahmanis really drained my manpower. I elected to suppress the General's rebellion immediately, which was bloody, but at least it's over. Admin points have been hard to come by due to coring and increasing stability; thankfully, I think I can pump them into tech now, as I intend to expand through vassalization (and reconquest of my cores from Orissa). Orissa is looking strong, with several vassals; I'm hoping to establish an alliance with Jaunpur to counterbalance them, going to war once my manpower refills. I'm debating what order to take Humanism and Influence in for my first two idea groups, and I'll plan to take a military group third. One annoyance - tolerance for heretics doesn't seem to do me much good unless religious rebels appear or Sikhism comes out of somewhere. I went with Surya as my deity for right now, but money hasn't really been a problem, so I'll probably switch to Shakti (better military) for my next ruler. Other candidates are Ganesha to help with expanding diplomatically or Ganga to counteract the inflation I'm getting from Golkanda's gold.


Byzantium's national ideas don't synergise well with Humanism, I find. You'd do better to grab Religious ideas and then stack them for mass true faith conversion. No need to worry about non-accepted culture too. (I'm trying a game with Humanist Byzantium. Safe to say, most of the bonus you get are wasted, since there's no reason to mass convert and you'll be rocking 3-4 missionaries with +12% conversion power by the 1600s.)

I'd say Poland is another good candidate, and pre-1.8, England as well.

I contemplated a Poland game, as I've wanted to check them out, but I wanted to get out of Europe for a while. (EDIT2) What changed with England in 1.8?

[Frog Dragon]

Holy hell, France. :smalleek: I tried playing in Europe proper for once (Papal States) and while I've blobbed quite admirably (own most of the balkans, all the mediterranean islands, and all of Italy except for Piedmont), France was... insurmountable. I wound up resorting to some stinky, stinky gorgonzola to deal with them.

I had been using them as a hammer against the HRE (pressing "remove province from the HRE" and watching the emperor go apoplectic is still funny) and I had them as allies, so what I did was declare on a HRE member (the mighty Ulm) and then let France siege stuff up. Once I had almost everything 100% occupied, I separate peaced as many as I could, feeding every province France had occupied to France.

End result? France owns a whole bunch of random provinces in the middle of Germany. France cannot core these provinces. France has ridiculous overextension. France has even more ridiculous aggressive expansion. I break my alliance with France and join the coalition.

Then I DoW for punitive war. France is still a house and actually wins a lot of battles. I was at -33 or so warscore and had to eat a stabhit to not peace out early. However, their manpower was dwindling. They also got DoWed by Great Britain pouncing on the carcass. I ignored everything else and focused on just battering the baguette as badly as possible. The other wars they had gotten involved in had forced them to release some stuff already, and I went for even more damage. Almost all of the warscore was spent on releasing nations.

Even after this, France is still incredibly strong.

*grumble grumble*Rampaging baguettes of elan and overpoweredness*grumble grumble*

[Artanis]

Holy hell, France. :smalleek: I tried playing in Europe proper for once (Papal States) and while I've blobbed quite admirably (own most of the balkans, all the mediterranean islands, and all of Italy except for Piedmont), France was... insurmountable. I wound up resorting to some stinky, stinky gorgonzola to deal with them.

I had been using them as a hammer against the HRE (pressing "remove province from the HRE" and watching the emperor go apoplectic is still funny) and I had them as allies, so what I did was declare on a HRE member (the mighty Ulm) and then let France siege stuff up. Once I had almost everything 100% occupied, I separate peaced as many as I could, feeding every province France had occupied to France.

End result? France owns a whole bunch of random provinces in the middle of Germany. France cannot core these provinces. France has ridiculous overextension. France has even more ridiculous aggressive expansion. I break my alliance with France and join the coalition.

Then I DoW for punitive war. France is still a house and actually wins a lot of battles. I was at -33 or so warscore and had to eat a stabhit to not peace out early. However, their manpower was dwindling. They also got DoWed by Great Britain pouncing on the carcass. I ignored everything else and focused on just battering the baguette as badly as possible. The other wars they had gotten involved in had forced them to release some stuff already, and I went for even more damage. Almost all of the warscore was spent on releasing nations.

Even after this, France is still incredibly strong.

*grumble grumble*Rampaging baguettes of elan and overpoweredness*grumble grumble*
One thing that I've already seen in my limited playing time is that even if you do get France down, they absolutely will not stay down. If you don't bludgeon them d*** near to extinction, then sooner or later they'll just re-conquer everything that you made them release and you're back to square one.

[Frog Dragon]

One thing that I've already seen in my limited playing time is that even if you do get France down, they absolutely will not stay down. If you don't bludgeon them d*** near to extinction, then sooner or later they'll just re-conquer everything that you made them release and you're back to square one.
The hope is that if I slow them down enough, I can actually get to a position where I can reliably defeat them if needed. Right now I'm probably at that point, but the problem is that wars frequently become two front because the Ottoman superblob hates me and my giant Corfu vassal, so they'll DoW at any sign of vulnerability.

[Grif]

I contemplated a Poland game, as I've wanted to check them out, but I wanted to get out of Europe for a while. (EDIT2) What changed with England in 1.8?

The reduced culture acceptance threshold idea was replaced with an increased embargo/privateer efficiency idea, IIRC.

No more -80% reduced cultural threshold cheese. (-50% from Humanism, -20%-10% from England's national idea, -20% from two policies you can take with Humanism)

[rweird]

You still can, with enough work get 90%, some countries, even more. England isn't as good, but other countries can go over 100%.

Ottomans can get 105% accepted cultures. -50% Humanism, -10% Plutocratic-Humanist, -10% Influence-Humanist, -15% Ottoman Tolerance, -10% Trading in Silk (pretty easy to get a Ottomans), -10% Enlightened Despotism. Polish traditions, Athenian idea 2, Bahmani idea 3, Fulani Jihad idea 6, and Mexican idea 2 can do the same as the Ottomans (-15%).

Ayutthayan traditions, Shan traditions, Arawak idea 4, Caucasian idea 1, Central Indian idea 4, Mossi idea 3, Lan Xang idea 1, and West African idea 7 give -10%, so can result in -100% accepted culture threshold, so a number of nations can get 100% accepted.

Any nation can get -90% with Influence, Humanist, and Plutocratic ideas, Trading in Silk, and being an Enlightened Despotism (although that would require becoming a republic, and then a monarchy again.

[OrcusMcP]

I've been playing a Brandenburg game, aiming to make the Germans as more of a colonizer than they were. I'm almost at 1700 and things are going pretty well. Formed Prussia at the usual time, and held the coast from Riga to Hamburg for most of the game. Have a large Mazovia as a March, allies in Sweden and GB. Colonies in Canada, Cuba-Haiti, Florida and other Southern states, and I'm developing Argentina right now.

Then, the most perfect timing happened. I got the last province I needed to form Germany right as I got the Nationalism-Imperialism CBs, and it also happened when the HRE got small enough to lose the Integrity bonus. Plus, they never bothered to elect me anyway.

So, I formed Germany, quit the HRE, and now I am swallowing up as many of the small states that are left as I can before I have to seriously butt heads with the big boys. Austria is not as big as it usually is, but France is always mean, and Tuscany has been dominating Italy completely and the Netherlands are pretty strong this game. They were my allies for a long, long time but abandoned me as my Nationalism expansion started.

One thing I didn't realize is that Administrative Efficiency also increases your colonies' liberty desire. This should be a pretty epic end game.

[Grif]

You still can, with enough work get 90%, some countries, even more. England isn't as good, but other countries can go over 100%.

Ottomans can get 105% accepted cultures. -50% Humanism, -10% Plutocratic-Humanist, -10% Influence-Humanist, -15% Ottoman Tolerance, -10% Trading in Silk (pretty easy to get a Ottomans), -10% Enlightened Despotism. Polish traditions, Athenian idea 2, Bahmani idea 3, Fulani Jihad idea 6, and Mexican idea 2 can do the same as the Ottomans (-15%).

Ayutthayan traditions, Shan traditions, Arawak idea 4, Caucasian idea 1, Central Indian idea 4, Mossi idea 3, Lan Xang idea 1, and West African idea 7 give -10%, so can result in -100% accepted culture threshold, so a number of nations can get 100% accepted.

Any nation can get -90% with Influence, Humanist, and Plutocratic ideas, Trading in Silk, and being an Enlightened Despotism (although that would require becoming a republic, and then a monarchy again.

Well, there's the small problem of getting Trading in Silk, and having to scourge being a Republic. But otherwise yes. Technically, every country can get to 90%. England was just the easiest without needing to cheese it. Realistically though, 70% is already pretty good, and allows you to accept cultures as small as 6% of your base tax and only lose them at 3%.

[rweird]

England only could get 80% unless they become a republic for that matter. Still, as a colonial imperial power, under a player's command, probably could conquer/protectorate parts of India with Silk.

As the Ottomans (my original example), getting Trading in Silk isn't too hard (Timurids have a lot of silk for the claiming as they fall apart). I don't think I'll go republican, although I might become an Enlightened Despotism, for -95% cultural acceptance (if 1%, accepted, lost if under .5%).

None the less, Humanism+Influence Policy, and Humanism, are the easiest ways to reduce accepted culture threshold. If you happen to get Trading in Silk, more power to you.

[Grif]

England only could get 80% unless they become a republic for that matter. Still, as a colonial imperial power, under a player's command, probably could conquer/protectorate parts of India with Silk.

As the Ottomans (my original example), getting Trading in Silk isn't too hard (Timurids have a lot of silk for the claiming as they fall apart). I don't think I'll go republican, although I might become an Enlightened Despotism, for -95% cultural acceptance (if 1%, accepted, lost if under .5%).

None the less, Humanism+Influence Policy, and Humanism, are the easiest ways to reduce accepted culture threshold. If you happen to get Trading in Silk, more power to you.

Just checked. Yes, England used to get only a -10% reduction to culture acceptance. My bad. (I'm thinking people were using the English Civil War event to get an easy republic government in.)

[Sange]

Personally I really like Poland for a tolerant country. Traditions + Humanism + Ambitions + not being catholic + policies gives you basically no revolts all over the game. Plus, Polish Ideas are really good.

[Terraoblivion]

Poland is generally Catholic, though. I mean you can always convert, but still.

[Sange]

Poland is generally Catholic, though. I mean you can always convert, but still.

True, but even with Catholic -1 tolerance of heathens their ambitions give them +3 tolerance of heretics/heathens. Their RU is always in the sky.
Also, did any other people see SuperPoland/Commonwealth beat up Muscovy to the point that they're never a threat anymore?

[OrcusMcP]

It's kind of weird, whenever I'm playing in Europe, Poland somehow manages to completely wither and die even if I never go near them, while if I'm playing anywhere else they turn into this massive behemoth.

[Leecros]

Also, did any other people see SuperPoland/Commonwealth beat up Muscovy to the point that they're never a threat anymore?

It's certainly a possibility. Ever since the Art of War patch where Muscovy no longer starts in an overpoweringly advantageous position compared to their neighbors. Especially the Golden Horde), i've seen more variable scenarios of the Golden Horde conquering Muscovy, Lithuania conquering Muscovy, or Sweden/Scandinavia conquering Muscovy. It's rare enough that I wouldn't complain about how often Muscovy gets destroyed, but it's more common than it used to be.

[Sange]

Well, I prefer it to Muscovy roflstomping its neighbours and becoming the giant green blob of the north in 99.95% of games like before AoW.

[Grif]

Well. I ran into an odd bug.

Apparently you can have no culture! :smalltongue:

http://i.imgur.com/UPGjGri.jpg

[IthilanorStPete]

Well. I ran into an odd bug.

Apparently you can have no culture! :smalltongue:

http://i.imgur.com/UPGjGri.jpg

Apparently the hordes really are uncultured barbarians! :smalltongue:

[rweird]

Apparently the hordes really are uncultured barbarians! :smalltongue:

At least they accepted the those without culture. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Well. I ran into an odd bug.

Apparently you can have no culture! :smalltongue:
What, you've never formed America? :smalltongue:

[IthilanorStPete]

One thing that's been bugging me since the revamp of the trade network is that taking Trade ideas feels almost mandatory. There are so many nodes now that only having 2 merchants and a capital/main port to collect in doesn't seem like enough for any decent-sized country, and there doesn't seem to be enough ways to get more merchants. Maybe it's easier if you're a western country with trade companies and colonial nations. *shrug*

[Leecros]

Of course Trade Ideas is largely mandatory in general though...


Even before Art of War, If you didn't take trade ideas, you could easily be missing out on 1/3 of your possible income.

[Frog Dragon]

Grrr. The Kingdom of God is a great big Admiral Ackbar sized tarp.

http://i.imgur.com/bK3btkF.jpg

Not only does it fail to plaster the map with a giant "KINGDOM OF GOD" it also disables the Curia, making Catholicism suck. All for some slight manpower and prestige boosts.

What a bunch of papal bull. Thankfully it wasn't Ironman and I had a save.

http://i.imgur.com/DZ10kik.jpg
Guyenne, Provence, Burgundy, Corfu, and Wallachia are vassals. Castile is an ally. I think France is finally more or less subdued, since I am now clearly more powerful than they and control most of the territory they'd want to expand back into.

I've been feeding Corfu because I was slow and didn't start expanding into Ottoman territory until after the Byzantine cores had expired.

