Europa Universalis IV Thread 3: If only we had comet sense...

[tonberrian]

"Europa Universalis 4 is the 4th in a series of Grand Strategy games by Paradox Interactive, set in the years 1444-1821, the Age of Exploration, Enlightenment and Empire Building. You control a nation from the period and seek to guide it to a grand destiny, through trade, conquest, religious strife, colonization and technological ingenuity. You can visit the Paradox Forums for detailed information, and there is a good fan-supported Wiki (http://www.eu4wiki.com/Europa_Universalis_4_Wiki) for more stratefgy and reference." - OrcusMcP

Currently, we have six major expansions that have reworked... practically everything from the base game. The latest, Common Sense, allows you to improve your provinces base tax, production, and manpower; allows finer control over your subject nations; gives government ranks with increasing benefits; reworks Protestantism, Buddhism, and Theocracies; and introduces Free Cities, single province republics in the Holy Roman Empire.

Pretty much every Thursday, the development team will post a development diary about what they are currently working on at the official forums (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?forums/europa-universalis-iv.731/).

Useful links:

Previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?355134-Europa-Universalis-4-Thread-2-Comet-Sighted!)
Official forums (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?forums/europa-universalis-iv.731/)
Fan wiki (http://www.eu4wiki.com/Europa_Universalis_4_Wiki)

(I chose the thread title, because no consensus was reached. I can change it if I must.)

[OrcusMcP]

What's next, "Comet sighted"? :smallwink:

Well, it kind of fizzled last time we tried, but since we have gotten the swing of the CK2 succession games going, would anyone be interested in an EU4 succession game?

[tonberrian]

What's next, "Comet sighted"? :smallwink:

That's ridiculous. Comet sense is the reply to that event.

[Leecros]

Does anyone else think it's rather silly that enemies can move through their own forts that are occupied by your forces as if they still controlled it?

Just had a situation where i had troops stationed in Brittany. i'm helping Castile in a war vs France, but I tanked their maintenance because i was done with the war. I needed to recover manpower.

there are french forts in Poitou and Anjou. Admittedly i didn't have any of my own forts nearby, but i figured those two forts that i had occupied would keep France from charging in and defeating my 0 maintenance troops.

Nope. It doesn't take long for the Git Rekt Xpress to charge on through Anjou to attack my troops. Fortunately i managed to avoid a complete loss, but it's still rather frustrating that occupied forts don't inhibit troop movement the same way that owned forts do.

[Grif]

What's next, "Comet sighted"? :smallwink:

Well, it kind of fizzled last time we tried, but since we have gotten the swing of the CK2 succession games going, would anyone be interested in an EU4 succession game?

I would, but I'd prefer it to have a Republic nation + that mod that changes it back to EU3 styled random republic leaders. The latter might shake things up. (Do a mini-campaign thing where we vote for the leader in the thread.)

[AgentPaper]

I'd be up for a succession game. Any ideas on what country to play?

[rweird]

Does anyone else think it's rather silly that enemies can move through their own forts that are occupied by your forces as if they still controlled it?

Just had a situation where i had troops stationed in Brittany. i'm helping Castile in a war vs France, but I tanked their maintenance because i was done with the war. I needed to recover manpower.

there are french forts in Poitou and Anjou. Admittedly i didn't have any of my own forts nearby, but i figured those two forts that i had occupied would keep France from charging in and defeating my 0 maintenance troops.

Nope. It doesn't take long for the Git Rekt Xpress to charge on through Anjou to attack my troops. Fortunately i managed to avoid a complete loss, but it's still rather frustrating that occupied forts don't inhibit troop movement the same way that owned forts do.

It is annoying, I don't really get why you can't move past forts. I see it kind of as guerrilla warfare and stuff, which makes it sort of make sense, because the occupied population (typically) would prefer their current ruler to someone new, and not really permit such guerrilla warfare. Perhaps if you have a core on the province/the province is of your culture and/or religion, while the owner is of a different religion and/or doesn't accept the culture, then you could block enemy movement (rebels probably should be able to as well), although that probably would be difficult to code, so I'd understand it not being so.

[Sian]

actually, it might not be wholely fair to call eu4wiki a fanwiki, as its login mechanisms have recently been tied into peoples Paradox accounts

[rweird]

actually, it might not be wholely fair to call eu4wiki a fanwiki, as its login mechanisms have recently been tied into peoples Paradox accounts

Although it still is the fans that post the content (to my understanding), not the Devs, and the only real requirement to get a paradox account is to own a paradox game (so about everyone who knows about EU4 could).

[Razanir]

I got the Shattered Europa mod. The basic premise is that all those countries that start within another country and can be freed actually start out free. As Savoy, I became Emperor, have enacted one reform, and have prevented the Shadow Kingdom from firing off. I'm also large enough that Bari, who annexed Naples, are the only country large enough to be my rival.

[Flickerdart]

I'd be up for a succession game. Any ideas on what country to play?
Ulm or Ryukyu. :smallamused:

[AgentPaper]

Ulm or Ryukyu. :smallamused:

Ulm sounds fun. Ryuku would be a bit of a slow start though, especially if we have inexperienced players to start.

[Grif]

Ulm would probably be okay, but it's really beaten to the ground as a meme-bait for EU4 players. How about something less orthodox? There's still five other free cities to choose from. :smalltongue: Frankfurt, anyone?

[rweird]

What exactly is the Ulm meme?

[Leecros]

what about a Daimyo in Japan? It's not anyone who starts particularly powerful, but is capable of becoming Stronk Japan.



Also, I'd like to note that i'm a huge fan of some of the new aesthetic things coming down the line in the next patch. Primarily regional naming for unconnected pieces of land(ex. French Egypt, Russian Anatolia, English Arabia, etc) and them finally using the ability to make wasteland regions the same color as a country that completely surrounds it. (linky (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-september-10th.881064/))

[Flickerdart]

What exactly is the Ulm meme?
It comes from this AAR some dude did. (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/glory-for-ulm-a-flagland-aar.513240/)

[Sian]

I'm going to suggest East Frisia ... not member of HRE, all neighbours are members

[Grif]

I'm going to suggest East Frisia ... not member of HRE, all neighbours are members

Not gonna make a difference in the long run. Suck up to Austria, join HRE is a pretty standard opening move when you start as East Frisia. (And they did historically join the HRE after 1444.)

[Grif]

Double posting for the new dev diary about new horde features:


Hello everyone and welcome back to yet another development diary for Europa Universalis 4. This marks the first of the dev diaries that will be discussing features from the upcoming but unannounced expansion. This diary in particular will focus on the Steppe Nomads, who are getting a whole host of new features as part of the paid expansion. There is currently no announced release or announcement date for 1.14 and its accompanying expansion.

Horde Unity (Expansion Feature) First out of the new mechanics is Horde Unity. Horde Unity is unique to countries with the Steppe Nomads government form and replaces Legitimacy. It represents the amount of control the Khan has over the tribes, and decreases slowly over time. To maintain control over your Horde, you will need to placate them with the opportunity for plunder by invading other countries and looting their provinces. A high level of Horde Unity will increase Discipline and lower Unrest, while letting it drop will have the opposite effect and can also result in tribal rebels rising up to challenge the Khan. For those with the expansion, this mechanic also replaces the old Horde events that create Pretender rebels when you are at peace for too long. To prevent defeated hordes from falling into a death spiral and represent the tribes coming together in face of an external threat, Revanchism (a mechanic discussed in last week's dev diary) also increases Horde Unity.

http://i.imgur.com/R6gLM1s.png

Razing (Expansion Feature) What would a Khan be without his pyramid of skulls? No kind of Khan at all! The Raze feature lets you bring out your inner Timur by razing conquered provinces to the ground. Razing can be done in any non-core province you own, and will lower that province's development by about 30%, down to a minimum of 1 in each development type. Each point of development razed gives you Monarch Power, with Base Tax giving Administrative Power, Production giving Diplomatic Power and Manpower giving Military Power, and also raises your Horde Unity significantly. Additionally, if there is loot left in the province, your razing troops will automatically grab it. The ability to accumulate Monarch Power by waging war allows Nomads a way to try and keep up in technology - or rush towards reform. Provinces can only be razed once every 30 years, as takes some time for a province to recover and build up a surplus of skulls for your next pyramid.

http://i.imgur.com/nsnm1uc.png

Tengri (Expansion Feature) The Tengri faith added in 1.12 also gets some new mechanics in the expansion, with a focus on Syncretism. The Tengri nomads of the EU4 era lived alongside and frequently mixed their beliefs with Muslims, Buddhists and other religions. Our inspiration for this feature was Esen Taishi of the Oirats, who habitually changed his stated faith according to what was most diplomatically convenient at the time. Tengri countries have the ability to choose a Syncretic Faith, which can be any religion that they either own or border provinces following that religion. Having a Syncretic Faith changes which bonus you get from your religion, replacing the default Regiment Cost and Unrest reduction with something befitting your new Syncretic Faith. It also lets you treat all provinces you own of that faith as if they were Tengri for the purpose of tolerance and religious unity, but you will also be unable to convert those provinces to Tengri. Additionally, other countries following that faith will treat you as one of their own, meaning that an Oirat Horde that adopts Confucianism as their Syncretic Faith will find their Chinese neighbours to the south a good deal friendlier than they might otherwise be.

As there were not very many Tengri countries to choose from in 1.12 and 1.13, and Buddhist mechanics turned out to mesh poorly with always needing to be at war, we've changed the East Asian hordes to all be Tengri, with their previous religion set as their Syncretic Faith at the start of the game. Changing your Syncretic Faith costs 50 prestige.

http://i.imgur.com/5hnt4HK.png

http://i.imgur.com/uEnFKAN.png

In addition to the paid features, there is also a couple of free goodies that will be available to all aspiring Khans with the 1.14 patch.

Horde Units (Free Feature) Part of the old philosophy for Hordes was 'adapt or die', meaning that a Horde that did not reform its government in time would fall hopelessly behind and be unable to defend itself against more modern states. For this reason, the Nomadic Technology Group were stuck with their starting units in 1444, and would not get new units no matter how far they progressed in technology. This has now been changed, with a whole new set of units created for nomads going all the way up the technology tree.

http://i.imgur.com/rjLw5GO.png

Returning and Selling Provinces (Free Feature) As Nomads have no great attachment to land, we felt that it did not make sense for them to suffer a loss of face for giving it up. As such, Steppe Nomads will no longer take a prestige hit for selling and returning provinces.

That's all for today! Check in next week for a dev diary about Estates - and I'm not talking about the kind you build manors on.

Source (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-september-24th.883301/)

[mythmonster2]

Razing and selling provinces seems like a fun time for nomads. The only thing I'm not sure about is if it'll be very efficient.