[OrcusMcP]

Grrr. The Kingdom of God is a great big Admiral Ackbar sized tarp.

http://i.imgur.com/bK3btkF.jpg

Not only does it fail to plaster the map with a giant "KINGDOM OF GOD" it also disables the Curia, making Catholicism suck. All for some slight manpower and prestige boosts.


I know, I fell into that trap too when I did a Papal States run. Not cool, man, not cool.

Rather than going for the Balkans, I had all of North Africa and a good friendly Jerusalem to help me out.

[Flickerdart]

What's a Kingdom of God? Some kind of formable Papal State nation?

[Frog Dragon]

What's a Kingdom of God? Some kind of formable Papal State nation?

Declare the Kingdom of God is a decision the Papal State can take. I thought it would be a formable nation, but it turns out it's actually a big puddle of disappointment.

http://i.imgur.com/M2k3Hi4.jpg
The benefits are giving you claims on Italian provinces you probably already own and +10% manpower and +0.5 yearly prestige.
http://i.imgur.com/HrDzNkm.jpg
Basically if you play as Papal States, don't take it.

On a completely different tack, I probably made things more difficult for myself by forgetting to HRE and thereby having to dance around Austria constantly (until I became strong enough to bash my face against the HRE and win). It was quite the challenge trying to find the right targets to DOW and cobelligerent to get the territory I wanted while having Austria help me instead of the opponent. In general, this game has been more focused on diplo trickery than any other I've played.

Also getting coalitioned actually helped me a good chunk of the time. If Italian HRE minors coalition me with other neighbors that are not in the HRE, I can DoW a member that isn't in the coalition, and Austria helps me instead of them. They also don't get to call allies, but I still get to take their stuff for normal cost.

[OrcusMcP]

Yeah, its very suprising that with the more interactive curia that came out with AoW they still kept this lackluster decision. Everything points to it being a formable nation like the Form Italy one, and while I do like the flavor of it pissing all the other catholic nations off, it should come as a major gain to you. Maybe disabling cardinals, giving you permanent papal controller, but still letting people gain/use papal influence.

[GnomeGninjas]

After 1650, what advantages does the Papal State get from the curia?

[rweird]

After 1650, what advantages does the Papal State get from the curia?

Decreased tech cost and aggressive expansion, if they ever manage to control it. I think additional advisors, prestige, and generals available (maybe an extra diplomat). Still, the Pope has trouble keeping control of the Curia.

[OrcusMcP]

The only real change after 1650 is that there are no more crusades and you can't form Jerusalem. You can still do all the things you could do before with papal influence or if you are the controller (see here) (http://www.eu4wiki.com/Curia#The_Curia).

[rweird]

The Papal State can't get Papal Influence, can it?

[Frog Dragon]

They can still get cardinals and "investment" and whatnot and become papal controller anyway. Not 100% sure how it works though.

[rweird]

From what I can tell, it doesn't.
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/j460/reweird/EU4/ScreenShot2014-12-31at105754AM.png (http://s1086.photobucket.com/user/reweird/media/EU4/ScreenShot2014-12-31at105754AM.png.html)

The only advantage from the Curia being enabled is a chance for Stability cost modifier -10%, Diplomats +1, Yearly prestige +1, Advisor costs -20%, Possible advisors +2, Technology cost -5%, Leaders without upkeep +1, Aggressive expansion impact -20%, along with the ability to Call Crusades and Excommunicate.

You aren't always Curia Controller, so oftentimes it being enabled gives no bonuses. If the Papal State proclaims God's Kingdom, you get +.5 Yearly Prestige, and +10% manpower, permanently, and you deny other Catholics the benefits of the Curia (whether this is good or bad, depends on who your allies are, and who you fight), while keeping the Curia enabled grants better bonuses, but you don't always have them.

Not as massive a trap as people might think, but still, not an obviously superior thing to do.

[Frog Dragon]

The curia bonuses are pretty hefty though, and lategame I'd say having them a third or half the time should be reasonably simple to accomplish. I'd probably only go Kingdom of God if I had some weird trickery to turn Papal States into a Protestant or Reformed country. Then shafting Catholicism would be desirable. And honestly, my biggest problem is that the decision is so opaque and misleading. I didn't want to disable the Curia, I wanted to read "KINGDOM OF GOD" on the map. Prior to pressing the button, I had no reason to believe it wouldn't do that.

Also, expanding into a country that has been blown up by rebels and forced to release states is ridiculously effortless. I didn't even have any intention to expand into Eastern Europe, but then I noticed three province minor Ruthenia with no allies and metric tons of cores all over the carcass of the PLC. So I quickly vassalized them, and then beat up the Commonwealth and forced them to return cores. I took over a dozen provinces for close to zero cost. Then I just had to beat up an OPM and a 4-province minor and Ruthenia had almost every Ruthenian province after like 2 years of warfare. Then, diploannex.

Next step. Beat up Ottomans more and control Jerusalem.

[rweird]

As the Papal State, you have no control over when you get the Curia. If your leader dies twice within a short time, it is likely, but the longer a Pope reigns, the more other countries would invest, and thusly decrease your chance. I don't know exactly…

I wonder if a Reformed/Protestant Papal State could still get control of the Curia if no-one else invests in it.

As for expanding by forcing to return cores, after mid-game, practically everywhere not in the western tech group has another country to reconquer them.

[Frog Dragon]

As far as I saw, I was constantly at least tied for highest chance to gain curia control. Not sure how it works exactly either though.

[Leecros]

I have to say, i'm not really impressed by the Basileus achievement. The achievement demands you to "restore the Roman Empire". However, looking up the requirements on the wiki only seem to require you to restore the Byzantine Empire during the 8th or 9th centuries.
http://www.eu4wiki.com/images/1/11/EU4BasileusRequirements.png

Now, sure there's an argument to be had that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire as the Byzantine Citizens never stopped calling themselves Romans and were referred to as the Roman Empire. However, when you name an achievement to restore the Roman Empire...i think THE Roman Empire. Even if the achievement was to restore the Byzantine Empire to an approximation of it's height under Justinian would make more sense.

It just kind of feels a bit lackluster. i mean, Restoring the Byzantines to that extent is impressive, but the hardest part about them is generally fighting off The Ottomans. After that, obtaining the achievement seems a bit...easy.

Granted, restoring the Roman Empire would be really difficult after such a disadvantageous start. it's not harder than the achievements for Najd or Ryukyu. Arguably it's easier. Byzantium gets some pretty nice events.

I'd like to see them split that achievement. One to restore Byzantium and another to restore the Roman Empire.

[Frog Dragon]

Byzantium should be tagged as Eastern Roman Empire or something in the first place. Calling it Byzantium makes about as much sense as calling the United States New Amsterdam.

[AgentPaper]

Byzantium should be tagged as Eastern Roman Empire or something in the first place. Calling it Byzantium makes about as much sense as calling the United States New Amsterdam.

Or calling the Turkish Empire "The Ottomans". :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it's more fun to call it Byzantium, and that's more important than being technically correct.

[Leecros]

Byzantium should be tagged as Eastern Roman Empire or something in the first place.

Most of the major mods do. it's just that you can't get achievements in a modded game...

[Artanis]

ARG, stupid, stupid, stupid AI.

The HRE religious leagues formed, and it was drastically lopsided. The Catholics had Austria and not much else, while the Protestants had me (one-province-from-Germany Prussia), AND England AND Castile AND Russia AND Bohemia. Our weakest member would've been top 5 in the other league. I waited two decades for the league leader to pull the trigger, and finally give up and picked a fight with Austria myself, drawing in Bohemia and Russia on my side...and THEN the league leader pounces on Austria, now that almost half his league's strength was away. Yes, we were still both fighting Austria, but I couldn't do anything to help against the other members of the Catholic league, which the Protestants were too incompetent to punch its way past despite outnumbering them about 5 to 1. What should have taken a year or two and ended with a Protestant Emperor instead resulted in a Peace of Westphalia.

I knew I should've just tag-switched and sent the declaration myself :smallannoyed:

At least Austria is totally boned now, with 3500 in loans and upwards of 25K rebels swarming their heartland.


/vent

[rweird]

I've had no experience with Religious Leagues besides as the Ottomans, which was rather funny. Lithuania was the Emperor, and had a very small League. Austria, as a Catholic, joined the Protestant League because they rivaled Lithuania. They fight the war, make the HRE Protestant, and disqualify themselves from being Emperor, when they had support from like 5 of the electors to be the next Emperor… The second League war starts, with the Catholic League being tiny, which Naples (somehow the Catholic League leader) gets creamed in (at this point, I believe a three province Brandenburg is Emperor, and head of the Protestant League).

Austria then decided to go Protestant later, but losing control of the HRE by joining a the Protestant League was a really stupid choice on their part.

[Grif]

So as Novgorod in a slightly bugged game (noculture shenanigans, Hungary being wrecked by an unending Peasant Wars), I managed to form Russia and start colonising Alaska.

Thing is, on the European front, I have a super Poland (that integrated Lithuania the normal way) that's currently blobbing into the Ottomans and are best friends with a mega Austria. I stayed away from making allies so far, but potentially, all the Great Powers sans Spain/Austria I can ally and call against Poland.

I can take down Poland alone on my own, but their armies are better led, have better discipline and results in horrendous casualties for me to even win battles. And since they're friends with the Emperor, I'm really leery at trying to pick a fight with them. Note that I haven't taken any actual military ideas apart from Plutocratic but Poland is making me want to grab Offensive and Quality all at one go so that I can crush them properly.

[Frog Dragon]

Or calling the Turkish Empire "The Ottomans". :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it's more fun to call it Byzantium, and that's more important than being technically correct.
I was under the impression that "Ottoman Empire" or just "Ottomans" is a valid way to refer to the empire. At the time, "turk" was basically a slur for peasants by elites who considered themselves "Ottomans", and the empire was indeed referred to its own subjects as "The Ottoman Empire". I'm not sure how the two names compare here.

The problem I have with "Byzantium" is that absolutely no-one called them that while they still existed, let alone the "Byzantines" themselves. The term was dug up after the fact to lend legitimacy to the HRE.

Edit: Poped my way to something that looks almost like a Roman Empire.
http://i.imgur.com/FfTttgy.jpg
Wound up not finishing my last idea group or the diplo tech tree. Should've probably taken an administrative or military idea instead, since the multiple diploannexations I did really sapped my dip. Also, 3rd largest army? I'm pretty sure only HRE had more than I did.

http://i.imgur.com/AifN3ZE.jpg
Score calculation is weird. I was the strongest individual country for several decades in the endgame, yet I'm only #3. Bohemia--> HRE is the only country that can match me, and they're only in the 8th place. I guess it counts their strength in prior years into the calculation, but it does make it wildly nonrepresentative for the countries current power.

http://i.imgur.com/XesBZsr.jpg
Endgame map. Gazikumukh is a vassal, Castile is an ally. Bohemia (who got HREmperorship after I beat the stuffing out of Austria) passed Renovatio Imperii shortly before the game ended. My name is bigger, and I have more manpower and FL, but they have as much money as I do.

And yes, that is Finland carpeting Russia. Finland declared an Imperialist war on them. Suuri Suomi, Uraliin asti! :smallbiggrin:

http://i.imgur.com/3YzwR3o.jpg
Religious map. Egypt was converted by the Catholic Mamluks I released and fed cores. I didn't even take religious ideas, and still managed to convert most of my territory. Constantinople was the only one I couldn't convert, and Crimea and Funj remained unconverted because I integrated them very close to the game's end. Had the game gone on longer, I probably would've held onto Crimea for quite a while and fed them GH piece by piece. Integrating them painted the map more though.

http://i.imgur.com/3xfkbZg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PRWk5L9.jpg
Army stuffs. HRE inherited all of their constituent armies... and just kept them, despite being wildly over forcelimit. Apparently they were swimming in money. As a result, the HRE had more troops than I did. That war would've been very, very ugly.

http://i.imgur.com/DZ10kik.jpg
Bonus: Ottomans prior to removal. I warred them repeatedly, carving their coasts for myself, and then doing core return on mamluks and chunking them into multiple parts so half their empire would be distant overseas. This worked even better than I thought it would, since I attacked while they were westernizing and they just absolutely exploded. I did force them to release nations, but that was probably unnecessary since they simply got torn apart by nationalists. I warred them one last time when they had Adana and another province in central Asia. I took Adana for myself and did core return to QQ (I wanted to finish the Ottos and the province was useless to me) and that was that.

[Leecros]

Score calculation is weird. I was the strongest individual country for several decades in the endgame, yet I'm only #3. Bohemia--> HRE is the only country that can match me, and they're only in the 8th place. I guess it counts their strength in prior years into the calculation, but it does make it wildly nonrepresentative for the countries current power.


Score calculation isn't really supposed to be representative of a nation's power, but who did consistently well over the course of the whole game. if you want something more accurate for the current time period, you'd be better off sorting it by monthly score gain which would show you in the lead, followed by Great Britain and the HRE.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

I was under the impression that "Ottoman Empire" or just "Ottomans" is a valid way to refer to the empire. At the time, "turk" was basically a slur for peasants by elites who considered themselves "Ottomans", and the empire was indeed referred to its own subjects as "The Ottoman Empire". I'm not sure how the two names compare here.

The problem I have with "Byzantium" is that absolutely no-one called them that while they still existed, let alone the "Byzantines" themselves. The term was dug up after the fact to lend legitimacy to the HRE.


The Ottomans, much like other Muslims at the time, named their state after the ruling dynasty. Saudi Arabia is a perfect modern example. The West didn't really care about the name of the guy in charge. So many western nations referred to them as the Turkish Empire.

[Flickerdart]

I'm thinking of starting a new game in Europe, since I've only been playing impoverished eastern nations up to this point and feel like a change. I picked the Teutonic Order and immediately got dogpiled by Poland, Lithuania, and their allies. What's a good start for the Teutons, and what should their end-goal be?

[Grif]

I'm thinking of starting a new game in Europe, since I've only been playing impoverished eastern nations up to this point and feel like a change. I picked the Teutonic Order and immediately got dogpiled by Poland, Lithuania, and their allies. What's a good start for the Teutons, and what should their end-goal be?

As far as I read, TO is something of a crapshoot. Most guide seems to point in favour of vassalising the nearest two HRE nations (Pomerania and Brandenburg), and then allying Sweden and another great power of your choice. Allying LO isn't recommended. They tend to get dogpiled by both Sweden and Poland anyway. If you can, drag Poland into a war before they get Lithuania under PU. They can't enact the decision while at war, so you can potentially nip things in the bud there.

[Leecros]

I'm thinking of starting a new game in Europe, since I've only been playing impoverished eastern nations up to this point and feel like a change. I picked the Teutonic Order and immediately got dogpiled by Poland, Lithuania, and their allies. What's a good start for the Teutons, and what should their end-goal be?

The last time i tried, i got an alliance with Austria and joined the HRE, but that game ended up exploding when Austria got smashed by Burgundy and France and Poland-Lithuania took advantage...

[OrcusMcP]

Yeah, the Teutonic Order is in a tough spot. None of its neighbours can be counted on as allies, because they're all the only viable expansion locations. Grif's advice of cozying up to Sweden is good, but only works if they break free of Denmark, because Denmark wants Livonia. Getting aggressive towards Pommerania and vassalizing them is the standard opening for both TO and Brandenburg, and it is a very strong opener. It's hard to know what to do with Poland, but again Grif's advice of hurting them before they join with Lithuania is sound advice.

I would actually advise getting cozy with Bohemia, if possible. They're likely to hate both Brandenburg and Poland, and it gives you a flank you can exploit against them. If Denmark is weak, then you can take the LO early, but if they're strong, you will have to wait.

Though really, the main choice you'll want to decide upon is if you want to stay as the TO, or if you want to become Prussia. If TO, then you'll probably want to soak up Lithuania and Poland and be a Catholic power in Eastern Europe. If Prussia, then you'll be converting as soon as possible and claiming the Baltic coast.

[Grif]

Yeah, the Teutonic Order is in a tough spot. None of its neighbours can be counted on as allies, because they're all the only viable expansion locations. Grif's advice of cozying up to Sweden is good, but only works if they break free of Denmark, because Denmark wants Livonia. Getting aggressive towards Pommerania and vassalizing them is the standard opening for both TO and Brandenburg, and it is a very strong opener. It's hard to know what to do with Poland, but again Grif's advice of hurting them before they join with Lithuania is sound advice.

I would actually advise getting cozy with Bohemia, if possible. They're likely to hate both Brandenburg and Poland, and it gives you a flank you can exploit against them. If Denmark is weak, then you can take the LO early, but if they're strong, you will have to wait.

Though really, the main choice you'll want to decide upon is if you want to stay as the TO, or if you want to become Prussia. If TO, then you'll probably want to soak up Lithuania and Poland and be a Catholic power in Eastern Europe. If Prussia, then you'll be converting as soon as possible and claiming the Baltic coast.

Supporting Sweden's independence is something I found that works well. Usually you can nudge them into declaring independence just by offering support. (And at the 1444 start, Sweden outclasses both Denmark and Norway.)

As for Bohemia, well. I'm just naturally wary of relying on a regional power that's usually hated by a Great Power aka Austria. As TO, you do not want to be dragged into a war against the HREmperor until you blobbed enough to safely go toe-to-toe with them.

[Frog Dragon]

The Ottomans, much like other Muslims at the time, named their state after the ruling dynasty. Saudi Arabia is a perfect modern example. The West didn't really care about the name of the guy in charge. So many western nations referred to them as the Turkish Empire.
Okay, slight confusion. Are you actually disagreeing with anything I said? :smallconfused:

In my opinion, the best way to name the various countries in the game would be to call them whatever they called themselves. It's the most self-consistent and clear way, especially since many countries have a lot of different names depending on who you ask. As a general rule anyways. Calling Germany "Germany" instead of "Deutschland" is probably fine because not only is it an accepted translation, but also more recognizable to English-speakers, and the game is in English.

[OrcusMcP]

Supporting Sweden's independence is something I found that works well. Usually you can nudge them into declaring independence just by offering support. (And at the 1444 start, Sweden outclasses both Denmark and Norway.)

As for Bohemia, well. I'm just naturally wary of relying on a regional power that's usually hated by a Great Power aka Austria. As TO, you do not want to be dragged into a war against the HREmperor until you blobbed enough to safely go toe-to-toe with them.

Bohemia is a risky ally, to be sure, but I have seen them get the HRE throne reasonably frequently, and they're an easier ally to get in the HRE than Austria itself would be.

[Flickerdart]

Wait, you can just attack HRE members without the rest of them dogpiling you mercilessly?

[OrcusMcP]

Wait, you can just attack HRE members without the rest of them dogpiling you mercilessly?

If your timing is good, yes. Never forget the "can't be fighting and allied at the same time" rule, as well as the "sic France on them" rule.

[Flickerdart]

If your timing is good, yes. Never forget the "can't be fighting and allied at the same time" rule, as well as the "sic France on them" rule.
So basically I just wait until someone else from the HRE attacks Pomerania/Brandenburg, and roll in? Will I not end up fighting them too like CK2 does, where forces fighting over the same title are hostile to one another?

[rweird]

So basically I just wait until someone else from the HRE attacks Pomerania/Brandenburg, and roll in? Will I not end up fighting them too like CK2 does, where forces fighting over the same title are hostile to one another?

Yeah, two people both at war with a third country in separate wars aren't hostile. The worst they could do is siege stuff you want. I fought some war early-on, as France, where I had Aragon carpet sieged with the exception of my war goal (for a conquest war), which Ferrara had sieged. Eventually they peaced out, but it dragged my war on pretty long. Still, typically the AI is less set on sieges than the player is, so it is easy to get most of them yourself.

Only people you are at war with and rebels are hostile… The only CK2-ish thing like that is if you vassalize someone in a defensive war with other people (where they are war leader), you as overlord get called in to take over as war leader and have to defend them.

EU4 has a much stronger "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" type vibe, with declaring war/taking provinces from someone's rival giving a boost to opinion, and being at war with someone's rivals gives like +150 on acceptance for Request Military Access.

[AgentPaper]

Okay, slight confusion. Are you actually disagreeing with anything I said? :smallconfused:

In my opinion, the best way to name the various countries in the game would be to call them whatever they called themselves. It's the most self-consistent and clear way, especially since many countries have a lot of different names depending on who you ask. As a general rule anyways. Calling Germany "Germany" instead of "Deutschland" is probably fine because not only is it an accepted translation, but also more recognizable to English-speakers, and the game is in English.

See, the thing is, the roman empire isn't around anymore, in any shape or form, so there is no such thing as an accepted translation, and while they may have called themselves Roman, they were not what most people would recognize as such, so calling them the Roman Empire would be more likely to confuse people than anything. Calling them Byzantium means that anyone that knows about the period will know exactly who you're talking about, and for anyone who doesn't know the period, you start them with a blank slate rather than confuse them as to what the so-called Roman Empire is doing so far east.

Besides, they didn't actually call themselves "The Roman Empire" either, that's just as much a western creation as anything else. They called themselves, Basileia Rhōmaiōn or at best Imperium Romanum, neither of which really makes for a good country name in EU4.

Now, if you don't mind, all this talk of Romans and Empires has given me a hankering to go play Rome II again. :smalltongue:

[Frog Dragon]

See, the thing is, the roman empire isn't around anymore, in any shape or form, so there is no such thing as an accepted translation, and while they may have called themselves Roman, they were not what most people would recognize as such, so calling them the Roman Empire would be more likely to confuse people than anything. Calling them Byzantium means that anyone that knows about the period will know exactly who you're talking about, and for anyone who doesn't know the period, you start them with a blank slate rather than confuse them as to what the so-called Roman Empire is doing so far east.

Besides, they didn't actually call themselves "The Roman Empire" either, that's just as much a western creation as anything else. They called themselves, Basileia Rhōmaiōn or at best Imperium Romanum, neither of which really makes for a good country name in EU4.

Now, if you don't mind, all this talk of Romans and Empires has given me a hankering to go play Rome II again. :smalltongue:
But... but... muh historical accuracy!

And also, Imperium or Empire is a word, regardless of what language it is in. It can clearly be translated. "Basileia Rhōmaiōn" might be kind of bad, but at least something like "Roman Empire" accurately reflects what they saw themselves as. Rhōmaiōn is Roman and Basileia is Empire.

Also I doubt very many people would be confused by "Eastern Roman Empire" which is what I suggested.

Byzantium is still a hogwash name. :smalltongue:

[AgentPaper]

But... but... muh historical accuracy!

And also, Imperium or Empire is a word, regardless of what language it is in. It can clearly be translated. "Basileia Rhōmaiōn" might be kind of bad, but at least something like "Roman Empire" accurately reflects what they saw themselves as. Rhōmaiōn is Roman and Basileia is Empire.

Also I doubt very many people would be confused by "Eastern Roman Empire" which is what I suggested.

Byzantium is still a hogwash name. :smalltongue:

Eastern Roman Empire is as much a fabrication as Byzantium. Really, though, it doesn't really matter what they saw themselves as. What matters is what they actually were, or at most (since this is a translation) what we see them as. By your logic, we should be calling Taiwan, "The Republic of China", since that's certainly what they officially call themselves.

[Frog Dragon]

Eastern Roman Empire is as much a fabrication as Byzantium. Really, though, it doesn't really matter what they saw themselves as. What matters is what they actually were, or at most (since this is a translation) what we see them as. By your logic, we should be calling Taiwan, "The Republic of China", since that's certainly what they officially call themselves.
I'm pretty sure you're going against quite a large group of historians here.

Firstly, there is no entity with more claim to the legacy of Rome than the ERE did. The Eastern Roman Empire, or "Byzantium" is in fact a continuous entity that dates back to the times of the Roman Empire has the dominant power on the mediterranean. It never stopped being the same continuous entity that it was when the Roman Empire was divided into its eastern and western parts in the 5th century. The most accurate term would indeed by "Roman Empire", though it's good to add the "Eastern" to not confuse people. It would be way more accurate than "Byzantium", which was simply the name of Constantinople before emperor Constantine renamed it after himself.

In comparison, Taiwan has a much less legitimate claim to being China than what we now call China does, largely because... well... the PRC actually rules that land.

But this may already be too political for the forum, so I digress.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, two people both at war with a third country in separate wars aren't hostile. The worst they could do is siege stuff you want.
I conquered some land from Venice once as Byzantium (yes inaccurate name whatever) and Austria immediately demanded that I return it or face Imperial judgment. Will the same fate not befall me in the north?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The bigger issue is that names have to be able to represent the countries in all governments and all dynasties.
England as a Kingdom under the Plantagenets makes as much sense as England as a republic under Cromwell.

Yet the Mamluks as a Kingdom under the Burjids doesn't make sense when they become a republic under Nasser. The title "Egypt" refers to both perfectly well.

Similarly, the Ottomans as a Kingdom under the Ottomans, yet what if they get a Burjid on the throne through marriage, or a random Turkish dynasty? It makes no sense to call them "The Ottomans" when what they REALLY are is Turkey under Ottoman rulers, liable to change.

China has the same problem. When the Ming get inherited by another dynasty, their tag remains "Ming", even if their dynasty is no longer Ming.

Any naming scheme has to ask itself not only "Is this historical" but "Does this make sense in the full range of historical PLAUSIBILITY we want to model?". If you made it such that the Ottomans could never be inherited, or the Mamluks could never change government, those names make sense. If you want alternate history to play out, it makes no sense to force historical names into situations where they no longer fit.

[Flickerdart]

You mean you don't take a sort of perverse pleasure in making sure that the names contradict? Am I the only one?

Regarding the decision to make it this way, I think that the dynasty in EUIV matters so little that keying the country name to it is overkill. More importantly, Muscovy can lose Moscow and still stay Muscovy, and the same goes for all the city-named countries (Riga, Novgorod, etc). That's weird.

[GnomeGninjas]

I conquered some land from Venice once as Byzantium (yes inaccurate name whatever) and Austria immediately demanded that I return it or face Imperial judgment. Will the same fate not befall me in the north?

They only demand unlawful territory if you have uncored HRE land and Austria (or whoever is the emperor) doesn't like you. If you want to expand into the HRE, you can avoid this by befriending Austria or by vassalizing princes and then diploannexing (so you get the cores).

[Leecros]

China has the same problem. When the Ming get inherited by another dynasty, their tag remains "Ming", even if their dynasty is no longer Ming.

i only wish there was a way to form your own chinese dynasty as a foreigner. Some requirement along the lines of requiring a culture shift to a Chinese culture group and some other province requirements or something.