[Pahvimato]

As something you do always? No, of course not.

However, 25 MP per 1 development is pretty good if you wish to slingshot something, say, reforming your government or that military tech you are going to need in order to bring down your next big foe.

[Artanis]

HORSES FOR THE HORSE GOD! LOOT FOR THE LOOT THRONE! :smalltongue:

[tonberrian]

Hrmm. I should write up an analysis of combat modifiers.

[OrcusMcP]

Did someone say Double the third, vote by head (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-october-1st-2015.884554/)?

Sorry, been listening to Revolutions.

[mythmonster2]

By the way, there's a great sale going on right now, most DLC's are 50-75% off. Great time to pick up missing things.

[IthilanorStPete]

Did someone say Double the third, vote by head (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-october-1st-2015.884554/)?

Sorry, been listening to Revolutions.

Certainly looks like a neat expansion, more domestic detail is always good with me. Any word on when it'll come out?

[mythmonster2]

The new expansion's name is now official, though the date is just "late 2015". Get ready for The Cossacks (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/europa-universalis-iv-the-cossacks-announced.886903/)!

- New Diplomatic Options: Let the world know what you think of your neighbors by setting a public attitude to foreign powers.
- Tell The World What You Want: Designate neighboring provinces as “places of interest”, build trust with other nations, and entice allies with the promise of land for their support.
- Tengri: Tengri is now a Syncretic faith, allowing it to tolerate a secondary religion as if it were a national faith.
- Horde Unity and Razing: Nomadic nations now must pay attention the horde unity of their tribes – a unity that can only be maintained by the occasional pillaging
- Improved Culture Change: You can now restore a previous culture to a converted province, or convert a province you hold to a culture that is not your own.
- Native Policies: Set your policy for colonial encounters with natives. Are you focused on quick subjugation, peaceful growth or trading advantages?
- Improved Espionage: New spy actions allow you to study the technology of more advanced countries and prod your rivals’ subjects towards independence.

Bit of an odd name, since as far we know right now, the Cossacks are just going to be one estate for Eastern European countries. Maybe we'll get more information on them later.

[Flickerdart]

Bit of an odd name, since as far we know right now, the Cossacks are just going to be one estate for Eastern European countries. Maybe we'll get more information on them later.
Cossacks are cool and move game sales, presumably.

[OrcusMcP]

New Diplomatic Options: Let the world know what you think of your neighbors by setting a public attitude to foreign powers.
Tell The World What You Want: Designate neighboring provinces as “places of interest”, build trust with other nations, and entice allies with the promise of land for their support.
Improved Espionage: New spy actions allow you to study the technology of more advanced countries and prod your rivals’ subjects towards independence.
This is what I'm excited about, but I have reservations as to how well it will end up working. But oh man, if it does work? Diplomacy with the AI is going to get interesting. Maybe Espionage will finally be an idea group worth taking! (I still like it, but that's me.)

[Narkis]

Man, the game is really getting better with every new expansion. But I can never muster the strength to start playing again when it's always gonna be so much better in the near future.

[Leecros]

Man, the game is really getting better with every new expansion. But I can never muster the strength to start playing again when it's always gonna be so much better in the near future.

I've found the best time to play is typically after the big bugfixing patch that comes after an expansion.

[OrcusMcP]

New Dev Diary. And it's a doozy. (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-october-22nd-2015.887930/)

So, this is a pretty big deal. Diplomacy is getting a major overhaul in terms of how alliances and relationships between countries work based on 3 things: Trust, favours, and provinces of interest.

It may be too early to tell, but I think that if this works, we may be able to see some negotiated/bi-lateral peace deals in the future.

[Grif]

New Dev Diary. And it's a doozy. (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-october-22nd-2015.887930/)

So, this is a pretty big deal. Diplomacy is getting a major overhaul in terms of how alliances and relationships between countries work based on 3 things: Trust, favours, and provinces of interest.

It may be too early to tell, but I think that if this works, we may be able to see some negotiated/bi-lateral peace deals in the future.

I hate to say this, but this is more common sense than the Common Sense DLC. :smalltongue:

I'll take my leave now.

[Leecros]

So i've spent the last 4-ish days, using all of my spare time to try and get the Great Khan achievement. I've got to say. I've played Hordes before, built decently sized empires as Kazan and Oirat. I still have no love for playing hordes. I find it annoying how much admin power they require to just reform their government and they need to reform their government before they're even allowed to westernize. Under average conditions(Aka: No penalties/bonuses), they have to fill out one of three specific Admin Idea Groups(2800 Admin Power), be at +3 Stability(450 admin power), and have 200 admin power in the bank. Of course, I also decided i wanted to reform my government while i was in the middle of some Internal Conflicts. completely ignoring the increased stability cost that caused. Plus the fact that if i had just cleaned up the internal conflicts i would have gotten the final stability i needed for free. However, my ruler was old and his heir had low legitimacy(You also need like 70 legitimacy to reform).

However I digress. I do have to say, it did take me out of my comfort zone. I had to play a little less safe and made some more...reckless moves to get me into the correct position for Imperialism. I had to do things like attack eastward despite me being far behind in tech. Something i'm loathe to do. Especially if i'm far behind in admin tech. My tech really suffered in the early game. I managed to keep up in military tech, but at one point i had 6 diplotech near the end of the 1500's and i was behind for most of the game. I don't think i actually caught up in all three techs until just before Imperialism(~1680) I also had to make some choices regarding alliances and making friends more to protect me from attack than to assist me in war. After i hit Imperialism, then i had to be careful that i didn't way overextend and just collapse...something that almost happened at one point. Then at the end of all things i almost completely messed up because i didn't realize that Hormuz(That little island between Persia and Arabia) counts as being in the Persian region).

However, after all the things. I did manage it. I conquered Russia, Persia, China, and a little extra as The Golden Horde.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ufudna.jpg

Note: Golden Arabia and Golden India(That brown blob in northern India) are both my client states.
Also that's Mexico in Japan...

[Eldan]

Who is that colonizing Australia there? Doesn't quite have the colour of France.

[Razade]

Who is that colonizing Australia there? Doesn't quite have the colour of France.

Appears to be Colonial French Australia.

[Eldan]

Ah. Didn't know Australia could have colonial nations.

[Razade]

Ah. Didn't know Australia could have colonial nations.

It was added in a patch a bit ago, they didn't used to.

[Sian]

nicely big Austria you got there thru

[Tokay]

So to celebrate the Cossacks release I decided to revisit one of my favorite EU4 playthroughs ever, Dulkadir, and it seems like I may have stumbled upon the best Dulkadir start ever.

http://i.imgur.com/OdCV8ez.jpg

Last time I played as Dulkadir I had to do about twenty restarts before even getting a start that didn't result in getting eaten by the Ottomans. This time the Ottomans got a very fortunately timed regency council, allowing me to eat up everything to their east and denying them a whole bunch of expansion.

Also, I'm glad not to be anywhere near Western Europe, because Austria seems to have decided to take all the things. They also have a PU with Hungary.

[Grif]

Bavaria being in that shade of blue upsets me more than I thought. :smallannoyed:

[Leecros]

Bavaria being in that shade of blue upsets me more than I thought. :smallannoyed:

Personally, i don't mind the blue. However this is very much a matter of opinion. It fits with my narrative that the HRE is just a massive bag of spilled Skittles i must consume to become more powerful.



Anyone have any interesting Random New Worlds yet?

[mythmonster2]

If people are willing to spoil themselves, here's a list of the potential tiles (http://imgur.com/a/vAqcB). There are a few fantasy ones in there, too.

I'm a fan of the Columbus-was-right-India and the Leviathan.

[OrcusMcP]

If people are willing to spoil themselves, here's a list of the potential tiles (http://imgur.com/a/vAqcB). There are a few fantasy ones in there, too.

I'm a fan of the Columbus-was-right-India and the Leviathan.

I THOUGHT I saw India....

http://i.imgur.com/QgbAm7G.png

[AgentPaper]

I THOUGHT I saw India....

You should stick that in a spoiler. Let some people be surprised.

[Leecros]

Hm

Hm...


I think it may take me a little while to get used to the whole estates system. I just had my Lithuanian Commonwealth(horray achievement mongering) collapse due to The Clergy being dissatisfied for too long.

-2 stability and rebels in every province under the Clergy(15-20) caused by an event, followed by Nogai, The Golden Horde, and Teutonic Order rebels taking advantage of my depleted manpower from fighting those rebels to revolt. Then came the inevitable DOW from Novgorod(the Russia of my game).


Also, i've concluded that setting provinces to vital interest should be used to a limited extent at best(if at all). I've had two situations where allies with high trust have broken their alliance with me after setting a certain number of provinces to vital interest that they also had set as such.

[Sian]

Anyone having pondered on 'First Come First Serve' and 'For Odin!' ? been playing a bit around with it and believe that i've found a reasonble way to do it after my first try failed

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/642124127283504617/296542F51F24072C3FF2969FBB2D05288B894C6D/

Intention is to colonize the Center of Trades and Estuaries on the east coast, but otherwise focus on colonizing the west coast, letting the AI colonize from the east. My first failed attempt died on me coastblocking the eastcoast, which lead me to many provinces to self-colonize to be practically possible

[Eldan]

So the estate system means I can't just let my muslim rulers sit at the lowest possible piety for cheaper tech. Shame.

I have a game of Tunis on, and I'm not even sure whether it's going well or not. On the one hand, it's 1500 and I Westernized and control most of North Africa. On the other hand, bankruptcy is looming (one loan away from it), I lost my fleet and my army and the church rebelled and forced me to give autonomy to a lot of provinces. We'll see where this goes. The Ottomans are cutting ties too, over the question of who's getting the rest of Egypt, I hope they won't declare a war, or I'm gone.

[Sian]

Some nice land that you got there Spain ... shame if someone happened to it...,

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/608348942047960401/0A79908B50EC5F480331978C3AEFB9BA31D238CD/

Yoink!

[Leecros]

Hello thread, long time no see.

I come to you today to offer upon your eyeballs something that i rarely see the AI pull off. That is - Something that actually kind of resembles a nation's historically accurate borders.

Behold!


http://oi68.tinypic.com/2ykc36e.jpg

The AI managed this with minimal to no intervention from me and it may be lacking in some many areas and gaining in others, but it's still one of the nicest looking nations i've seen for awhile. For Reference to actual historical ottomans in 1745 i shall send you over to geacron(link (http://geacron.com/en/?v=m&lang=en&z=4&x=18.588868243175&y=36.380606322412&nd=-1&d=&di=1745&tm=p&ct=0&ly=yyyyyyy). I hope that link works the way i think it will and jump you straight to 1745).

As you can see, it's lacking a bit around The Black Sea, Persia, and a little bit around the Red Sea and North Africa. However, it also has a much larger chunk out of what would have been Austria in a historically accurate map. I also say minimum involvement from me, because i did sort of stop Muscovy from expanding east and that may have prevented The Ottomans from expanding in certain ways. However with that said, i sort of suspect the united front of Scandinavia and Poland-Lithuania would have put an end to Russian Ambitions in this alternate timeline anyway.

As for the rest of Europe, well...It can't all be perfect and Switzerland appears to have become much more militaristic in my absence. Not to mention the mess that is Spain.


Also for those wanting to know, i am playing an Ironman game as a Custom Siberian nation aiming for the Ideas Guy achievement(start as a custom nation with 800 points, but no more than 3 development, have a monthly income of at least 500).

[mythmonster2]

The patch notes for 1.15 are out (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/patch-1-15-full-patchnotes.904204/). Quite a few big changes, of which maybe the most important are in the graphic provided by Paradox. Alternatively, you could look at what the changes really mean here (https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/42sv0o/patch_115_notes_what_they_actually_mean/). :smallbiggrin:

[Leecros]

Looks Delicious. I'll enjoy playing a Poland game in my next MP session now. I've always enjoyed Poland, but hated the low legitimacy from local nobles being elected.

[Flickerdart]

Looks Delicious. I'll enjoy playing a Poland game in my next MP session now. I've always enjoyed Poland, but hated the low legitimacy from local nobles being elected.
Doesn't Poland force you out of Elective Monarchy with that one event where the Sejm rebels?

[Leecros]

Doesn't Poland force you out of Elective Monarchy with that one event where the Sejm rebels?

It can under a certain set of circumstances.


I believe the requirements to start that event chain is to have a foreign ruler elected that has less than 2 in all of his stats.

However, I have definitely played Poland>Commonwealth games where i stayed elective the whole time.

[Pahvimato]

It can under a certain set of circumstances.


I believe the requirements to start that event chain is to have a foreign ruler elected that has less than 2 in all of his stats.

However, I have definitely played Poland>Commonwealth games where i stayed elective the whole time.

Slight correction to this. Less than 2 in any of his stats, not all of his stats.

[Leecros]

ah, fair enough. That does say any of the following in the description of the event, not all. My mistake.

[Sian]

My Swarm is angry

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/608352205834706482/19F5350A791F9B6D64806005FE26AC9C7EC3DD4F/

Lorraine is a sourpuss and is one of the two nations that didn't argee with becoming part of my vassal-swarm ... they disagree ... and they're going to convince Bohemia that it was a silly idea to disagree as well as soon as they're done

[Grif]

Just got back into the game after finally picking up The Coassacks. Man, it sure changed a lot.

[mythmonster2]

So, the latest dev diary is showing they're giving Southern/Central Africa some much needed love (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-18th-february-2016.909070/). On the one hand, I'm glad, because it's a part of the world that really needs some love in these sorts of games. On the other hand, it's also likely to result in hugely ahistorical situations like Castile owning the inner Congo basin in the 1700s. I'm more on the side of excitement, though.

[Guancyto]

I don't think a concern like being "hilariously ahistorical" should generally get in the way of "being enjoyable to play," really. If making Central Africa more playable also results in it being more conquerable, well, that seems like a fair tradeoff?

Edit: Although "Fetishist" religion is, uh. Well it is a word for it...

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

AFAIK it's the most widely used word in literature for laymen on the subject, using the word fetish in its original meaning

[AgentPaper]

So, the latest dev diary is showing they're giving Southern/Central Africa some much needed love (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-18th-february-2016.909070/). On the one hand, I'm glad, because it's a part of the world that really needs some love in these sorts of games. On the other hand, it's also likely to result in hugely ahistorical situations like Castile owning the inner Congo basin in the 1700s. I'm more on the side of excitement, though.

It's ahistorical in that it didn't happen, but I'd hardly say that it was impossible for it to happen. Even with the concerns like distances involved, diseases, climate, hostile natives, etc, Spain or England or whatever certainly could have taken over large parts of that territory, if they'd been willing to spend the energy and manpower to do so. It's just that it would have been a huge effort for relatively little gain, compared to, say, mesoamerica where the hostile population was devastated by disease and even less advanced than the Africans, and there was more to gain with all the gold and cocoa and gold and did I mention lots of gold? (Or at least, rumors of such)

I guess they could add some historical accuracy by adding events related to disease and such that increase attrition for your forces in the area, or more likely just give the african nations there ideas that reduce attrition a lot, so they're the only ones who can field large armies in the area.

I'd also point out that while a player might decide to, say, take over all of africa as Ulm or whatever for the lulz, the AI is probably not going to do so as often, for the same reasons we don't see Spain taking over all of North and Central Africa in most games right now.

[Leecros]

the Europeans have always gotten far more access to Africa than they should ever be able to for the time.

[Artanis]

I don't think a concern like being "hilariously ahistorical" should generally get in the way of "being enjoyable to play," really. If making Central Africa more playable also results in it being more conquerable, well, that seems like a fair tradeoff?

I generally agree.

This is one issue that Paradox always had - and always will have - with their games: balancing gameplay with historical accuracy. Personally, in my experience I think they've generally done a very good job of it. Many times, their additions and/or changes to the game have had the benefit of improving both.

In this case, I think it comes down to if/how the AI - particularly big colonialists like Spain or England - reacts to it. If the AI doesn't bother with it much, then it won't really change the historical accuracy on that front while just giving players more options (namely, potentially having more fun when playing there; or the option to force their way that much deeper in as a colonial power). Kind of like the Random New World did*.


On the other hand, if we start to see everything south of the Sahara painted in Portugal Green, that would be kinda...yeah. Though in that case, I suspect they'll do something to cut down on that (like how they took steps to reduce Castille taking over all of Northern Africa every game).


*OK, OK, so Random New World wasn't that well-implemented at first**. But not knowing exactly what's over there is more historical when playing an Old World nation, and can be more fun...and when it wouldn't be more fun, it can just be turned off.

**I haven't tried it since the switch to the tile thing.

[SilverLeaf167]

So, with a couple more dev diaries out, what are people's first impressions of Mare Nostrum (and the patch coming with it)?

Personally, I'm afraid I'm starting to agree with the view that Paradox is just adding more systems and subsystems to the game just for the hell of it. I loved forts, development, estates, the new diplomatic system and all that, but these upcoming ones like States and Corruption don't look like they add anything fun or interesting to the game. They're just... almost arbitrary limitations you can't really do much about, and even when you can, it's just pressing a button every few years/decades. In any given game, they're going to be either irrelevant or annoying, depending on how serious the penalties are. Trade leagues seem much the same.

That being said, I appreciate that they're trying to fix the overseas system, and the main attraction - the naval rework - is still a bit unclear. Don't really have much to say about the espionage rework. Overall, this just might end up being the first expansion I don't buy on the first day, especially if my AAR is still going at the time. :smalltongue:

[AgentPaper]

I think the states system is a lot like the demesne and vassal limit systems from CK2: Not especially exciting or fun for the player (they just put restrictions on you), but overall important for the long-term health of the game, and ultimately make the game more fun in the long run.

It basically makes it so that a player can be "large enough", where expanding beyond that size won't actually help them all that much. You can still expand beyond that, of course, but you won't get as much benefit, and thus as a player you won't feel as encouraged to, so you might instead be content with what you have, at least for a little while, and focus on other things, like boosting trade or colonizing or even developing, without feeling like you're just making a mistake by not constantly expanding.

Corruption is sort of similar, again not exciting to the player, but looks like a good tool for the developers to basically have it as a cost for doing things. It's another resource that the player needs to manage.

The new naval stuff will be very interesting to see, right now navies are not very useful outside of blocking a key straight (and then once you win the war you needed that for, they're useless again), so if they can make naval dominance and important and interesting goal to fight over, that'd be a big deal I think.

[Leecros]

Oddly enough, I don't really mind the corruption slider. It reminds me of how inflation used to be in EU3.

In EU3 your treasury screen had a minting slider. The more money you minted, they more money you made. However, the more money you minted, the higher your inflation went which caused costs to skyrocket. Corruption sounds like an inverse minting slider. The less money you invest into fighting corruption, the higher corruption will grow and the worse penalties you will receive.

As far as states go. We'll see how it's implemented, but that's pretty clearly a hard nerf to conquering large sprawling empires. I suppose it's to prevent you from steamrolling the map after a certain time, but it seems rather silly...At least, the states seem rather large from the screenshot (https://i.imgur.com/uw9kMf4.jpg) on the dev diary. France is a state, Britain is a state, Germany is two states, Scandinavia is a state. Kingdoms can have 2 states, Empires can have 4. Administrative technologies can add up to 7 more states to your realm, and if you get the administrative idea group fully filled out, you get another state as well. The average player, or game is probably not going to have an issue with states...If i'm understanding it correctly

[rweird]

States would encourage geographically consolidated expansion however, rather than going and grabbing land everywhere to get just the right amount of war score, or taking high development provinces/important centers of trade on your continent but far away (once Imperialism is unlocked) for good land.

[SilverLeaf167]

Overall, I agree that it's important to have limits, resources to manage etc. but I just don't think they're especially interesting additions for a DLC you're supposed to pay for. :smalltongue: By the time you're conquering a truly massive empire (which I usually don't), you're willingly going beyond what the game was actually designed for, so while it's alright to make it more challenging, going through a lot of effort specifically to prevent it feels somewhat silly.

I'm not exactly sure which parts are supposed to be free, actually, but either way they haven't really revealed many actual features people (read: I) would be interested in.

More reasonable borders and "diminishing returns" so to speak don't sound entirely bad though.

[rweird]

I think that States would be free (its unlikely you'd need to pay to get a nerf). Trade Leagues are probably DLC. Can't say about corruption, if low corruption gives benefits, DLC, if not, then it probably would be free.

Navy reforms probably would be DLC. Map changes obviously are free.

[Leecros]

I would imagine the paid part of the DLC is going to be whatever improvements they decide to do on naval stuff.

I will admit though, they sometimes have issues with making it clear what the divide is between free content and paid content.


And technically the cost of the DLC's is based off of everything they've worked on(including the free content) since the previous DLC, not just the paid content.

[AgentPaper]

The states system and corruption are almost certainly free features. The DLC itself probably consists of the new espionage system, the new naval actions, and perhaps the new naval combat stuff (though at least some of that might need to be part of the free version).

[Sian]

Given that the acknowledged WC record speed have dropped aggressively lately and is now in the low 1600s (... i want to say 1618 ... thereabout IIRC), obviously there is something that should be reigned in a bit.