Granted it wouldn't really influence anyone outside of Asia, Japan, india(maybe). However, it's not like there isn't a precedent for it. Both the Yuan and Qing Dynasties were both of foreign origins. Mongolian and Jurchen respectively.

i don't know though, Maybe I just want to see The Oirat have some sort of formable, or some sort of JapaChina superpower nation.

[rweird]

I ultimately am satisfied with the names the way they are. Things can change (My Ottoman Empire currently has the Giray dynasty), although changing names based on dynasties would make keeping track of countries hard. I believe that understanding who it is referring to is more important than historical accuracy.

I believe Emperor now doesn't demand unlawful imperial territory (at least, the AI never accepts it, as someone found a trick to get a bunch of Imperial Authority by using it so they made it impossible until they can fix it). Declining gives them the Imperial Ban CB (if they've enacted the first reform, they'd have it anyways). I don't know if they use it now that no-one would accept (as the Ottomans, I've expanded into the HRE a bit, ). It also gives the unlawful imperial territory modifier (+10 revolt risk, decreases manpower and taxes, it goes away eventually).

Staying friends with the Emperor is a good way not to get them to demand it (I allied Austria on day 1 as Brandenburg, expanded a bunch, and never got the demand, then I eventually fought Austria, but I got elected during that war, and never lost it afterwards).

Another way is to remove the territory as soon as you get it means it can't be demanded (assuming you don't have a truce with the Emperor, although if you took it from them, denying the territory wouldn't do much, as they wouldn't truce break to attack you, and the CB would expire after 5 years or something.

[Grif]

After mucking around so much in Eastern Europe, England is really reminds me just how much an advantage Western nations is. I actually sat on 999 DIP and MIL at various points of time because I had nothing to spend it on.

Never happened if you're playing Russia/Byzantium. Unless you're westernising.

[OrcusMcP]

After mucking around so much in Eastern Europe, England is really reminds me just how much an advantage Western nations is. I actually sat on 999 DIP and MIL at various points of time because I had nothing to spend it on.

Never happened if you're playing Russia/Byzantium. Unless you're westernising.

I'm finding the same thing in my Germany game. Policies are a good way to burn excess monarch points if you're way ahead.

[Grif]

I'm finding the same thing in my Germany game. Policies are a good way to burn excess monarch points if you're way ahead.

Unfortunately this was in the early game, so no policies to burn it on. (Lucked out with a good Lancaster king, and a short War of the Roses. I was actually expecting it to be... more disastrous. But only one rebel stack popped.) On the bright side, England is now covered in Armouries and Marketplaces. :smallbiggrin:

[Leecros]

phew, managed to get the Basilius achievement. I didn't think i had it in me...I have heard about the nightmares of playing The Byzantine Empire and surely it was an incredibly difficult task in the early years, but once i kicked the ottomans out of The Balkans it was smooth sailing.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/29nb76g.jpg

it took a lot longer than it should have. I waged a number of wars with little value against The ottomans due to the obnoxious places they kept sitting their Capital(always conveniently in my way). Also a couple of wars where i got little to nothing from them due to them allying with other powers i was fighting against.

other things of note:

I am incredibly impressed with the gains Norway has made. It's so rare that the (arguably) weakest nation in Scandinavia managed to do so well.

I also managed to get a PU with Bohemia somehow. Well, I know how, but it came as a surprise to me. Also it amusingly happened after i refused one of their Calls to Arms. I wasn't actually planning on reestablishing relations with them.

Speaking of Bohemia, there's not a Catholic nation left in the HRE. The only nations left Catholic are Lithuania, France, and Spain. Certainly The Rise of Orthodox has made Catholicism fall out of favor with the Rulers of Europe.


Now the fun begins as i unlock Imperialism.

[Sange]

Norway Stronk!

[Grif]

Rate my England! :smallbiggrin:

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/40863771573735878/77EA3577B1D32BFB41004B6218FD42E82C540E36/

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Great Britain or Greatest Britain?

[Sange]

Brunswick stronk!
I love that imploded BBB.

[IthilanorStPete]

Rate my England! :smallbiggrin:

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/40863771573735878/77EA3577B1D32BFB41004B6218FD42E82C540E36/

Nice job carving up France, that's seriously impressive. Looks like Sweden's about to form Scandinavia. How do your colonies and the rest of the Americas look?

[Grif]

Nice job carving up France, that's seriously impressive. Looks like Sweden's about to form Scandinavia. How do your colonies and the rest of the Americas look?

I got Canada, the US, and Colombia locked down. Working to get Caribbean/West Indies under my control, though my colonial West Indies do that on their own now. (They're currently blobbing into the Guyenne region.)

Here's a map.
http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/40863771573801807/29FFDA281023CD29671E82F657274F00924CB3F9/

[Closet_Skeleton]

The most accurate term would indeed by "Roman Empire", though it's good to add the "Eastern" to not confuse people.

Technically 'Romania' would be the most accurate term but that would confuse people even more.



Yet the Mamluks as a Kingdom under the Burjids doesn't make sense when they become a republic under Nasser. The title "Egypt" refers to both perfectly well.

The Mamlukes aren't Egypt, they're Egypt + the Levant and Syria with the capital in Cairo. Egypt under Nasser was called the United Arab Republic for the three years it united with Syria. The Mamlukes actually called themselves the Dawla al-Turkiyya.

The Burjids aren't a dynasty in the normal sense, with only some of them being related to their predecessors.


China has the same problem. When the Ming get inherited by another dynasty, their tag remains "Ming", even if their dynasty is no longer Ming.


Ming isn't a dynasty in that sense. A Chinese Dynasty changing through inheritance is an impossibility.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The Chinese thing I wasn't aware of, but I'm well aware of the exigencies of Mamluk rule, and I maintain that the tag of EGY localized as Egypt would fit them best. The Levantine they would win and lose, their base of power was in Egypt. When resurrected as an Ottoman vassal, they ruled purely Egypt. Egypt was a constant, just as if England manages to retain it's French holdings it's still called England despite also holding a large amount of France.

Nasser I just used as a name to get my example across, the actual history of his rule is irrelevant other than to illustrate the pretend example of a prematurely republic in Egypt.

As for dynasty, the important thing is if their dynasty name in game-terms says "Burji". We never actually get to know the relationship between kings in-game, all we know is their name and dynasty. Really, the name "Mamluk" is fine for any auto-generated dynasty, all of which can be safely assumed to be part of the Mamluk slave-warrior class. But there is no way a de Valois on the throne of Catholic Mamluks (also a possibility in-game) makes any sense. A De Valois on the throne of a Catholic Egypt though...

[Artanis]

Calling them "The Mamluks" could probably be put in the same category as calling the ERE the "Byzantine Empire": there's no mistaking who they're talking about. Egypt is both a modern country and an ancient civilization, both of which are disconnected enough from the Mamluk-ruled Egypt of EU's time period that I figure it isn't really a bad idea to call them something else, even if only for the sake of people who don't know enough to be a stickler on the historical details*.

I do agree that some sort of name change would be in order if the political situation changes (like the De Valois-ruled Catholic Egypt example), but I honestly don't know whether or not EU is equipped to handle that easily enough to make it worth putting such things in the base game.



*I'm probably one of the better examples of such a player. While I know history better than many people, I'll be the first to admit that that is not a terribly high bar to clear. Hell, before picking up EU3, fully half my knowledge of how the HRE worked came from watching The Tudors :smalltongue:

[Terraoblivion]

Egypt is also a place that has been called Egypt since ancient times. It seems entirely appropriate to call any country based there for Egypt.

[OrcusMcP]

Yeah, there's only so much abstraction the EU/CK/Vic/etc engines can handle with the various things that might have happened in history.

My main consistent annoyance with the Paradox engines is that they can't handle bilateral peace treaties. Especially for CK2 and EU4.

Like, if you can give a province away in a peace deal in order to sweeten the deal towards getting a province you want in the same deal, that could lead to some interesting stuff.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

They had enough issue with coding the AI to understand province worth even on its own, hence the (last I remember, could be wrong) lack of selling provinces in EUIV. At the very least, they seriously considered taking out selling provinces...

[IthilanorStPete]

Yeah, there's only so much abstraction the EU/CK/Vic/etc engines can handle with the various things that might have happened in history.

My main consistent annoyance with the Paradox engines is that they can't handle bilateral peace treaties. Especially for CK2 and EU4.

Like, if you can give a province away in a peace deal in order to sweeten the deal towards getting a province you want in the same deal, that could lead to some interesting stuff.

That really annoys me too. I'd like CK2 to handle more detailed peace treaties, I generally like EU4's style, but adding in the possibility for reciprocity would be very nice.

[rweird]

They had enough issue with coding the AI to understand province worth even on its own, hence the (last I remember, could be wrong) lack of selling provinces in EUIV. At the very least, they seriously considered taking out selling provinces...

I've never seen the AI try to sell me a province. I've "sold" a number to the AI, but that was vassal feeding (and was sold for 0 ducats).

I feel like if they make it an option to put things in besides other provinces, one could try something like Transfer Trade power, but taking more provinces. I too have thought about such a system, and while useful, it also would probably be highly abusable.

[Leecros]

I have seen the AI sell provinces!:smallbiggrin:



i don't know why they did since i've seen the AI keep some strange provinces before. However, i remember playing as Portugal once and having France as an ally in a war against Spain. Now this was before Art of War, so the sieges went to a mix of French and Portuguese occupation and in the peace deal i accidentally gave France a landlocked province that was on my border. Shortly after the war, France sent a Sell Province offer to me for that piece of land.

However, i doubt that would ever become an issue now that Art of War makes the AI give all land to the warleader unless they have cores or claims.




As far as the Egypt thing. At least The Mamluks have the ability to Form Egypt. However, it requires an Administrative Technology of at least 20. So you rarely see it happen.

[Grif]

They had enough issue with coding the AI to understand province worth even on its own, hence the (last I remember, could be wrong) lack of selling provinces in EUIV. At the very least, they seriously considered taking out selling provinces...

I have had AI sell me provinces on a couple of occasions. Was a bargain, all things considered.

EDIT:

Wow, I know Trade has been nerfed since 1.0, but it can still print money given enough light ships. I have more ducats than I know what to do with now.

[rweird]

I've seen that happen, however in my games, I've never given the AI such provinces if they couldn't core them. I have, however, given France (my ally) in some games wrong culture, wrong religion, provinces landlocked inside one of their rivals (in an attempt at sabotaging them without going to war directly).

[OrcusMcP]

Wow, I know Trade has been nerfed since 1.0, but it can still print money given enough light ships. I have more ducats than I know what to do with now.

With my Germany game I've been trying to keep everything afloat WITHOUT taking the Trade ideas. And yeah, it's tricky. Taxation and production do not produce enough money to keep a major empire going long term. It was going pretty well until about now(1730), when the ship costs start to skyrocket. I've had to cut back on the quality of my advisors and stick close to my forcelimits and aggressively build tax/production buildings to stay ahead of my costs. Being at war in general tends to HELP my income, since I can just run war taxes forever.

[rweird]

Thats odd. I've never found the need to take Trade ideas. Production seems to be the big money maker once you get large (spend the money you make on Manufactories, although they also help trade a bit). How I manage trade is using the philosophy "If you conquer everywhere in the node, it will tend to do what you want, if you build manufactories where you control all the trade power, those areas become more valuable." I don't always place first in trade income that way, but taxes and production makes my income much higher than anyone else's.

I've always passed on ideas that solely boost income (Economic, and Trade), and instead take ideas focused on managing an empire (Humanist, Religious), or expansion (military ideas, Administrative, Diplomatic, Influence), as with a larger nation, you make more money so I just try to grow. Because of this, I pass on Quantity ideas, as they don't give anything new, just a larger army, and blobbing does that. I don't take things maritime or naval ideas, I just build a larger navy, as oftentimes naval superiority is nearly irrelevant if you have land superiority and a border.

I'm not sure how well this works in general. Its worked for me as Brandenburg->Prussia->Germany->HRE, and as the Ottomans (although both Constantinople and Lübeck are good nodes which trade naturally goes into).

[Grif]

Thats odd. I've never found the need to take Trade ideas. Production seems to be the big money maker once you get large (spend the money you make on Manufactories, although they also help trade a bit). How I manage trade is using the philosophy "If you conquer everywhere in the node, it will tend to do what you want, if you build manufactories where you control all the trade power, those areas become more valuable." I don't always place first in trade income that way, but taxes and production makes my income much higher than anyone else's.

I've always passed on ideas that solely boost income (Economic, and Trade), and instead take ideas focused on managing an empire (Humanist, Religious), or expansion (military ideas, Administrative, Diplomatic, Influence), as with a larger nation, you make more money so I just try to grow. Because of this, I pass on Quantity ideas, as they don't give anything new, just a larger army, and blobbing does that. I don't take things maritime or naval ideas, I just build a larger navy, as oftentimes naval superiority is nearly irrelevant if you have land superiority and a border.

I'm not sure how well this works in general. Its worked for me as Brandenburg->Prussia->Germany->HRE, and as the Ottomans (although both Constantinople and Lübeck are good nodes which trade naturally goes into).