[AgentPaper]

Given that the acknowledged WC record speed have dropped aggressively lately and is now in the low 1600s (... i want to say 1618 ... thereabout IIRC), obviously there is something that should be reigned in a bit.

Well, that's specifically (ab)using the horde razing mechanic to lower the cost of coring provinces and give you more points to do said coring with. Neither states nor corruption are likely to affect that much.

[Leecros]

It's also not the norm. If the average player could conquer the world in the 1600's i would think it would be more of an issues, but as it is. The typical EUIV player doesn't go out conquering the world at all. I'm not even sure I could do it and i would consider myself above average in terms of skill.

[AgentPaper]

Actually thinking about it, I think they may actually be making world conquest much easier in this patch, rather than harder. Or to be more accurate, less tedious. World Conquest isn't actually all that difficult even now, more than anything it just takes a lot more time and effort than most players want to put into the game. Past a certain point, it stops being fun and just starts being tedious to fight constant wars and constantly beat down rebels.

Now that everything outside of your core states are effectively overseas, you won't get as much manpower or money from them, but you'll also need to spend far less admin points coring them (kind of like you can now, only without the cheesy vassal wall). This means you can integrate new territory much, much faster than normally, which combined with the fact that you'll have a smaller army and manpower pool than you usually would (though still quite large), means that you'll face a bit more of a threat from coalitions and the few remaining larger nations, while also having less tedium from having to wait around for monarch points and coring.

Granted, probably still a lot of tedium and not a lot of challenge, but it's a step in the right direction, at least.

What I think would be cool is if you could, at very high tech levels, trigger a sort of "world war" scenario, where you (and whatever allies you have) essentially start the war to end all wars, with the goal of conquering the entire world. You'd basically trigger a world-wide coalition (though perhaps not all at once) that you have to fight, and if you win, then all countries become your vassals (including your allies), essentially giving you world domination.

[rweird]

A world war scenario like that is completely ahistoric (although a world conquest is too), so it is unlikely Paradox would intentionally add such an option.

[Artanis]

What I think would be cool is if you could, at very high tech levels, trigger a sort of "world war" scenario, where you (and whatever allies you have) essentially start the war to end all wars, with the goal of conquering the entire world. You'd basically trigger a world-wide coalition (though perhaps not all at once) that you have to fight, and if you win, then all countries become your vassals (including your allies), essentially giving you world domination.

Don't they actually have that in Vicky?


Disclaimer: My knowledge of Vicky comes almost exclusively from a Let's Play I read several years back, so grain of salt, YMMV, etc.

[rweird]

I don't know. They have crises that can turn into world wars (like WWI and WWII), although I don't know about world domination. Still, EU4 covers a different time period than Vicky, and I don't think it needs to do more for mega-wars (coalitions, 30 years war) seem to work. Don't know about the Napoleonic wars though, I don't think Rev. France is strong enough to do what Napoleon did (although most people start in 1444, and I've never seen France become the revolution target).

[Leecros]

Don't they actually have that in Vicky?


Disclaimer: My knowledge of Vicky comes almost exclusively from a Let's Play I read several years back, so grain of salt, YMMV, etc.

Sort of...In Vicky 2 if the game progresses long enough, there's a discovery that basically unlocks Great Wars. At that point any war between a certain number of Great Powers is considered a Great War. Great wars have reduced infamy costs for wargoals and usually involve a lot of people all over the world due to the whole Sphere of Influence system in that game.


I've never seen France become the revolution target).

I saw Rev. France once in my Scotland game when i pushed them to the brink. In two other games have I ever seen Revolution targets. One was Revolutionary Castile(Spain didn't form) and Revolutionary Scandinavia. The only true revolutionary nation that was actually relevant in a game. Castile and France when they went revolutionary in previous games went that way because they got crushed in war after war.

Once upon a time, I attempted to become Revolutionary Italy. That just turned into me almost imploding my country...

[Cristo Meyers]

So where would be a good place to start for a first playthrough? I've heard the Ottomans, which does sound interesting. I do have some basic grasp of what's going on, though no actual gameplay experience.

[Grif]

So where would be a good place to start for a first playthrough? I've heard the Ottomans, which does sound interesting. I do have some basic grasp of what's going on, though no actual gameplay experience.

Ottomans for learning the basic conquest and empire-building game, Portugal for colonisation aspects, Austria/France for diplomacy.

Byzantium for the classic underdog tale. :smalltongue:

[Guancyto]

France is probably the best; you start off with a large and powerful economic base and plenty of territory, pretty good-sized armies and strong Ideas, a number of ready allies (Castile or Aragon, Austria if you're into that) and clear initial goals (beat Burgundy, kick England off the mainland).

After that you deal with diplomacy (you border the HRE and can deal with its shenanigans or not, as suits you), naval combat (take over England), land warfare (take over Spain), or you can focus on colonization and trade, since you are coastal Europe and well-placed to take advantage of it. Or you can do all of these at once - France is a strong, strong contender if you want to take over the world.

Portugal is better for colonization, Ottomans better for conquest, Austria better for babysitting, but France has a bit of everything and a lot of "whatever you want."

[OrcusMcP]

France is probably the best; you start off with a large and powerful economic base and plenty of territory, pretty good-sized armies and strong Ideas, a number of ready allies (Castile or Aragon, Austria if you're into that) and clear initial goals (beat Burgundy, kick England off the mainland).

After that you deal with diplomacy (you border the HRE and can deal with its shenanigans or not, as suits you), naval combat (take over England), land warfare (take over Spain), or you can focus on colonization and trade, since you are coastal Europe and well-placed to take advantage of it. Or you can do all of these at once - France is a strong, strong contender if you want to take over the world.

Portugal is better for colonization, Ottomans better for conquest, Austria better for babysitting, but France has a bit of everything and a lot of "whatever you want."

Yes to all of this. France is a great place to learn because it gives you practice on everything. Do an Ottoman run for your second game, I'd say.

[Leecros]

Byzantium for the classic underdog tale. :smalltongue:

Byzantium is death for a first playthrough though.

If i had to rank the major powers from newbie friendly to less newbie friendly it would go like this:

1. The Ottoman Empire:

The Ottomans is the de-facto start to anybody looking to learn the basics of the game. They're large, They're powerful, and they quickly outstrip any initial rivals in The Mamluks and Timurids.

2. France:

If this was earlier versions of EUIV I would rank France and the Ottomans Tied, but as it is. Early game France requires a bit of diplomacy in order to avoid the bigger powers ganging up on them. You're right in the thick of the major powers in Europe from England to Castile to Austria.

3. Portugal:

It's odd that such a small nation would be this high on the list. However, Portugal starts in a great position for a more peaceful game where you just want to learn the mechanics of the game without too much risk to yourself. They start bordering Morocco and Castile. You will quickly outstrip Morocco in power and Castile will be your friend nearly every time. However, they aren't very powerful militarily.

4. Castile:

Castile is in a great position to do well. They have an early game event that may fire that gives them a Personal Union over Aragon and Naples which gives them a position rivaling France and The Ottomans. However, if you do not get that, there may be some trouble to be had. They are in a great place to start regardless. Especially with an alliance from France. They are one of two major powers that start with a Morale Bonus.

5. Muscovy:

Muscovy has great potential as a nation. In a 1v1 fight against all of their neighbors other than Lithuania they can win. They get a whole bunch of excellent missions to promote them expanding eastward and you can normally obtain an alliance with Poland which will remove Lithuania from the equation until you believe you can handle them. They also get free westernization if they conquer Danzig(i think?) and that's pretty darn good.

6. Austria:

Austria is a powerful nation, but there's a lot of management that you need to do in order to stay as Holy Roman Empire. It's probably a bit much for a starting player to grasp. They are quite powerful, but France and The Ottomans make for dangerous counters and it's all-around a powerful nation that can become more powerful, but isn't really new user friendly.

7. England:

England has a lot going for it. It's a reasonably powerful nation with a large navy which means that it will be difficult for anyone to beat you in a war. So why are they so far down the list? Well, because the early game of England can be miserable while just starting out. They have this little event called the War of the Roses that starts typically shortly after the start of the game which causes many rebellions to spawn in your territory. On top of that there's another event that hits them early that may cause a large number of heretics to spawn. It's a lot for a new player to handle right off the bat and possibly enough to cause a rage quit.

8. Poland/Ming

I couldn't decide which one to place here, so I just decided to put them both. Poland is a relatively weak nation compared to the other major powers, however they can quickly get into a Personal Union with Lithuania which causes them to become much more powerful. With some work you can form the commonwealth in the mid-1500's and become one of the most powerful nations in the game...However the "some work" is the important part. You have to constantly balance keeping your prestige positive and managing your elective government type. However, it's unlikely that your rivals. Austria, Muscovy, and The Ottomans will force a direct confrontation against you for awhile.

Ming is unique in that it's the only non-European nation on the list. Ming is by far the most powerful nation in Asia. You won't have money issues and nobody around you is going to make a move on you...However,they have their own government type that makes them dangerous to play to the inexperienced. Should you have a ruler with too low legitimacy, prestige, or stability...Your country will implode.

[Artanis]

I don't have a lot to add to these great lists, so I'll just chime in with a quick comment:


While it may not be the best for a first playthrough, Portugal is probably the best for a first play, especially if you're new to Europa Universalis. It's the perfect size and position to spend a few decades learning which buttons do what without somebody coming and immediately curbstomping you into the dirt. Once you've gotten your feet under you, you can decide whether to keep going with it or to go start a new game with one of the others on the list.

...then again, maybe it's just me being a sucker for navies. I always was fond of the "nya nya your transports can't touch me" style of warfare in strategy games :smalltongue:


I do have to disagree with Leecros putting Poland and Ming anywhere near the list though. They can be great fun and have amazing advantages, but they each largely revolve around managing a couple of MASSIVE disadvantages that a complete newbie may very well have trouble grasping, much less overcoming. If you're still learning How2EU, dealing with something like Ming's f***ing horrifying government type is going to kill you.

[Guancyto]

Yeah. Poland was a great beginner choice back before all the game mechanics updated to successively make it less powerful. You got the PU over Lithuania and kept it easily, so you had a giant pet beatstick so long as you kept your Prestige high. You got Austria up to +200 opinion which was enough to join the Holy Roman Empire if you hadn't annexed any vassals or territory, so you never had to worry about getting invaded and could expand in Germany at your leisure. You got the mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order because there weren't any size requirements for it yet (you needed to have taken one county from them so they'd be small enough to fit under the subjugation CB). At that point you were the largest, safest, richest nation in the world with minimal trouble and the world was your oyster.

Even without not-necessarily newbie options like joining the HRE, it was a great nation where you had a series of successively-more-difficult but very clear goals to pursue (Lithuania first, then the Teutons, then Livonia, then a battle royale with Russia, with possible skirmishes with the Scandinavians/Ottomans in between), at the end of which you were on top of the world. "Well, now what?" "Now anything." It was a great intro to the sandbox of EU4.

The Poland of today has to deal with Elective Monarchy; there's the possibility of the Lithuania PU breaking due to the nobles taking charge. There's the penalties you get from the monarchy being successively disempowered by the Sejm. You can't join the Holy Roman Empire unless you cut away all your territory, you need the Teutonic Order to be really tiny in order to vassalize them, etc etc etc. (On the plus side, you do get to Westernize for free? But it doesn't give you new units.)

At this point I'd probably put Sweden higher on the list of newbie-friendly nations.

[Leecros]

Well, that is why i put it at the bottom of the list guys. :smalltongue:




At this point I'd probably put Sweden higher on the list of newbie-friendly nations.

I didn't really put Sweden for the same reason i didn't put Brandenburg. Yeah, they hold huge potential to be powerful, but they are firmly in the position of 'one major error can cause you to be crippled for years' camp.

I put Ming, because if you can manage the government, which isn't really THAT bad compared to the hell that it was at the start of EUIV lifespan and in EUIII. You really aren't going to have any major rivals until at least the 1700's.

[Cristo Meyers]

oof, decisions decisions. I'm still leaning towards the Ottomans, if only because I tend to learn better by dividing the larger whole into smaller chunks rather than getting a shallower catch-all, but France definitely has its merits. I'll have to think about it a little while I'm refreshing myself on the mechanics and possibly buying Common Sense if I haven't already. Can't remember...

[SilverLeaf167]

oof, decisions decisions. I'm still leaning towards the Ottomans, if only because I tend to learn better by dividing the larger whole into smaller chunks rather than getting a shallower catch-all, but France definitely has its merits. I'll have to think about it a little while I'm refreshing myself on the mechanics and possibly buying Common Sense if I haven't already. Can't remember...

Well, I definitely second the Ottomans for that. I know it's not what you meant by "smaller chunks", but I find that one of their biggest advantages is, geographically speaking, all the directions they can go, a little at a time. As France, or most European countries for that matter, you'll have a big coalition on your hands in no time. As the Ottomans, you can fight a war or two in the Mediterranean, some in the Black Sea, a couple against the Mamluks, Persia and so on. You have a bit more room to play with, so to speak. You can just alternate between fronts to greatly reduce the aggressive expansion you build up, the bane of every conqueror. Even colonization (in Asia) is actually an option for the Ottomans.

[Grif]

Well, that is why i put it at the bottom of the list guys. :smalltongue:




I didn't really put Sweden for the same reason i didn't put Brandenburg. Yeah, they hold huge potential to be powerful, but they are firmly in the position of 'one major error can cause you to be crippled for years' camp.

I put Ming, because if you can manage the government, which isn't really THAT bad compared to the hell that it was at the start of EUIV lifespan and in EUIII. You really aren't going to have any major rivals until at least the 1700's.

Sweden actually starts in a much better position compared to Brandenburg. You can declare independence almost right off the bat (or get allies if you feel insecure), and then you're surrounded by weak countries which to expand into (except the PLC, but they got gutted, as Guancyto mentioned). Once you secure the Scandinavian area, there's really little else that would threaten you.

[Cristo Meyers]

Chose the Ottomans, if only because I've done France and Spain before in CK2. Very different games, I know, but the change in geography won me over.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/282972201736877703/C57A8750CF7E2BF8A0DAC757698BE54DD2CADF47/

I have got to get over my fear of the hordes. While taking those three provinces from Qara Quyonlu wasn't easy, I started getting skittish when they were throwing 27K large stacks at my 14K large armies. Then I won... and again... and again. Too used to those odds being a certifiable deathtrap.

The little bit of purple was an experiment in the diplomacy system that's...weellll...let's just say our alliance ties probably won't last. But right now I'm giving Constantinople the evil eye. Their independence has gone on long enough, I think. Also, not pictured, I've converted about half the Europe side of the empire to Sunni Islam and the only two provinces not cored are Mush and Cizre.

First impressions of my inaugural playtime: I'm enjoying myself, but I find myself preferring the character-based CK2 at the moment. But this is a tutorial game that really isn't getting into the full EU4 experience and is only about 4 hours old besides, so that could easily change.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

EU4 is a little... shallower at first. It lacks the huge multi-faceted internal politics. But it grows on you.

[AgentPaper]

EU4 is a little... shallower at first. It lacks the huge multi-faceted internal politics. But it grows on you.

External politics, on the other hand, are much deeper and a much bigger deal. Getting and holding good allies is critical, especially early on and with less powerful countries. France is a good starter country in that regard, since they're strong, but not strong enough to smack around everyone nearby without regard for allies, like the Ottomans can.

[Artanis]

Chose the Ottomans, if only because I've done France and Spain before in CK2. Very different games, I know, but the change in geography won me over.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/282972201736877703/C57A8750CF7E2BF8A0DAC757698BE54DD2CADF47/

I have got to get over my fear of the hordes. While taking those three provinces from Qora Quanlu wasn't easy, I started getting skittish when they were throwing 27K large stacks at my 14K large armies. Then I won... and again... and again. Too used to those odds being a certifiable deathtrap.

The little bit of purple was an experiment in the diplomacy system that's...weellll...let's just say our alliance ties probably won't last. But right now I'm giving Constantinople the evil eye. Their independence has gone on long enough, I think. Also, not pictured, I've converted about half the Europe side of the empire to Sunni Islam and the only two provinces not cored are Mush and Cizre.

First impressions of my inaugural playtime: I'm enjoying myself, but I find myself preferring the character-based CK2 at the moment. But this is a tutorial game that really isn't getting into the full EU4 experience and is only about 4 hours old besides, so that could easily change.

Ottomans get a mission to conquer Constantinople, IIRC. So you might as well wait for that, you should get it pretty quickly.

[Cristo Meyers]

Ottomans get a mission to conquer Constantinople, IIRC. So you might as well wait for that, you should get it pretty quickly.

Yep, just took it. Started with the 'get 50 prestige' mission and accumulated that pretty quickly just by kicking the crap out of everyone in the vicinity. I think I've got all of my cores back except for the ones in that little purple blob who's name completely escapes me right now.

It's the post-Constantinople game that where I'm wondering just what I'll do next. I'm less than confident in my ability to take on the Mamluks and at the moment I don't have a Casus Belli on anyone else. I know I don't need one, strictly speaking, but my stability is almost always on a razor's edge.

Maybe I'll turn inward a little and work towards administrating.

[Grif]

Yep, just took it. Started with the 'get 50 prestige' mission and accumulated that pretty quickly just by kicking the crap out of everyone in the vicinity. I think I've got all of my cores back except for the ones in that little purple blob who's name completely escapes me right now.

It's the post-Constantinople game that where I'm wondering just what I'll do next. I'm less than confident in my ability to take on the Mamluks and at the moment I don't have a Casus Belli on anyone else. I know I don't need one, strictly speaking, but my stability is almost always on a razor's edge.

Maybe I'll turn inward a little and work towards administrating.

You'll get a mission to conquer the Mams later, so you can rest easy. Plus, they're a paper tiger. They look big, but most of that is desert, and an Ottoman which reclaimed its cores can easily take on the Mams one on one. It helps that they don't get any strong allies either, with the possible exception of the Timurids, but at least Timurids would frequently implode as well, and they occasionally rival either you or Mamluks.

EDIT: Forgot to add that you generally have a tech superiority over them as well, and better units in general.

[Artanis]

Yep, just took it. Started with the 'get 50 prestige' mission and accumulated that pretty quickly just by kicking the crap out of everyone in the vicinity. I think I've got all of my cores back except for the ones in that little purple blob who's name completely escapes me right now.

It's the post-Constantinople game that where I'm wondering just what I'll do next. I'm less than confident in my ability to take on the Mamluks and at the moment I don't have a Casus Belli on anyone else. I know I don't need one, strictly speaking, but my stability is almost always on a razor's edge.

Maybe I'll turn inward a little and work towards administrating.

You can also use the diplomacy menu to fabricate a claim on a neighboring province.

[Leecros]

Sweden actually starts in a much better position compared to Brandenburg. You can declare independence almost right off the bat (or get allies if you feel insecure), and then you're surrounded by weak countries which to expand into (except the PLC, but they got gutted, as Guancyto mentioned). Once you secure the Scandinavian area, there's really little else that would threaten you.

They may start in a better position, but I wouldn't say a much better position. Keep in mind that my posts on the subject are entirely focused with a newer player in mind. A newer player may not declare independence right off the bat, or run the game in such a way that would lead Sweden into an ideal position.

Sweden is typically lucky to get Novgorod or Scotland as an ally in the early game and will often have the PLC and Muscovy breathing down their neck. PLC and Muscovy are a favorite allies of Denmark in a situation where Sweden breaks free early. Russia annexes Novgorod rather quickly in most games and just because you broke free, doesn't mean Norway will. This means that Sweden has the potential to be wedged between nations that absolutely want to see them destroyed.

(This is also the reason why Hungary doesn't appear on the list at all. An unlucky draw as Hungary leads to Austria, PLC, and the Ottomans all rivaling you.)

Meanwhile Brandenburg can almost always score an alliance with the PLC, Austria, and sometimes even Bohemia. They have many minors around them they can expand into, and can get their Space Marine soldiers much more quickly than Sweden does.

Despite all of the changes to the PLC since the onset of EUIV. They should never, ever, ever be underestimated. Lithuania can field a huge army and if they survive until mid-game, the Commonwealth can easily become the France of eastern Europe.

My personal opinion still puts Poland at 8 . Sure, you have to deal with the elective monarchy thing, but it really isn't all that hard to deal with. The issues with the Sejm are fairly bad, but not really much worse than what England has to deal with early on(and the Sejm stuff tends to be a bit more scattered). Worse events fire if you have a non-polish noble as your ruler, but you'll typically want a local noble anyway because they have better stats on average. Plus those local nobles no longer have low legitimacy which makes them easier to keep around.

Regardless, I wouldn't really suggest any of these nations to anyone who is new to the game. Maybe if it's their third or fourth game. However, I did want to end the list at a nice round 8, instead of 7.


And Ming, but that's because I've found Ming to be absolutely delicious since buildings were revamped.