There's the fact that Germany and Turkish lands are generally quite rich. Not much need to rely on trade there, since tax and production generally are enough to keep your army at force limits. Though to be fair, I only take Trade ideas at most, because generally that's the easiest to boost without needing to conquer so much. Never found much the use for Economic, and naval/maritime ideas continue to be trash.

Here's my trade income for laughs. Not as obscene as some of the min-maxers from the Paradox forums, but decent enough for one who didn't really care for map painting.

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/40863953928434558/E1B4C0378082CD3831CE0F501E2BF2D550C9E2CE/

[Leecros]

Because of this, I pass on Quantity ideas, as they don't give anything new, just a larger army, and blobbing does that.

This is my general stance on Quantity when my friends ask me if taking it is a good idea. I rarely take it and when I do, it's only for the -20% build power cost and only when i expect to do a lot of construction, have the large income to back it up, and an extra Idea Group.

For example, In my Byzantium game. i often run out of surplus power before i run out of money and It's unlikely that i'll need anything like Religious Ideas or Humanism, because I can quickly get my land under control without them thanks to Byzantium's Ideas and have little rebellion issues. My army is already on par and above most of the armies of Europe(France gave me a little trouble, but i can still win a battle against them on even footing). So at some point in the mid-1600's/1700's, I'll probably have an extra Idea Group that I probably will at least consider Quantity as a possibility. Being able to build an extra building every 4 construction projects can be useful. Also taking Quantity and Administration Ideas as Portugal can lead to you being able to plop down buildings almost as quickly as you gain land.

However, I can't help but think that the only reason that -20% build power cost was put in was to make Quantity a consideration. Of course, most players rarely bother to use it. However with that build power cost reduction. it has some periphery uses.

[OrcusMcP]

I'm not sure how well this works in general. Its worked for me as Brandenburg->Prussia->Germany->HRE, and as the Ottomans (although both Constantinople and Lübeck are good nodes which trade naturally goes into).

As Grif said, the Turkish and German lands in general are pretty rich in tax/production goods so you can do okay without focusing on the trade, and you are right in that Lubeck and Constantinople are natural sinks.

For me, I took Economic ideas as Brandenberg, and that's been what's keeping me afloat. I'm making decent money, but nowhere near as much as I would have made if I took Trade ideas instead. Plus, Economic lets you boost how much money you get from loans which can make for some epic building projects with minimal downside.

[Flickerdart]

Are buildings really worth it? Especially Armory which is what, two digits of manpower when your default is thousands?

[Frog Dragon]

I guess stuff like armories and such are at their best when you have really poor clay that by default doesn't give you a whole lot. Then buildings can really make a difference. There was a Chavchuveny AAR on reddit that really showcases how to turn yourself into a powerhouse by just building enough stuff on your 1-basetax crap.

[OrcusMcP]

Are buildings really worth it? Especially Armory which is what, two digits of manpower when your default is thousands?

Mileages vary. Buildings only get REALLY worthwhile once you're a couple tiers in. Armories also decrease regiment costs, which in turn decreases their maintenance.

[Flickerdart]

I guess stuff like armories and such are at their best when you have really poor clay that by default doesn't give you a whole lot. Then buildings can really make a difference. There was a Chavchuveny AAR on reddit that really showcases how to turn yourself into a powerhouse by just building enough stuff on your 1-basetax crap.
My problem is that I like playing East Asian countries which have 1-basetax crap aplenty, but they don't have the money to afford building anything. Is it worth it to grab stacks of loans and then lay into building things?

[Grif]

My problem is that I like playing East Asian countries which have 1-basetax crap aplenty, but they don't have the money to afford building anything. Is it worth it to grab stacks of loans and then lay into building things?

Not at all. Loans aren't worth buildings. Best just conquer more with what you have.

[Leecros]

Is it worth it to grab stacks of loans and then lay into building things?

99% of the time, it's probably not worth it to take loans and build buildings.

The only exception might be if you get your hands on a high base tax/production/gold region.

[rweird]

Building up a lot of buildings in a few provinces gives more manpower overall, and better MIL:manpower total, but is more costly in ducats. IMO, loans aren't work it to build buildings (with potential the exception of unique buildings). Then again, I practically never voluntarily take a loan (sometimes I do accidentally if I get an event that makes me lose a bunch of money after I just spent a lot of it building things, but I try to pay those back soon).

[Frog Dragon]

I typically don't mess around with loans either (typically only take them when an event forces me to spend ducats I don't have), but in my pope game I did find a situation where loans were quite useful.

Basically, if you are fighting large, rich countries that you can't subdue in one war, it's probably worth it to take loans, spam mercs, and punch them out that much faster. The debt doesn't matter because you can just loot their lands (uninhibited by their troops because you just killed them with your mercs) and plunder their treasury in the peace deal, and then pay your debts with that. I used this particularly against Ottomans. Batter them into the dirt with mercs, and make them pay for the privilege.

Also, fighting with mercs allows you to war way more often. I found that the merc spam tactics allowed me to expand much faster because I wasn't hitting a wall with manpower (which will happen if you try to fight major wars with just your standing army) and winning wars makes it easy to pay debts.

[OrcusMcP]

Frog Dragon is on point, but I'll go even further: Loans are super underrated. Especially now that you can template-build units, what loans buy you is time. Once you can get enough money to build a fleet/merc-squad/army with just a couple loans (easy with mid- to big-range powers) it can save you an insane amount of time of waiting until you have enough money from just your income.

Similarly, since manufactories take so long to build, borrowing to build them in your good provinces as soon as they are available can make a big difference in the long run. DItto for the unique buildings.

[AgentPaper]

You should never build armories to help your manpower. If you need manpower, you want mercenaries. You'll save far more manpower with 50 ducats of mercenary than you ever could from building an armory.

A normal infantry regiment costs 10 ducats to hire and 0.2 ducats each month in maintenance, plus 1000 manpower to start and however much you need to replace losses. In comparison, a mercenary unit costs 15 ducats to start, 0.5 ducats in maintenance, and no manpower, ever.

In effect, by paying 5 ducats up front and 0.3 ducats per month, you're saving at least 1000 manpower for however long you keep that mercenary hired for. For 50 ducats, you could pay the extra cost of hiring and maintaining a single unit of mercenary infantry for 12.5 years.

In comparison, over the course of those same 12.5 years, your armory will have generated a grand total of 287.5 manpower (25 manpower per year * (12.5 years minus 1 year to build)). It would take 40 years for the armory to equal the mercenary's 1000 manpower saved, and that assumes that the mercenary regiment never takes losses. In reality, you're only hiring your mercenaries during war times (or shortly before), so each unit of mercenaries is likely to absorb far more than the original 1000 manpower, possibly several times as much if you're using them aggressively (which you should, because they're mercenaries).

But you might be thinking, "Hey, this game spans hundreds of years! A 40-year investment is par for the course!", except then I'd remind you that by using mercenaries and getting your manpower up-front, you're also allowing yourself to press wars early on that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. In so doing, you'll gain more land than you normally could, ultimately resulting in more manpower and more money than you could ever get from an armory.


To be honest, this is true for almost all of the buildings. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, you're better off spending your money pressing harder for wars to expand faster, rather than re-investing it in yourself, especially early on when you'd need to be building them in order to get their full use. Doubly so because even if buildings somehow made you stronger than expanding does in the long run (they don't), expanding is important since it also reduces the power of your rivals.

Aside from maybe a handful of temples if you're feeling wealthy, I'd always, always advise in favor of saving any extra money you have for a rainy day. That way, when you get into an unexpected beat-down, drag-out war with France or Russia or the HRE, you've got a few thousand ducats to throw down and replace your entire army twice over if need be. Or hire up a hundred Galleons to let you invade England, or support four colonies for a little while to cut off Spain's colonies at a critical juncture. Or build actually useful buildings, like universities and embassies and military academies that give you bonuses that can't be replicated by throwing cash at a few thugs.

[Leecros]

To be honest, this is true for almost all of the buildings. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, you're better off spending your money pressing harder for wars to expand faster, rather than re-investing it in yourself, especially early on when you'd need to be building them in order to get their full use. Doubly so because even if buildings somehow made you stronger than expanding does in the long run (they don't), expanding is important since it also reduces the power of your rivals.

Aside from maybe a handful of temples if you're feeling wealthy, I'd always, always advise in favor of saving any extra money you have for a rainy day. That way, when you get into an unexpected beat-down, drag-out war with France or Russia or the HRE, you've got a few thousand ducats to throw down and replace your entire army twice over if need be. Or hire up a hundred Galleons to let you invade England, or support four colonies for a little while to cut off Spain's colonies at a critical juncture. Or build actually useful buildings, like universities and embassies and military academies that give you bonuses that can't be replicated by throwing cash at a few thugs.

Plopping buildings down across your entire country all willy nilly is a waste of time and money(with the exception of maybe temples).

However, building government buildings in high base tax provinces, building production buildings in high production, and building trade buildings in provinces in high value trade nodes can increase your income by several ducats per province and it can do that sometimes by just building a couple of buildings in the building chain. IF you pick and choose carefully which provinces to build in.

I've always become very wealthy in my games using that tactic and often that gives me the capability to expand much faster and become much more powerful that i would otherwise be capable of doing.

However this may just be a differing in play style, i don't think either tactic(Building buildings only if you really have the money to spare or building buildings only in provinces that would benefit from that chain the most) are inherently wrong.

[AgentPaper]

Plopping buildings down across your entire country all willy nilly is a waste of time and money(with the exception of maybe temples).

However, building government buildings in high base tax provinces, building production buildings in high production, and building trade buildings in provinces in high value trade nodes can increase your income by several ducats per province and it can do that sometimes by just building a couple of buildings in the building chain. IF you pick and choose carefully which provinces to build in.

I've always become very wealthy in my games using that tactic and often that gives me the capability to expand much faster and become much more powerful that i would otherwise be capable of doing.

However this may just be a differing in play style, i don't think either tactic(Building buildings only if you really have the money to spare or building buildings only in provinces that would benefit from that chain the most) are inherently wrong.

If you're wealthy enough that you can afford that on top of paying for all the wars you can handle (and then some), then sure, but if that's the case you probably don't need them anyways. After you reach a certain point, money and manpower become non-issues anyways, so from my perspective unless the building helps you reach that point sooner, it's not useful.

[GnomeGninjas]

Because of this, I pass on Quantity ideas, as they don't give anything new, just a larger army, and blobbing does that.

I always take quantity as my first military idea. In the early game, larger armies and higher manpower win wars. A higher morale or discipline or other nice thing could help too, but, a 50% larger army is far more useful. Sure, once you're a huge blob, it won't be as useful but, once you blob enough, you're basically invincible anyways.

[Sange]

I always take quantity as my first military idea. In the early game, larger armies and higher manpower win wars. A higher morale or discipline or other nice thing could help too, but, a 50% larger army is far more useful. Sure, once you're a huge blob, it won't be as useful but, once you blob enough, you're basically invincible anyways.
I always take quantity in colonal games because of the geat policy that comes when combied with exploration.

[rweird]

AgentPaper: I don't typically build armories unless I plan on developing it further (all the way up to training fields), although I only really do that if I have Mil Points to spend (which in Western Europe, now that you can't use Harsh Treatment on a province as soon as you get it, has rather few uses). I figure a trivial bonus is better than wasting Mil points, and I don't really both upgrading fort level anywhere besides the capital, unless I specifically am planning some attrition hell bleed the AI out tactic for a big war (oftentimes, if I have an overabundance of money, I send a bunch of it to my vassals so they build stuff for me without me paying the point cost).

[Leecros]

If you're wealthy enough that you can afford that on top of paying for all the wars you can handle (and then some), then sure, but if that's the case you probably don't need them anyways.

Hardly, you can always use more income in the early-mid game. If you have 2,000 ducats and are making 10 ducats/month after expenses and have the extra monarch power to burn a thousand ducats and 200 monarch power to increase your ducats/month up to 20 or 25, Then it's hardly a bad investmentment.

even if you're at your force limit, that extra income means you can probably afford an extra army or two.



After you reach a certain point, money and manpower become non-issues anyways, so from my perspective unless the building helps you reach that point sooner, it's not useful.

Of course it help, you can reach that point much sooner and while you're much smaller with sensible building investment. I have to emphasize sensible though, because if you start putting government buildings on every 1 or 2 base tax province, or production buildings on every instance of grain or wool...you're gonna have a bad time.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Are buildings really worth it? Especially Armory which is what, two digits of manpower when your default is thousands?

Workshops are worth it in gold provinces, courthouses are good everywhere but necessary nowhere, trade buildings are good on provinces with existing bonuses. Manufactories are basically rubbish traps but if you have the interest reducing ideas you might as well build them with loans anyway.

Armories were basically nerfed into uselessness when they took away the cost reduction.

Forts are actually really good and you should just spam them everywhere until you have a big heartland the enemy isn't likely to go near.




To be honest, this is true for almost all of the buildings. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, you're better off spending your money pressing harder for wars to expand faster, rather than re-investing it in yourself, especially early on when you'd need to be building them in order to get their full use. Doubly so because even if buildings somehow made you stronger than expanding does in the long run (they don't), expanding is important since it also reduces the power of your rivals.


I don't build buildings rather than take provinces for strategic reasons, I do so because I don't necessarily want every available province.

You can actually get more monarch points in the long run by keeping powerful rivals around than by destroying them though.