Ultimately, whatever nation is put all the way down in the 8th position on that little list is put all the way down there for a good reason. It would probably be okay to have put Sweden, Brandenburg, or even the Timurids there. All of them require a little bit of skill to play as, but are reasonably powerful enough that they can take off with relative ease....Admittedly I didn't expect Poland to be such a "controversial" choice. I expected more people to take issue with me mentioning Ming...:smalltongue:

[Grif]

Meanwhile Brandenburg can almost always score an alliance with the PLC, Austria, and sometimes even Bohemia. They have many minors around them they can expand into, and can get their Space Marine soldiers much more quickly than Sweden does.

Many German minors, sure. But have fun tanking the unlawful territory malus and the inevitable coalitions that form. You can ally Austria to avoid that, but the Emperor will usually turn hostile as soon as they annex Bohemia (or cut Bohemia down enough that they're no longer rivals. If not then, then during Reformation.)



Ultimately, whatever nation is put all the way down in the 8th position on that little list is put all the way down there for a good reason. It would probably be okay to have put Sweden, Brandenburg, or the Timurids there. All of them require a little bit of skill to play as, but are reasonably powerful enough that they can take off with relative ease....Admittedly I didn't expect Poland to be such a "controversial" choice. I expected more people to take issue with me mentioning Ming...:smalltongue:

You're talking about the one ROTW nation that's bloody rich enough to afford level 3 advisors throughout the game, fielding the largest army at game start, and surrounded by deliciously weak neighbours. All these despite the mandatory 50% autonomy floor and crippling government form. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody not recommending Ming. :smalltongue:

[Sian]

I'm enjoying myself, but I find myself preferring the character-based CK2 at the moment.

Eh, each to each own, I personally find the character driven CK2, leads me to losing focus and interest by the time the 3rd or 4th ruler comes around.

[rweird]

The problem with Ming is that it is boring. You don't have strong enemies, but other than being really big, you aren't really notable. You can't move too quickly because of stability worries, so I never have the patience to play them. The last time I played Ming was pre-Cossacks, so this could have changed.

[Cristo Meyers]

You'll get a mission to conquer the Mams later, so you can rest easy. Plus, they're a paper tiger. They look big, but most of that is desert, and an Ottoman which reclaimed its cores can easily take on the Mams one on one. It helps that they don't get any strong allies either, with the possible exception of the Timurids, but at least Timurids would frequently implode as well, and they occasionally rival either you or Mamluks.

EDIT: Forgot to add that you generally have a tech superiority over them as well, and better units in general.

Good to know. Aleppo's looking mighty tasty right about now...

Trade embargo me, huh? Fine... I'll take your damn trade city!

I'm about to pop the first-gen rifle, but thus far I've really only been able to reliably get military techs. I've only just now got marketplaces and haven't done anything on Admin Tech. Think I'll switch focus after I get guns. Maybe focus on gaining the ability to Westernize, though I understand that's a situational thing that may or may not be worth it.

Getting marketplaces just reminded me of how much about the trade system I've forgotten. I know the general stuff: steer trade sends a little money downstream so there's more for another merchant there to collect, but I'm at a loss for what +50% Trade Power would do anywhere except the actual trade node province.


You can also use the diplomacy menu to fabricate a claim on a neighboring province.

So that's why it was greyed out. I noticed it when I was clicking through some of my neighbors' diplomacy windows, but it was always greyed out and I didn't look too closely since the juiciest neighboring province is Aleppo and I've got a Show Superiority casus belli there.

[OrcusMcP]

Good to know. Aleppo's looking mighty tasty right about now...

Trade embargo me, huh? Fine... I'll take your damn trade city!

I'm about to pop the first-gen rifle, but thus far I've really only been able to reliably get military techs. I've only just now got marketplaces and haven't done anything on Admin Tech. Think I'll switch focus after I get guns. Maybe focus on gaining the ability to Westernize, though I understand that's a situational thing that may or may not be worth it.
The arguments will go back and forth, but in general, westernizing as the Ottomans isn't worth the headache. Your tech speed is close enough and the Ottoman units are always pretty good, and the Ottoman ideas make your army crazy strong anyway.


Getting marketplaces just reminded me of how much about the trade system I've forgotten. I know the general stuff: steer trade sends a little money downstream so there's more for another merchant there to collect, but I'm at a loss for what +50% Trade Power would do anywhere except the actual trade node province.
Ever since they revamped the building/development system you have to be more strategic about where you're putting your buildings, and you're right, marketplaces are best used in provinces where there's a trade modifier (centre of trade/river estuary/sound toll/etc). Similarly you'll want to use your tax boosting buildings in provinces with high tax values, workshops with valuable goods, barracks where there's lots of manpower and so on.

[Guancyto]

Just as a note, remember that the Ottomans get to Westernize instantly, by decision, without any tech gap or lengthy process or any of the usual headaches, by holding Vienna or Prague as a core with zero separatism (and that they don't get new units for it).

Since you probably want to smash Austria anyway, it's really no big deal. :smalltongue:

[Cristo Meyers]

The arguments will go back and forth, but in general, westernizing as the Ottomans isn't worth the headache. Your tech speed is close enough and the Ottoman units are always pretty good, and the Ottoman ideas make your army crazy strong anyway.

Guess I overestimated how damaging a +25% Monarch Point cost modifier really was.

Still not enough to make me considering going after Wallachia or Bosnia. I like having that buffer there between me and Poland.


Ever since they revamped the building/development system you have to be more strategic about where you're putting your buildings, and you're right, marketplaces are best used in provinces where there's a trade modifier (centre of trade/river estuary/sound toll/etc). Similarly you'll want to use your tax boosting buildings in provinces with high tax values, workshops with valuable goods, barracks where there's lots of manpower and so on.

Well that covers Constantinople for sure. I'll have to look around the area for any others. At least that means I'll have a use for that notice that keeps popping up telling me that Castles are a thing I can build.


Just as a note, remember that the Ottomans get to Westernize instantly, by decision, without any tech gap or lengthy process or any of the usual headaches, by holding Vienna or Prague as a core with zero separatism (and that they don't get new units for it).

Since you probably want to smash Austria anyway, it's really no big deal. :smalltongue:

Huh. That sounds like an interesting goal to play for... I'm pretty sure I've got the 'naval race with Venice' mission in the queue too, though maintaining my navy is doing a number on my budget right now: 6 transport cogs, I think 4 galleys, 2 Early Carracks, and 5 Barques for trade protection. I'm hoping taking over Constantinople will bring in enough to even things out.

[rweird]

Danzig is another (theoretical province) you could take to westernize. Vienna probably is the easiest though. Keep in mind the decision requires Admin tech 10 and 3 stability (along with no nationalism in the province).

Also, once you take Constantinople, don't bother to core it, you get a decision that cores, converts, culture converts, develops, and makes it your capital for free once you conquer it (Move Capital to Constantinople).

[Cristo Meyers]

Danzig is another (theoretical province) you could take to westernize. Vienna probably is the easiest though. Keep in mind the decision requires Admin tech 10 and 3 stability (along with no nationalism in the province).

So definitely a longer-term goal then. I seem to burn Admin points faster than anything.


Also, once you take Constantinople, don't bother to core it, you get a decision that cores, converts, culture converts, develops, and makes it your capital for free once you conquer it (Move Capital to Constantinople).

Ah, good, means I'll be able to concentrate on coring the other Byzantine provinces in Greece when I inevitably demand Byzantium's full annexation...

[Leecros]

So definitely a longer-term goal then. I seem to burn Admin points faster than anything.

I recommend if you want to do a conquest-heavy playthrough, alternating conquests with vassalization. For example, conquer The Mamluks, but vassals one or two of the minors in Georgia. Vassals can be integrated using Diplo points after 10 years and are reliable allies in war.

Also, in the words of DDRJake: "Stability is just a number". It's great to have stability, but keeping your stability high becomes rather prohibitive when it comes to admin power cost. Personally I typically try and stay at +1 stability...Although recently I've not even been concerned about dropping to 0 Stability sometimes unless I need high stability for something.

Both these things may help you cut back on the admin power costs a bit.

[Cristo Meyers]

I recommend if you want to do a conquest-heavy playthrough, alternating conquests with vassalization. For example, conquer The Mamluks, but vassals one or two of the minors in Georgia. Vassals can be integrated using Diplo points after 10 years and are reliable allies in war.

That's what my expedition into diplomacy was all about. I was hoping to get them to accept vassalization, I just can't seem to get their opinion high enough. I'm thinking I may try to vassalize the Quyonlu before hitting the Mamluks.


Also, in the words of DDRJake: "Stability is just a number". It's great to have stability, but keeping your stability high becomes rather prohibitive when it comes to admin power cost. Personally I typically try and stay at +1 stability...Although recently I've not even been concerned about dropping to 0 Stability sometimes unless I need high stability for something.

Both these things may help you cut back on the admin power costs a bit.

I was reliably at +1 for a while, but ended up taking some hits after a while. Between that and coring some annexed territory I've been hurting for Admin power. It's a big reason why I'm waiting for my two new cores to get done before hitting Byzantium. That and needing manpower.

[Flickerdart]

That's what my expedition into diplomacy was all about. I was hoping to get them to accept vassalization, I just can't seem to get their opinion high enough. I'm thinking I may try to vassalize the Quyonlu before hitting the Mamluks.
There are a few ways of getting people to like you:

You can alliance/royal marriage them (but this takes up a diplomatic relation slot, then again so does vassalage)
You can send a diplomat to suck up to them
You can convince them to grant you trade power
You can send them a one-time gift of money, as well as a monthly subsidy (I believe these are separate bonuses)

[Narkis]

That's what my expedition into diplomacy was all about. I was hoping to get them to accept vassalization, I just can't seem to get their opinion high enough. I'm thinking I may try to vassalize the Quyonlu before hitting the Mamluks.

Just attack them and force vassalize in the peace treaty. You can get them to like you later.

[Cristo Meyers]

There are a few ways of getting people to like you:

You can alliance/royal marriage them (but this takes up a diplomatic relation slot, then again so does vassalage)
You can send a diplomat to suck up to them
You can convince them to grant you trade power
You can send them a one-time gift of money, as well as a monthly subsidy (I believe these are separate bonuses)


Did 1 through 3. The problem is I'm getting some Aggressive Expansion penalties and they want some of my land, so I've been hitting a ceiling...


Just attack them and force vassalize in the peace treaty. You can get them to like you later.

...which is why this is now Plan A. :smallamused:

[Eldan]

Between manpower and aggressive expansion, sometimes it's not a bad idea to just let the game sit for a few years while you recover and do nothing.

[Cristo Meyers]

Between manpower and aggressive expansion, sometimes it's not a bad idea to just let the game sit for a few years while you recover and do nothing.