Calling them "The Mamluks" could probably be put in the same category as calling the ERE the "Byzantine Empire": there's no mistaking who they're talking about.

No, because the Byzantines called themselves Romans but the Mamlukes didn't call themselves Egyptians because they weren't Egyptian, they were from the Caucasus. They're both names used for convenience in history books, but with quite different origins and inexactness.

Calling the Mamlukes Egypt would be like calling the Romans Byzantines (or even Greece). If you want to get rid of Byzantine Empire as a name because it only exists in history books you can't use the same logic to rename countries after modern and ancient countries in the same geography. The whole name Byzantine comes from taking an old name for a city and applying it to the wrong time period.


Egypt is also a place that has been called Egypt since ancient times. It seems entirely appropriate to call any country based there for Egypt.

There's a difference between it being wrong to call it Egypt and it being an improvement to call it Egypt.

Along the same logic, the Teutonic Order should already be called Prussia in 1444 and not need tag switching. Or the Kingdom of Jerusalem should be called Palestine or Israel instead. Or the Aztecs and Inca should just start out as Mexico and Peru because one of those isn't technically wrong.

The name "Mamlukes" has added historical detail. Adding in CK2's dynasty name change thing might be a good idea, changing Mamlukes to Egypt without that would just be change for change's sake.

Making Egypt start out with cores the way Syria and Iraq do might make more sense.

[Razanir]

(I just got the game last week)

It's taken me quite a few tries to not piss everyone off immediately, but I finally have a good game. As Savoy, I haven't actually annexed any provinces myself, but I've vassalized Milan (with Brescia) and the Papal State (+Ferrara, Urbino, -Avignon). I've allied France and Austria, who helped me fight off a coalition. I also control the Curia.

My next target now is Sardinia, although that'll take a bit of work. It's still under Aragonese control, and they're in a personal union with Castile. My plans:

* Build a navy to storm Sardinia.
* Go to war with Genoa first, take Corsica, and have a land invasion of Sardinia.
* Force Castile to free Aragon, force Aragon to free Sardinia, and capture Sardinia myself. (This, minus the Castilian War, is how I got it last time)

Also, let's pretend I didn't mistake a Let's Play for the discussion thread for the game.

[OrcusMcP]

(I just got the game last week)

It's taken me quite a few tries to not piss everyone off immediately, but I finally have a good game. As Savoy, I haven't actually annexed any provinces myself, but I've vassalized Milan (with Brescia) and the Papal State (+Ferrara, Urbino, -Avignon). I've allied France and Austria, who helped me fight off a coalition. I also control the Curia.

My next target now is Sardinia, although that'll take a bit of work. It's still under Aragonese control, and they're in a personal union with Castile. My plans:

* Build a navy to storm Sardinia.
* Go to war with Genoa first, take Corsica, and have a land invasion of Sardinia.
* Force Castile to free Aragon, force Aragon to free Sardinia, and capture Sardinia myself. (This, minus the Castilian War, is how I got it last time)
Are you able to get France or Portugal on your side for the war? Or England? Forcing the Spaniards to deal with problems on another front might help you a lot.


Also, let's pretend I didn't mistake a Let's Play for the discussion thread for the game.
We've all been there, no shame. :smallwink:

[Razanir]

Are you able to get France or Portugal on your side for the war? Or England? Forcing the Spaniards to deal with problems on another front might help you a lot.

Yes, I can. But there are still a few complications.

* I'd have to sue Castile for peace, but only Aragon can liberate Sardinia.
* Even if they have another front to deal with, I still only have a naval capacity of 4. So unless I annex something or am fine paying extra, I seriously don't have much of a navy.
* The cost to end the vassalage of Aragon is 100%

[tonberrian]

Doesn't Sardinia/Corsica have a core on Liguria? You could eat that, release as vassal, then use its core claim.

[Razanir]

Doesn't Sardinia/Corsica have a core on Liguria? You could eat that, release as vassal, then use its core claim.

If that would work, I've already executed plan "Attack Genoa first, annex Corsica, then attack Sardinia over the straight". Also, I've diplo-annexed Milan (including Brescia), taken Verona in a war, and am now reclaiming Holy Roman Land from Burgundy.

Oh, and can someone explain better how PUs are formed? All I know is that I share a ruling dynasty with Saxony.

EDIT: Also, I responded to 60 years of rivalry between me and Switzerland by letting the power go to my head and excommunicating them.

[rweird]

In depth explanation of Personal Unions here (http://www.eu4wiki.com/Personal_union).

In short, when another country of the same dynasty dies without an heir, and you have high enough score/prestige (royal marriages and claimed thrones make it easier) you can just get one. If you claim someone's throne (no heir/weak heir, same dynasty), you can press you claim using the Claim the Throne CB to establish one (it always costs 84% war score, which means it is one of the best ways to get tons of territory). If one of your rivals would get a PU, and of their rivals, you have the strongest military, with the right pop-ups on, it gives you the option to contest it, and fight a succession war (or if their are multiple claimants) which gives the aggressor a chance to steal the PU.

Only Christian nations can get in Personal Unions, and these can only form between Christian nations (though I believe that if one of them later converts, the union remains).

[Razanir]

One last update for now. Administrative Tech up to 9. In no more than ten years in-game, I'll be able to form Sardinia-Piedmont. (The tooltip currently says it'll be in 1523, but that could change as time penalty goes down)

Update: Switzerland is my vassal, and Sardinia-Piedmont was formed in 1520.

[GnomeGninjas]

In depth explanation of Personal Unions here (http://www.eu4wiki.com/Personal_union).

In short, when another country of the same dynasty dies without an heir, and you have high enough score/prestige (royal marriages and claimed thrones make it easier) you can just get one. If you claim someone's throne (no heir/weak heir, same dynasty), you can press you claim using the Claim the Throne CB to establish one (it always costs 84% war score, which means it is one of the best ways to get tons of territory). If one of your rivals would get a PU, and of their rivals, you have the strongest military, with the right pop-ups on, it gives you the option to contest it, and fight a succession war (or if their are multiple claimants) which gives the aggressor a chance to steal the PU.

Only Christian nations can get in Personal Unions, and these can only form between Christian nations (though I believe that if one of them later converts, the union remains).
This guide is also helpful. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?788829-guide-to-royal-marriages-personal-unions-and-claim-throne.)

[Guancyto]

Only Christian nations can get in Personal Unions, and these can only form between Christian nations (though I believe that if one of them later converts, the union remains).

Why did they change this, anyway? Didn't like the Ottomans getting an easy personal union with Timmeh, or what?

[Razanir]

Another brief update. I noticed I had a relative on the Spanish throne and he had a weak heir. So I declared war. Except since they were a bit large to PU, and it would have dissolved after a generation, I just liberated Naples instead. Now I'm just 3 wars and 3 diplo-annexes from unifying Italy. (Succession war on Naples, conquest on Tuscany and Siena, diplo-annex Naples, Venice, and the Papal State)

[tonberrian]

Why did they change this, anyway? Didn't like the Ottomans getting an easy personal union with Timmeh, or what?

Same update that allows non-Christians to marry other non-Christians.

[Frog Dragon]

I read the change was mostly due to historical reasons. The "personal union" basically never happened outside Christian Europe.

[Sange]

I really like playing Savoy. My strategy is to start by allying Castile and Burgundy ASAP by offering alliance the same day. Then fabricate on France and declare war- if you're lucky they're still in the HYW. With Castile and Burgundy you should beat France and you can take 3-4 rich provinces. Then I ally with electors and keep their relations high, it's pretty easy to become Emperor with Savoyard traditions + diplomatic ideas. Next, if I'm not Emperor, no cb DOW Austria with Burgundian and Castillian help and have them release Styria. Then pull Burgundy in as many wars as possible to try and get their king dead. As a neighbouring HRE country with more than 6 provs I quite easily get the inheritance, even without being Emperor. With the Lowlands, it's then easy to smash France over and over. Oh, and I form Sardinia-Piedmont for the nice color. It's quite easy to dominate Italy then, though I prefer to keep Savoyard Ideas. For idea groups I go diplo -> innovative -> defensive -> admin -> influence -> offensive -> humanist -> quality.
Edit: while just using this strat I saw England not win, but keep all their French provinces after the HYW. Amazing.

Speaking of mercs, Hansa OP. Defeated France with 17 FL using 100% mercs. Trade + Admin makes you extremely powerful. And then plutocratic.

[Grif]

I really like playing Savoy. My strategy is to start by allying Castile and Burgundy ASAP by offering alliance the same day. Then fabricate on France and declare war- if you're lucky they're still in the HYW. With Castile and Burgundy you should beat France and you can take 3-4 rich provinces. Then I ally with electors and keep their relations high, it's pretty easy to become Emperor with Savoyard traditions + diplomatic ideas. Next, if I'm not Emperor, no cb DOW Austria with Burgundian and Castillian help and have them release Styria. Then pull Burgundy in as many wars as possible to try and get their king dead. As a neighbouring HRE country with more than 6 provs I quite easily get the inheritance, even without being Emperor. With the Lowlands, it's then easy to smash France over and over. Oh, and I form Sardinia-Piedmont for the nice color. It's quite easy to dominate Italy then, though I prefer to keep Savoyard Ideas. For idea groups I go diplo -> innovative -> defensive -> admin -> influence -> offensive -> humanist -> quality.
Edit: while just using this strat I saw England not win, but keep all their French provinces after the HYW. Amazing.

Speaking of mercs, Hansa OP. Defeated France with 17 FL using 100% mercs. Trade + Admin makes you extremely powerful. And then plutocratic.

I had a merc standing army with England. Quite funny when you can instantly replace everything with another set of mercs.

[Razanir]

I had a merc standing army with England. Quite funny when you can instantly replace everything with another set of mercs.

I use them when my manpower isn't quite recovered.

Also, update. Austria is effectively no more. They've been forcibly divided into Salzburg, Styria, Tirol, and Austria (with only a single province left). Spain had a civil war, and is now in 4 parts (Granada, Navarra, Catalunya, and Spain). I annexed the Papal State, although I released Roma. Naples was freed from Spanish rule and is now my vassal (and next on my to-annex list). I own Savoy, Corsica, Sardinia, Milan, all of Venice except Venezia, Switzerland, Ferrara (but not Modena) and Urbino.

[Sange]

I had a merc standing army with England. Quite funny when you can instantly replace everything with another set of mercs.

Yup, my Hansa also had a merc standing army. My MP was full all the game.

[Razanir]

And finally, the anticlimactic ending. Something went horribly, HORRIBLY wrong when installing a security update. My computer forgot how to internet and how to USB. So I pretty much had to reinstall my OS with no easy way to preserve the game.

[Leecros]

i generally use a mix of mercenary troops and my own troops. Only Mercenary infantry. Since usually you only have a few cavalry units and your artillery doesn't generally take damage unless you have too little infantry in your army and/or REALLY lose a battle, I don't usually see hiring mercenary cavalry and artillery as a good investment unless i'm really out of manpower or need to fight a war immediately.




And finally, the anticlimactic ending. Something went horribly, HORRIBLY wrong when installing a security update. My computer forgot how to internet and how to USB. So I pretty much had to reinstall my OS with no easy way to preserve the game.

you may want to save a backup of your game saves to the cloud to prevent this from happening in the future. Its integrated into the game, so there's not really any drawback to it except you have to be on the internet to load the save.

[Razanir]

you may want to save a backup of your game saves to the cloud to prevent this from happening in the future. Its integrated into the game, so there's not really any drawback to it except you have to be on the internet to load the save.

I never think to, because I never got it to work in Civ 5.

[rweird]

I almost never use mercenaries. I really should, I recall several instances where my manpower was really suffering, and I often get a pretty big war chest. Still, I almost always disband them because of bad events that can fire when you mercenaries (I got one event after I annexed a little guy, and searched through all my armies to try to find the mercenaries, when I had over 300k troops). I don't think of them much in the early game, as my economy could have trouble supporting them, and in the late-game, manpower isn't too much of a concern.

Also, this is just me, and not a tactical decision, but having a glorious army of one's own citizens is a lot more satisfying than having a host potentially foreign soldiers that fight because you pay them.

[AgentPaper]

I almost never use mercenaries. I really should, I recall several instances where my manpower was really suffering, and I often get a pretty big war chest. Still, I almost always disband them because of bad events that can fire when you mercenaries (I got one event after I annexed a little guy, and searched through all my armies to try to find the mercenaries, when I had over 300k troops). I don't think of them much in the early game, as my economy could have trouble supporting them, and in the late-game, manpower isn't too much of a concern.

Also, this is just me, and not a tactical decision, but having a glorious army of one's own citizens is a lot more satisfying than having a host potentially foreign soldiers that fight because you pay them.

It's rare that you'll have pure mercenary armies, even early on when pure infantry is actually a very viable strategy. Much more often, you'll have a mostly citizen army with a handful of mercenaries mixed in to bulk it out a bit. The more losses you take, and the lower your manpower goes, the more you merge your units together and reinforce with mercenaries. Then, as your manpower recovers, you can start sacking mercs and raising more citizen troops to save ducats.

As long as you're not wasting money by getting buildings early on, you should have more than enough cash to handle this kind of mercenary use even in a relatively poor country, and having even just a few mercs mixed in really helps save your manpower. Think of it this way: If your infantry is 10% mercenaries, that's 10% less manpower you need to spend reinforcing your army whenever it takes losses. If your army is 20% mercs, then that's 20% less manpower lost. 50%, half as much manpower lost.