I was thinking of doing that once I've annexed Byzantium, which isn't going to happen until I've finished coring Mush and Cizre anyway (a year and a half from now, I think). By that point I'll have all but I think one core and a nice little patch to start building up. Switch over to Admin focus for a while, build some infrastructure, mend a few bridges...

...ignore the fact that I'm the one that burned down those bridges...

[Flickerdart]

Between manpower and aggressive expansion, sometimes it's not a bad idea to just let the game sit for a few years while you recover and do nothing.
Unfortunately, the AI is seldom content to let you do that. This is a frequent thorn in my side whenever I play in East Asia - nobody wants to leave poor Ayuthhaya or Manchu alone!

[Artanis]

*stuff regarding tech*

Remember that being ahead of time is an extra +10% tech cost per year ahead, so the extra 25% from being Ottomans just means waiting until just before you lose the Ahead Of Time bonus, rather than a few years before hitting that point :smallwink:

Also, if you've taken Vienna, then you probably don't have to worry much about tech anymore anyways :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Unfortunately, the AI is seldom content to let you do that. This is a frequent thorn in my side whenever I play in East Asia - nobody wants to leave poor Ayuthhaya or Manchu alone!

Well, of course. It entirely depends how big you are. But as the Ottomans, with no big coalation against you, you should be able to do it comfortably.

[Cristo Meyers]

Remember that being ahead of time is an extra +10% tech cost per year ahead, so the extra 25% from being Ottomans just means waiting until just before you lose the Ahead Of Time bonus, rather than a few years before hitting that point :smallwink:

I'll have to look into that, though I'd be surprised if I were ahead. I have yet to tech-up anything but military (twice) and diplomatic (once) in about 1460.

[Corvus]

Hi all, first time popping into this thread. Just did my first CK2 - EUIV conversion. Some of the choices it makes seem a little bit...odd

It seems that any changes in religions only really apply to the CK2 part of the world map and it ignores them outside it. In my game Islam had been all but wiped out, reduced to just a couple of pockets in Hispania. Yet despite this the east and west coast of Africa and Indonesia are still Islamic after the conversion, which seems unlikely. Mali never went Muslim in my game so I'm not sure how they got to the west coast and I shut down the east coast fairly early on.

And tech levels don't seem to have any effect on development either. I was playing Makuria and Dongala and the Duchy of Makuria were the most developed regions in game, surpassing even Constantinople. So I was surprised to see that my gleaming capital post-conversion is now a backwater with next to no development.

And how it decided where to place the army and navy I don't know. It put the entire navy in Egypt and nothing on my eastern seaboard, which ran from east Africa, through Arabia, Persia and down the west coast of India. A navy there would be useful. As for the army, half it was stationed in Egypt with only one stack for the entirety of my Persian/Afghan/Indian holdings.

The thing that really had me scratching my head was the following two screenshots, one pre and one post conversion.

http://i.imgur.com/LvItE2M.jpg

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

I'd owned that region before the Mongols even turned up and they never even came close to taking that land. How the converter decided to give them that land I have no clue. I had thought it might have been something to do with trade posts along the silk road but after checking them they all turned out to be owned by my vassals. It really stumped me.

Looks like I may have to fire up the console and make a few modifications before I can start playing.

[Narkis]

Yeah, the converter hasn't been updated in a long time, while both CK2 and EU4 have. It's quite wonky, as you've seen yourself.

[Mabn]

Yeah, the converter hasn't been updated in a long time, while both CK2 and EU4 have. It's quite wonky, as you've seen yourself.
I personally find it interesting that the religions with massive bonuses (eg West African, Jain) in CKII become so terrible in a EUIV conversion.

[Artanis]

Yeah, the converter hasn't been updated in a long time, while both CK2 and EU4 have. It's quite wonky, as you've seen yourself.

And it was already kinda messed-up to start with :smallfrown:

[Cristo Meyers]

Wasn't the converter essentially a mod that Paradox decided to make official?

--

So, Byzantium has fallen completely. The war for Constantinople led to their full annexation and surrender. Another quick war and a diplo-annex later and now I have almost the whole of Anatolia save for a few islands owned by Genoa and Venice.

After a few abortive attempts to fight a war for Aleppo or said islands, I've discovered that I'm terrible at combat in this game. I was able to take on Qara Quyunlu and Georgia at the same time okay, but Genoa or the Mamluks usually result in a few victories before getting completely wrecked, if I even get those few victories.

[rweird]

Terrain matters, especially at the beginning. Attacking in the mountains is difficult, attacking in plains/farmlands/steppes (if you aren't fighting steppe hordes) slightly favors the attacker. Cavalry is generally better than infantry at lower tech levels (although if you have to much, you take 33% more damage from insufficient support). I believe the ottomans can have ~60% Cav, 40% infantry (although I'd recommend more infantry, as infantry die quicker). Insufficient support doesn't factor in cannons, and cannons are the only thing that can attack from the back row, so having a full back row of artillery is okay (if you can afford it).

Also, shock pips matter a lot more than fire early on, if you have a general with 6 fire and 1 shock, and a general with 1 fire and 3 shock, until cannons are unlocked at the earliest, I'd probably go with the shock general.

Also, consider looking at allies of who you're attacking, and if you can get any allies yourself.

Finally, the ledger can show you the size of different countries armies, so you can more accurately judge whether or not you can win.

[Cristo Meyers]

Terrain matters, especially at the beginning. Attacking in the mountains is difficult, attacking in plains/farmlands/steppes (if you aren't fighting steppe hordes) slightly favors the attacker. Cavalry is generally better than infantry at lower tech levels (although if you have to much, you take 33% more damage from insufficient support). I believe the ottomans can have ~60% Cav, 40% infantry (although I'd recommend more infantry, as infantry die quicker). Insufficient support doesn't factor in cannons, and cannons are the only thing that can attack from the back row, so having a full back row of artillery is okay (if you can afford it).

Also, shock pips matter a lot more than fire early on, if you have a general with 6 fire and 1 shock, and a general with 1 fire and 3 shock, until cannons are unlocked at the earliest, I'd probably go with the shock general.

Also, consider looking at allies of who you're attacking, and if you can get any allies yourself.

Finally, the ledger can show you the size of different countries armies, so you can more accurately judge whether or not you can win.

I think the Ottomans are 50/50 for infantry/cavalry, though I'll have to look to be sure. My three armies are hovering at about 12/6/2 I think. I know I'm at my force maximum for both my army and navy.

I'll have to take a closer look at my generals, see if they're actually the right men for the job...

[rweird]

Also, your armies reinforce (and recover morale) faster on your own territory, so its possible that you win the first few battles, but then your army is weakened when the next army comes calling. Keeping armies nearby each other to reinforce when that happens also helps.

For naval combat, until the next patch is released, spamming galleys is a cheap (and effective) way to win when fighting in the Mediterranean (and going over your force limit with galleys isn't actually all that expensive).

Another possible reason you are having trouble is ideas. If the Mamelukes are at Admin tech 5, they unlock an idea group, and military idea groups can make a difference (although I think Mamelukes go for maritime first, which might give them naval superiority).

As Genoa is a member of the HRE, attacking them may pull in the Emperor (usually Austria) and all of Austria's allies as well as all of Genoa's allies.

[Grif]

I think the Ottomans are 50/50 for infantry/cavalry, though I'll have to look to be sure. My three armies are hovering at about 12/6/2 I think. I know I'm at my force maximum for both my army and navy.

I'll have to take a closer look at my generals, see if they're actually the right men for the job...

Speaking of generals, shock makes a huge difference pre-mil level 10. Mams might have rolled a shock 4-6 general, which WILL totally wreck your armies unless you outnumber him at least 1.5-2 to 1.

EDIT: Ops, I see that has already been brought up, but yeah, emphasising it probably doesn't hurt. :smalltongue:

[Cristo Meyers]

Also, your armies reinforce (and recover morale) faster on your own territory, so its possible that you win the first few battles, but then your army is weakened when the next army comes calling. Keeping armies nearby each other to reinforce when that happens also helps.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've started doing. It helps that Aleppo is right on my border. I'm just working on getting the technique down and trying to not run out of manpower.


For naval combat, until the next patch is released, spamming galleys is a cheap (and effective) way to win when fighting in the Mediterranean (and going over your force limit with galleys isn't actually all that expensive).

Yeah, except for a handful of Barques to protect trade, Galleys are pretty much all I've been building.


Another possible reason you are having trouble is ideas. If the Mamelukes are at Admin tech 5, they unlock an idea group, and military idea groups can make a difference (although I think Mamelukes go for maritime first, which might give them naval superiority).

If they're on par with me, then they've got their first idea group. I'm three ideas into Economic right now. Not sure if that was the best choice or not.


As Genoa is a member of the HRE, attacking them may pull in the Emperor (usually Austria) and all of Austria's allies as well as all of Genoa's allies.

Found that out the hard way when trying to take Chios.

It's just Genoa! How hard can they be? I took on Venice didn't I? *DoW*

...wait, those were Austrian troops... and Venetian... and... oh boy *reload*

But...that reminds me... the Shadow Kingdom event triggered. I don't think Venice is a member of the HRE anymore... hmmmm...

[Grif]

But...that reminds me... the Shadow Kingdom event triggered. I don't think Venice is a member of the HRE anymore... hmmmm...

Venice is not considered part of the HRE since forever now. Partly why it doesn't survive if Austria turns hostile and decides to nom on it. (It usually survives if it manages to ally France, though.)

[Cristo Meyers]

Venice is not considered part of the HRE since forever now. Partly why it doesn't survive if Austria turns hostile and decides to nom on it. (It usually survives if it manages to ally France, though.)

I must've mis-read the Shadow Kingdom event popup then. I know I'm at least two DLC's behind, though.

So what would be a good idea group to start with? I ended up going with Economic, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe one of the more military ones might have been better.

[Narkis]

I must've mis-read the Shadow Kingdom event popup then. I know I'm at least two DLC's behind, though.

So what would be a good idea group to start with? I ended up going with Economic, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe one of the more military ones might have been better.

Starting with a military idea leaves you too far behind in tech, and in the beginning military tech is way too important. And same goes for admin. I always start with an idea that uses diplomatic points, usually diplomatic or exploration depending on my starting country.

[Guancyto]

Early ideas!

Quantity is godlike nowadays, at least in the beginning when you typically don't have enough men, enough money or enough troops. That problem will tend to disappear once you start getting good buildings, and in a hundred years you'll be fine, but early Quantity (especially the first few ideas in the group) is really worth its weight in gold. Don't let it delay your early military tech, though; usually you want a military idea group second so you can get the first (really really crucial) miltech levels in.

Religious or Humanist ideas, depending on what you're going for. Ottomans work exceptionally well with Humanist Ideas, since they have so many religions and cultures in their eventual empire.