As long as you're diligent about merging your troops and replacing losses with mercs, you can easily stabilize and even start to re-gain manpower with less than half of your infantry replaced with mercs. If you're using a late-game army with something like a 3-1-2 ratio of infantry-cavalry-artillery, then that's less than 25% of your troops that are mercs.

I'd also suggest not worrying about the events. They're fairly rare, and never cause any real problems. The benefits of using mercs when you need them far outweighs whatever minor penalties the events impose.

[rweird]

My army ratio is typically Cavalry and Infantry:Cannons, I rarely include more than 6 cavalry in an army (late game, I typically have 40 stacks of 14 infantry, 6 cavalry, and 20 cannons, or 80 stacks of 32 infantry, 8 cavalry, and 40 cannons). I only give 20 stacks 3 cavalry so they won't get insufficient support.

It probably is worth it, as oftentimes I spend money on buildings, which could be spent on something else. I will need to adjust my play style.

[Sange]

Generally, I go with not much cav, but that's when I'm not playing Poland. 53% cav combat ability destroys everyone.

As for mercs, I did pure mercs in my Hansa game ans in my Burgundy game. But in both I had Trade and Admin and Innovative, and Plutocratic with the Hansa.

[AgentPaper]

My army ratio is typically Cavalry and Infantry:Cannons, I rarely include more than 6 cavalry in an army (late game, I typically have 40 stacks of 14 infantry, 6 cavalry, and 20 cannons, or 80 stacks of 32 infantry, 8 cavalry, and 40 cannons). I only give 20 stacks 3 cavalry so they won't get insufficient support.

It probably is worth it, as oftentimes I spend money on buildings, which could be spent on something else. I will need to adjust my play style.

That's enough infantry to fight effectively in one battle, but I generally bring a lot more, because then you can merge your infantry and still have enough to fight a second, third, maybe even a fourth battle at effectively full strength without needing to wait around for reinforcements.

The ratio also makes the army very easily divisible. You have a full stack of 48 for the late-game, with a front line of 24 infantry, 8 cavalry for plenty of flanking, and 16 cannons to shatter their main line and protect yours. However, you can also split that up into two 24-stacks when need be, which is especially useful in low-supply territory, or for strategic reasons.

From there, you can further divide it into stacks of 12, then 6, and even 3 for a true carpet siege. And if you find yourself suddenly exposed to unexpected resistance while doing so, you can easily grab a handful of nearby stacks and stick them together into a fully functional war party to fight them off, without needing to worry about whether you'll have the right ratio or not, since all the sub-units are the same (unless you divide down to 3, but you shouldn't be doing that unless you're very sure it's safe, anyways).

[mythmonster2]

So, is it bad form to plug my own mod (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=376525156) here? It basically injects some religious diversity into the old world by putting in all the pagan religions from CKII and then some. In practice, it leads to more conflict and more aggression on the part of the AI (especially the Ottomans; my test run of the mod had them take out Hungary before 1500, while usually the Byzantines might still be holding onto Constantinople at that point in vanilla). It is very rough, since all it is is a replacement of province and country religions, with some minor tweaking of now-useless ideas and fixing events that converted provinces or countries to Christianity or Islam.

[Razanir]

(especially the Ottomans; my test run of the mod had them take out Hungary before 1500, while usually the Byzantines might still be holding onto Constantinople at that point in vanilla)

Oh, right. The one other odd detail of my game. The Ottomans were completely wiped out.

[Grif]

I almost never use mercenaries. I really should, I recall several instances where my manpower was really suffering, and I often get a pretty big war chest. Still, I almost always disband them because of bad events that can fire when you mercenaries (I got one event after I annexed a little guy, and searched through all my armies to try to find the mercenaries, when I had over 300k troops). I don't think of them much in the early game, as my economy could have trouble supporting them, and in the late-game, manpower isn't too much of a concern.

Also, this is just me, and not a tactical decision, but having a glorious army of one's own citizens is a lot more satisfying than having a host potentially foreign soldiers that fight because you pay them.

Bad events are fairly rare, to be honest. And ironically, it doesn't really affect much. (Just harder recruitment of mercs, or some unrest).

Besides, ducats are cheap. Manpower are relatively harder to get, so it should be conserved more. (If you do get Quantity however, Manpower stops being a problem rather quicker than usual.)

[Flickerdart]

Elective monarchies confuse me.

I am playing as Poland, currently 1 Admin tech away from forming the PLC. Ever since entering into the personal union with Lithuania I've constantly struggled with a series of super-old Jagiellon heirs with Weak legitimacy, who keep getting edged out by high-legitimacy Jagiellon kings from Austria (we have a royal marriage, I guess we supplanted the Habsburgs?). To get mine back as the candidate, I have to keep spending my legitimacy, which makes revolts a really big problem and is a pain in general.

Is it really so bad to have a foreign king? If yes, how can I boost the legitimacy of my own heirs (and ideally reduce their age)?

Edit: Well, the heir suddenly died and then the reigning monarch also suddenly died, leading to a foreign dynasty taking over. This caused a bunch of events to fire, so I'm guessing that this is supposed to happen and I'm not going to get PU'd by Bohemia or something?

[Grif]

Elective monarchies confuse me.

I am playing as Poland, currently 1 Admin tech away from forming the PLC. Ever since entering into the personal union with Lithuania I've constantly struggled with a series of super-old Jagiellon heirs with Weak legitimacy, who keep getting edged out by high-legitimacy Jagiellon kings from Austria (we have a royal marriage, I guess we supplanted the Habsburgs?). To get mine back as the candidate, I have to keep spending my legitimacy, which makes revolts a really big problem and is a pain in general.

Is it really so bad to have a foreign king? If yes, how can I boost the legitimacy of my own heirs (and ideally reduce their age)?

Edit: Well, the heir suddenly died and then the reigning monarch also suddenly died, leading to a foreign dynasty taking over. This caused a bunch of events to fire, so I'm guessing that this is supposed to happen and I'm not going to get PU'd by Bohemia or something?

I believe there's no real way to boost the weak legitimacy of your own Jagiellon candidates. Which it a general PITA to play Poland with all the extra unrest you get. (At least elective monarchy give you a -1 national unrest boni, so it partially offsets the problem.

Best solution is always to convert to Absolute Monarchy when the event fires.

[Sange]

Foreign heirs are good! The difference is basically that they have 1+d4 sats while yours have 1+d5. But it's so easy to get PUs using foreign heirs.

[rweird]

Foreign heirs are good! The difference is basically that they have 1+d4 sats while yours have 1+d5. But it's so easy to get PUs using foreign heirs.

Your heir is 1d4+2, not 1d5+1. When Poland is lucky, I think it is 1d4+3. Still, if you get an heir with a 2 or under in any stat, it will give you a number of penalties as the Sejm exerts control over the monarch.

[Razanir]

Your heir is 1d4+2, not 1d5+1. When Poland is lucky, I think it is 1d4+3. Still, if you get an heir with a 2 or under in any stat, it will give you a number of penalties as the Sejm exerts control over the monarch.

No... I've gotten heirs with 0s before.

[rweird]

No... I've gotten heirs with 0s before.

As Poland, as an Elective Monarchy? The Dev Diary says otherwise… Strange.

[Razanir]

As Poland, as an Elective Monarchy? The Dev Diary says otherwise… Strange.

Wait, the die rolling was specifically about Poland? I misunderstood it as any leader [of any country] uses such a formula for stats.

[rweird]

Wait, the die rolling was specifically about Poland? I misunderstood it as any leader [of any country] uses such a formula for stats.

No, normal country rulers are 2d4-2, regencies are 2d4-3, lucky nations get +1 to all monarch stats. Poland's Elective Monarchy just always gets good leaders.

[Sange]

Wait, the die rolling was specifically about Poland? I misunderstood it as any leader [of any country] uses such a formula for stats.

Yeah, only for Poland. But really, they're a PU machine. Got Austria, France, Scandinavia and England under a PU in one run.

[Flickerdart]

So, I got the rebellion thing during a war and had no way to handle 120 regiments, so my ruler ragequit and now it's a noble republic.

Also I finally managed to convert Bohemia away from being a Center of Reformation. Now I just have to do the same to Brandenburg (Austria loves me and the rest of the empire is weak and fragmented) and I will finally achieve religious unity.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

So I tried to get back into the game. I started as Castille and Aragon didn't rival me at start. So I allied him, Burgundy, and Navarra. I forged a claim on France so I could neuter the BBB right away. It cost all my manpower, but Burgundy annexed Champagne, England white peaced the 100 years war, and I forced France to release Toulouse. Unfortunately Toulouse is just a tad bit too big to diplo-vassalize.

The Iberian Wedding just fired and I'm thinking of declaring war on Portugal to take Cape Verde, some of their southern ports, and slow down their colonization. Should I focus on eliminating Portugal or is it better to just wait until later?

[IthilanorStPete]

So I tried to get back into the game. I started as Castille and Aragon didn't rival me at start. So I allied him, Burgundy, and Navarra. I forged a claim on France so I could neuter the BBB right away. It cost all my manpower, but Burgundy annexed Champagne, England white peaced the 100 years war, and I forced France to release Toulouse. Unfortunately Toulouse is just a tad bit too big to diplo-vassalize.

The Iberian Wedding just fired and I'm thinking of declaring war on Portugal to take Cape Verde, some of their southern ports, and slow down their colonization. Should I focus on eliminating Portugal or is it better to just wait until later?

Go after them now; if you want to monopolize the colonial game, you need to nip that in the bud early on. It might be a good idea to end up vassalizing them so they can colonize while remaining under your control.

[tonberrian]

My standard opening for Castille has historically been to vassalize Portugal. But I haven't played Castille since colonial nations were a thing.

[Flickerdart]

So, Austria randomly decided to drop our alliance and ally with Russia instead. Now I have no hope of beating Brandenburg - the HRE would be united against me, and their stupid OP Western units would make short work of mine. I guess I'll have to deal with a couple of northern provinces always being Reformed...

On the other hand, punching the Ottomans repeatedly has worked great. I've been feeding land to Byzantium and Serbia but decided to absorb them. There are loads of other countries in the area (like Albania and Ragusa) that I should be able to vassalize. I've been trying to get Hungary to accept me as their overlord but for some reason I can't improve relations past 100 even though we're allied and royal-married.

[rweird]

On the other hand, punching the Ottomans repeatedly has worked great. I've been feeding land to Byzantium and Serbia but decided to absorb them. There are loads of other countries in the area (like Albania and Ragusa) that I should be able to vassalize. I've been trying to get Hungary to accept me as their overlord but for some reason I can't improve relations past 100 even though we're allied and royal-married.

They have to be a vassal for Improve Relations to go up to 200. If you want to vassalize them, Improve Relations+Alliance+RM=175, offer military access +10, proclaim guarantee +10, and send gift +25 can be added on on top of that for +220. If you are a heretic, or they have aggressive expansion, or something, transfer trade power (if you have Wealth of Nations) can give up to +20 (although in practice, only really up to +10). If you need to improve opinion beyond that, giving subsidies can give up to another +15, although it takes quite a while (although if you are rich, giving your vassals/will be vassals a lot of money to build buildings means you don't have to spend the Monarch Points for them).

[Flickerdart]

They have to be a vassal for Improve Relations to go up to 200. If you want to vassalize them, Improve Relations+Alliance+RM=175, offer military access +10, proclaim guarantee +10, and send gift +25 can be added on on top of that for +220. If you are a heretic, or they have aggressive expansion, or something, transfer trade power (if you have Wealth of Nations) can give up to +20 (although in practice, only really up to +10). If you need to improve opinion beyond that, giving subsidies can give up to another +15, although it takes quite a while (although if you are rich, giving your vassals/will be vassals a lot of money to build buildings means you don't have to spend the Monarch Points for them).
Ugh, seems like it would just be easier to attack them.

And yeah, money's not a problem right now. I've been sitting at above 3000 ducats for ages without even doing anything trade-wise to get it. I think I even got to 8 at one point.

[rweird]

The thing about diplo-vassalization is that it doesn't give aggressive expansion, so you can expand into someone else at the same time.

[Razanir]

The thing about diplo-vassalization is that it doesn't give aggressive expansion, so you can expand into someone else at the same time.

The problem for me is that base tax always winds up giving too much of a penalty.

[rweird]

The problem for me is that base tax always winds up giving too much of a penalty.

True, it is hard to get big conquests that way. Vassalizing someone in war is another way (or annexing them and releasing them as a vassal). The main time I'm diplo-vassalize someone is if I can feed them a bunch of cores.

[OrcusMcP]

New Expansion Anouncement! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDn6JhHEuw)

Can't link to the Paradox forums from work unfortunately, but it looks neat! It's not the Chinese focus some have been hoping for, but it is the Meso/South-American focus other people were hoping for!

Also: Nation Designer. Nation. Designer. Wut.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

New Expansion Anouncement! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDn6JhHEuw)

Can't link to the Paradox forums from work unfortunately, but it looks neat! It's not the Chinese focus some have been hoping for, but it is the Meso/South-American focus other people were hoping for!

Also: Nation Designer. Nation. Designer. Wut.

Shinto France would be a nightmare come true. So much +morale.

[Sange]

Full piety Shia Prussia.
Really excited about this new DLC though. Playing as a Meso/South American nation will be more interesting and the Treaty of Tortillas Torsedillas sounds delicious interesting. Makes me want to restart my Holy Trinity and Sunset Invasion achievement runs.

[Grif]

New Expansion Anouncement! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYDn6JhHEuw)

Can't link to the Paradox forums from work unfortunately, but it looks neat! It's not the Chinese focus some have been hoping for, but it is the Meso/South-American focus other people were hoping for!

Also: Nation Designer. Nation. Designer. Wut.

Tropico shall live!

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Tropico shall live!

Viva El Presidente!

[Sange]

First dev diary is out. Sounds like it's hard to reform your religion, but worth it if you get to keep bonuses and with the base +10% morale and -2 unrest Nahuatl gets.

[Leecros]

it's sounding like you aren't going to be able to just subjugate the entire region until you're the only nation left like you could beforehand. If you do, you may not be able to get enough sacrifices to stop the D00M counter.

Of course, if you don't mind your vassals' opinion, you will be able to keep vassal states and sacrifice their leaders. Or you could just leave a few minor nations around and beat on them every time the truce ends.

[Flickerdart]

it's sounding like you aren't going to be able to just subjugate the entire region until you're the only nation left like you could beforehand. If you do, you may not be able to get enough sacrifices to stop the D00M counter.

Of course, if you don't mind your vassals' opinion, you will be able to keep vassal states and sacrifice their leaders. Or you could just leave a few minor nations around and beat on them every time the truce ends.
This seems problematic any way you slice it - once the Europeans come they'll be bumping off the regional minors unless you did it first. I guess you could entirely surround them, though...

[Artanis]

it's sounding like you aren't going to be able to just subjugate the entire region until you're the only nation left like you could beforehand. If you do, you may not be able to get enough sacrifices to stop the D00M counter.

Of course, if you don't mind your vassals' opinion, you will be able to keep vassal states and sacrifice their leaders. Or you could just leave a few minor nations around and beat on them every time the truce ends.


This seems problematic any way you slice it - once the Europeans come they'll be bumping off the regional minors unless you did it first. I guess you could entirely surround them, though...
Isn't that pretty much exactly happened in real life though?

[Flickerdart]

Screw real life, I want to spearhead the Sunset Invasion!

[Sange]

Screw real life, I want to spearhead the Sunset Invasion!

+1
Currently doing Reformed Aztecs, next time it's Nahuatl!
Seems like the best way to get reforms is attack other neighbours and reduces them to an OPM + vassalize in the peace deal.

[Flickerdart]

I thought this was the expansion that was going to add reforming religions; does the feature currently exist somewhere else?

Or do you mean you imported a CK2 game with a Reformed Aztec religion and are playing as them? That might actually be fun, anyone have thoughts on how the 1337 start (latest historical, IIRC) works when imported into EU4? I don't want to actually run it any so as not to increase blob sizes, but the Golden Horde starts out real freakin' blobby.

[AgentPaper]

+1
Currently doing Reformed Aztecs, next time it's Nahuatl!
Seems like the best way to get reforms is attack other neighbours and reduces them to an OPM + vassalize in the peace deal.

Yeah, this system seems really easy to game. Once you have all the other countries as OPMs, you'll have plenty of fodder for sacrificing, and you won't care what they think of you because you'll just be reforming, re-vassalizing, reforming, re-vassalizing, etc until you're fully reformed.

Perhaps there should be some kind of mechanic, where the vassals don't count unless they're holding all of their cores. This would make it much more difficult, and force you to completely wipe out a few of the tribes to make into your power base, while leaving the rest intact. Then, as long as there aren't five easy OPM tribes to vassalize, you'll have a real (but probably still fairly easy if you plan right) fight on your hands.

[Leecros]

Yeah, this system seems really easy to game. Once you have all the other countries as OPMs, you'll have plenty of fodder for sacrificing, and you won't care what they think of you because you'll just be reforming, re-vassalizing, reforming, re-vassalizing, etc until you're fully reformed.

Well, it seems like they're attempting to put in a counter to this. The more land you have, the faster the D00M counter goes up. so it's possible if you did render all of the other countries as OPM's, then you'll have too much land to keep up with the D00M.

of course, i doubt we'll know the full implications until the DLC is released. The amount of D00M increase may not be enough to prevent you from eating all of the minors down to OPM's.

[Guancyto]

Can I just say, I love that all the mechanics are geared toward getting your subject nations to really really hate you.

[Sange]

I thought this was the expansion that was going to add reforming religions; does the feature currently exist somewhere else?

Or do you mean you imported a CK2 game with a Reformed Aztec religion and are playing as them? That might actually be fun, anyone have thoughts on how the 1337 start (latest historical, IIRC) works when imported into EU4? I don't want to actually run it any so as not to increase blob sizes, but the Golden Horde starts out real freakin' blobby.

No, started out in EUIV eith Aztecs and converted to the Reformed religion.

[Sallera]

For those who have both, how does EUIV compare to CKII in the CPU load department (especially as the game progresses)? On this laptop, I can't run CKII on anything above speed 3 after a hundred years or so (and even that's a bit slow); was wondering if EUIV would avoid that kind of slowdown what with not keeping track of so many individual characters. (Of course, being newer, the base load might be higher...)

[rweird]

The game seems to slow down over time too, but it wouldn't be because there are more countries to handle (the number of countries typically decreases over time). I've been able to run it at speed 5 in the 1700s none the less though.

[Grif]

The game seems to slow down over time too, but it wouldn't be because there are more countries to handle (the number of countries typically decreases over time). I've been able to run it at speed 5 in the 1700s none the less though.

It's more of the number of units that each country has increases as well. (By the end of the 1600s, a normal France would be fielding 100++ regiments, compared to 30 at the start, and the New World starts getting populated with colonial nations.)

I do find EU4 to be significantly more optimised than CK2, as I can barely run CK2 on my laptop, while EU4 would chug along just fine for the first 50-100 years.

[rweird]

France does grow larger, annexing vassals and all. The combined force of france+vassals is at least 60k at the start. Still, the overall number of units probably does grow. As do potential targets for diplomatic/military actions.

[Sallera]

Thanks, Grif, that sounds promising. I'll have to keep an eye out for the next sale.

[Flickerdart]

No, started out in EUIV eith Aztecs and converted to the Reformed religion.
Ohhhhh. They really should have called it Reformed Christian or something (but then, they shorten a lot of names for whatever reason).

[AgentPaper]

For those who have both, how does EUIV compare to CKII in the CPU load department (especially as the game progresses)? On this laptop, I can't run CKII on anything above speed 3 after a hundred years or so (and even that's a bit slow); was wondering if EUIV would avoid that kind of slowdown what with not keeping track of so many individual characters. (Of course, being newer, the base load might be higher...)

EU4 definitely runs much faster, even at the start, but especially later on. I recently ran two handsoff games, and while CK2 slowed down to a crawl later on (like, 2-3 days a second, less if a big war was on), EU4 actually sped up slightly as the number of countries went down.

[Grif]

My Wallachia game seems to be coming to an unfortunate lull. Hopefully, France will unally either Venice or Hungary. (Jesus, Hungary, did you need 7 allies?)

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/40865313056855162/879955AF7D821FBE56B85A4805749EF934E7DBFF/

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Pax Vngaria?

Looks like the conquest game is coming to a lull, but you can play trade and diplomacy to try to isolate one of them! Maybe pick one to try to get on your side?

[Grif]

Pax Vngaria?

Looks like the conquest game is coming to a lull, but you can play trade and diplomacy to try to isolate one of them! Maybe pick one to try to get on your side?

Sadly, I'm Orthodox, so most countries are indifferent. And AI is coded to always answer the defensive CTA first before any offensive ones. It makes untangling the web of alliances the two Catholic countries have very tricky. (Plus random French/Spanish Defender of the Faith.)

[Flickerdart]

Ugh, tell me about it. I gave up on trying to vassalize Hungary peacefully (they had -40 for bordering heretic, -15 for CB, and -20 for something called "dynasty lost election" which claimed to count down but was stuck at -20 forever) but France answers the call to arms and there's some weird bug where my armies start out with no morale when they fight (even though my maintenance is max and these are fresh units).

[Artanis]

My Wallachia game seems to be coming to an unfortunate lull. Hopefully, France will unally either Venice or Hungary.
There's always the option of continuing to bludgeon the Ottomans until you get the resources and/or opportunity to go after them.


(Jesus, Hungary, did you need 7 allies?)
From the sounds of it...yes, yes they do :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Speaking of the Ottomans, how should I go about finishing them off? I've already kicked them out of the Balkans, but from what I understand, you need land to be adjacent to other land to core it, and I can't take Constantinople without full annexation, which they're still too big for.

[Artanis]

Speaking of the Ottomans, how should I go about finishing them off? I've already kicked them out of the Balkans, but from what I understand, you need land to be adjacent to other land to core it, and I can't take Constantinople without full annexation, which they're still too big for.
I believe there's a second straight crossing nearby that you can use to go around Constantinople.

[AgentPaper]

Speaking of the Ottomans, how should I go about finishing them off? I've already kicked them out of the Balkans, but from what I understand, you need land to be adjacent to other land to core it, and I can't take Constantinople without full annexation, which they're still too big for.

You need to be either land adjacent OR the target province needs to be coastal and within your colonization range. All of Turkey's coast (and in fact most of the Mediterranean) should be well within your range.

[rweird]

You don't need to be adjacent to core it, just within coring range. Even without the straight crossing, other provinces in asia minor would be within coring range (160 at tech level 3). To core something, it needs to be within colonial range.

[Flickerdart]

Ah, that explains how Austria was able to core the random piece of Turkey I handed over to them in a peace settlement to make them love me. Even until this day, they're loyal allies who will go against fellow Reformed nations to defend their historic Catholic ally...unless I attack a member of the HRE, that is.

[Artanis]

Addendum to the prior post:

Taking a nation's capital requires one of two things: full annexation, or isolating the capital so that it doesn't border any of the rest of the nation. When I mentioned the other strait crossing earlier, I was trying to say that you could use that to go around Constantinople and start conquering the rest of their stuff until you could fulfill one of those two requirements. I'm not 100% sure of how sea zones interact with the isolation thing though, so it may or may not require taking away some coastline in addition to just the land provinces.

[IthilanorStPete]

Addendum to the prior post:

Taking a nation's capital requires one of two things: full annexation, or isolating the capital so that it doesn't border any of the rest of the nation. When I mentioned the other strait crossing earlier, I was trying to say that you could use that to go around Constantinople and start conquering the rest of their stuff until you could fulfill one of those two requirements. I'm not 100% sure of how sea zones interact with the isolation thing though, so it may or may not require taking away some coastline in addition to just the land provinces.

Regardless, taking coastal provinces is a good idea, since it'll limit their navy. Hudavendigar's also just a nice province to take for the trade power.

[Flickerdart]

The Ottoman navy is a joke; I just rebuilt mine from scratch with Twodeckers and Archipelago Frigates so there's no way they stand a chance.

So I'll be able to take Constantinople if I first cut it off from the rest of Turkey?

[Grif]

Ugh, tell me about it. I gave up on trying to vassalize Hungary peacefully (they had -40 for bordering heretic, -15 for CB, and -20 for something called "dynasty lost election" which claimed to count down but was stuck at -20 forever) but France answers the call to arms and there's some weird bug where my armies start out with no morale when they fight (even though my maintenance is max and these are fresh units).

It's not a bug by the way. The interface shows relative morale, and if your max morale is lowers than theirs, it looks like they suddenly starts with half morale.

[GnomeGninjas]

The Ottoman navy is a joke; I just rebuilt mine from scratch with Twodeckers and Archipelago Frigates so there's no way they stand a chance.

So I'll be able to take Constantinople if I first cut it off from the rest of Turkey?

If their capitol is isolated they'll quickly move it somewhere else and you can take the former capitol like normal. If for some reason they don't move it you can still take it as long as its the only province you take in the war.

[Flickerdart]

It's not a bug by the way. The interface shows relative morale, and if your max morale is lowers than theirs, it looks like they suddenly starts with half morale.
Their tech is the same as mine, and I have most of the military ideas. How can they have 200-400% more morale than me?

[rweird]

Them being fresh units could be the answer. When you first recruit a unit, it starts with low moral, and it takes a few months for it to recover. If you throw a bunch of newly recruited (within the past month or so) units at the enemy, the army would have really low morale.

If you mean have no fought yet by fresh, I'm not really sure.

[Grif]

Their tech is the same as mine, and I have most of the military ideas. How can they have 200-400% more morale than me?

It's really only 50-80% more. If you're talking about French troops they have Elan! which gives +20% morale, prestige adds another 10%, full army traditions add 15(?)% and Defensive ideas add 15%.

[Flickerdart]

My prestige is maxed out from glorious conquest, and they don't have Defensive. And no, these aren't fresh units, and it really is such a massive difference.

[Artanis]

Their tech is the same as mine, and I have most of the military ideas. How can they have 200-400% more morale than me?
A screenshot would probably be helpful. More information always makes it easier to diagnose an issue, and like the saying goes, a .jpg is worth a thousand .txts :smallwink:

[IthilanorStPete]

They could also be getting a bonus from a military advisor. Screenshots would help; if you mouseover the morale in the battle screen, it should show you all sources of their morale.