Economic wouldn't be my first choice, but it's not a bad idea group for letting you get started on buildings early; make more money to make more money to make more money.

Diplomatic is pretty great for the early diplomat it provides (more so for nations besides Ottomans, who have to worry about diplomacy less than literally everyone else), and influence is good if you mess with vassals a bunch (if you're a conquering power, messing with vassals a bunch is a good way to supplement your expansion).

[rweird]

The ottomans start with their god-like 5/5/6 leader and a comparable heir, so in the short term, monarch points shouldn't be a problem. I believe I took Administrative first for decreased coring costs (I figured rushing that would save me points in the long-run, as would the decreased administrative tech costs). Then I did some military idea (I typically go Quality, Offensive, Defensive in some order for Mil ideas, while quantity is good early-on, late-game, the Ottomans are large enough it doesn't matter much).

Economic ideas aren't bad, they keep getting buffed, although I don't take them usually. Generally, my philosophy (although this obviously isn't the only one) is expansion ability and stability are important for ideas, because those you can't get from simply taking more land (while things that give wealth more troops can also be acquired with more land).

In most games, I pick (not in order) up Humanist, Religious, Administrative, Offensive, Defensive, Quality, and something for diplo points (trade/influence/exploration), although if I go for colonization, I'd take Expansion instead of administrative).

I know some people think Religious and Humanist is a waste as they both do the same thing, although I find that with only humanist, revolt risk is only slightly negative, and when over-extended, can cause problems. Also, Deus Vult is the best easily-accessable CB for expansion until Imperialism/Nationalism comes online.

To be fair, I usually play fairly strong countries from good tech-groups, my longest campaigns are Brandenburg (to Prussia to Germany to HRE, this was pre-art of war), Ottomans (around El Dorado), and Muscovy (to Russia, Common Sense, pre-Cossacks), so things may have changed.

[Cristo Meyers]

I thought about Quantity, but didn't take it because I was trying to get my military tech up. 'Course now I'm at a +130% penalty for being ahead of the curve there, so maaaaybe that wasn't the best choice. Probably should've looked a little closer at Influence. I've already diplo-annexed a breakaway OPM Syria and force-vassalized Georgia by beating up the Quyunlu. Wanted to vassalize the Quyunlu, but they weren't having it. Already sucking up to a breakaway Armenia too.

This is the part of the game that I'm really liking: even now I've got a mess of options available for what to try next. So much so that I'm almost getting gridlocked from choice. Do I take another shot at getting the islands of Chios from Genoa? Try and seize Euborea (sp? A Venetian-owned island right of the coast of Athens)? Make another move for Aleppo now that my manpower's regenerated? Maybe move on Bosnia and Wallachia?

I mean, sure, any or all of these will likely end in abject failure. But if I don't stick my finger in the electrical socket a few times how else am I going to learn? :smalltongue:

[SilverLeaf167]

That's the spirit! :smallbiggrin: Practice is the best teacher, especially if you can reload. On the other hand, once you're a bit more used to things, it might be a good idea to actually keep going and try to deal with the setbacks. Of course, stick to your comfort zone for now.

As the Ottomans, remember that you'll eventually get the Janissary event chain, which gives your armies a pretty huge boost for a long time. They might cause trouble down the road, but they're definitely worth it in the meantime.


This is the part of the game that I'm really liking: even now I've got a mess of options available for what to try next. So much so that I'm almost getting gridlocked from choice. Do I take another shot at getting the islands of Chios from Genoa? Try and seize Euborea (sp? A Venetian-owned island right of the coast of Athens)?

It's Euboea. Believe me, I've spent an uncomfortable amount of time staring at maps of Greece lately. :smalltongue:

[rweird]

Only declare on venice if you have naval superiority, they have so many islands (although if you have naval superiority, they aren't much of a challenge).

Part of EU4 is waiting for situations to change. Eventually Mamelukes or whoever will get in a war with someone else. What mil tech are you on relative to the Mamelukes? Some techs (the ones that give tactics bonuses especially) are especially important.

[Cristo Meyers]

As the Ottomans, remember that you'll eventually get the Janissary event chain, which gives your armies a pretty huge boost for a long time. They might cause trouble down the road, but they're definitely worth it in the meantime.

Yeah, the part of me that knows a little about Ottoman history is really looking forward to that.


Only declare on venice if you have naval superiority, they have so many islands (although if you have naval superiority, they aren't much of a challenge).

Part of EU4 is waiting for situations to change. Eventually Mamelukes or whoever will get in a war with someone else. What mil tech are you on relative to the Mamelukes? Some techs (the ones that give tactics bonuses especially) are especially important.

I pretty sure I'm a 7 to their 6, but not entirely sure. I just got and built a few regiments of the first-level cannon. And they're just coming off of a curb-stomping of Qara Quyunlu and Cyprus, though I don't think they lost more than a couple thousand soldiers in that 'war.'

[Artanis]

Just some things about combat and warfare that don't look like they've been mentioned yet:


1) Keep an eye on your manpower. You have a pool of potential soldiers that gets used up when you recruit and reinforce units. When that runs out, no more recruitment or reinforcements for you until it recovers. The Ottomans have a pretty sizable manpower pool, but it is still limited.

2) Using the Combine Regiments buttons can save you manpower in the short term and keep your armies more potent (e.g. one full-strength regiment will beat two half-strength regiments).

[Cristo Meyers]

Just some things about combat and warfare that don't look like they've been mentioned yet:


1) Keep an eye on your manpower. You have a pool of potential soldiers that gets used up when you recruit and reinforce units. When that runs out, no more recruitment or reinforcements for you until it recovers. The Ottomans have a pretty sizable manpower pool, but it is still limited.

Yeah, that's my big limiting factor right now. It's recovered somewhat from my war against Qara Quyunlu, but I expect a war against anyone except maybe Wallachia or Bosnia to be a long slog of attrition.


2) Using the Combine Regiments buttons can save you manpower in the short term and keep your armies more potent (e.g. one full-strength regiment will beat two half-strength regiments).

I've currently got three divisions of about 19K each. Maybe I should split the third one into halves and make two 28Ks?

[Artanis]

I've currently got three divisions of about 19K each. Maybe I should split the third one into halves and make two 28Ks?

I mean that as they fight, the regiments in each army get depleted. So you'll have a bunch of regiments below 1000 men.

So, for example, while a 10-regiment army will have 10K men at full strength, if it gets beaten down to 5K men, you'll have an army with 10 regiments at ~500 men each. A 1K regiment is stronger than two 500-man regiments, so using the Combine Regiments button will consolidate the 5K survivors into fewer but larger regiments, which makes those survivors more potent than if they were still distributed between a bunch of under-strength regiments. It will also slow down the manpower drain since reinforcement is by regiment, and fewer regiments thus means less manpower drain in the short term.


As for splitting up your armies, I personally like to use modular segments of 3 Infantry, 1 Cavalry, and 2 Artillery. I can combine those segments into larger groups, or spread them out over a wide area, or split one segment off from one army to bolster another army, and so on. It also results in each army having the 3:1:2 ratio that I prefer.

[Cristo Meyers]

I mean that as they fight, the regiments in each army get depleted. So you'll have a bunch of regiments below 1000 men.

So, for example, while a 10-regiment army will have 10K men at full strength, if it gets beaten down to 5K men, you'll have an army with 10 regiments at ~500 men each. A 1K regiment is stronger than two 500-man regiments, so using the Combine Regiments button will consolidate the 5K survivors into fewer but larger regiments, which makes those survivors more potent than if they were still distributed between a bunch of under-strength regiments. It will also slow down the manpower drain since reinforcement is by regiment, and fewer regiments thus means less manpower drain in the short term.


Ah, now that I didn't know about. I'll have to look for Combine Regiments now. Thanks.

That should help a lot with reinforcements and manpower.



As for splitting up your armies, I personally like to use modular segments of 3 Infantry, 1 Cavalry, and 2 Artillery. I can combine those segments into larger groups, or spread them out over a wide area, or split one segment off from one army to bolster another army, and so on. It also results in each army having the 3:1:2 ratio that I prefer.

I think that might be too much micromanaging for me. I have trouble keeping track of just my 3 divisions and the fleet. I'm still working out what ratio I should use for my armies, mostly because I just picked up cannons. It was a 2:1 Infantry/Cavalry mix with a little more leaning towards Infantry (i.e. 11K to 5K), but now that I've got cannons I'll need to dig a little deeper. Right now I've only got 2 regiments of cannon in each of my divisions.

[Artanis]

Ah, now that I didn't know about. I'll have to look for Combine Regiments now. Thanks.

That should help a lot with reinforcements and manpower.
Glad to help :smallsmile:



I think that might be too much micromanaging for me. I have trouble keeping track of just my 3 divisions and the fleet. I'm still working out what ratio I should use for my armies, mostly because I just picked up cannons. It was a 2:1 Infantry/Cavalry mix with a little more leaning towards Infantry (i.e. 11K to 5K), but now that I've got cannons I'll need to dig a little deeper. Right now I've only got 2 regiments of cannon in each of my divisions.

Yeah, cannons are pretty expensive, so it can take a good while to build up to the number you want.

To clarify my "modular" comment a bit, I don't mean that I have a zillion tiny armies sitting around. I mean that I have a few big armies, but I set up their regiments in such a way that I can just hit the split in half button a couple times if I need to cover more ground (like when it comes time to carpet-siege).

[AgentPaper]

To clarify my "modular" comment a bit, I don't mean that I have a zillion tiny armies sitting around. I mean that I have a few big armies, but I set up their regiments in such a way that I can just hit the split in half button a couple times if I need to cover more ground (like when it comes time to carpet-siege).

I used to do that, back when every province had a fort, but nowadays it's not really necessary, and ends up giving you more cavalry than you actually need most of the time. Now I think it's better to just have larger armies, each with 2-4 cavalry and a nice mix of infantry/artillery. Exactly how big each army should be depends on when/where/who you're fighting.

[rweird]

I typically aim for modular 20 stacks, 8 infantry, 2 cavalry, 10 artillery, can be combined into 40 stacks in late-game. Still, artillery can be very expensive. I like high numbers of cannons for the siege bonus, and because it ultimately makes you lose fewer troops (assuming your cannons stay in the back row).

Also, 7 is a big military tech level as it gives tactics and cannons, so you could try to take advantage of it now while the Mamelukes are behind (although they may tech up mid-war and makes things harder for you).

[Sian]

My modular stacks pre-13 is 8-2-4, then 12-4-8, and 22+ its 16-4-12

[Cristo Meyers]

Well, I took on the Mamluks and after a pretty long war I finally wore them out enough to get them to cede Aleppo and Antioch. Then came some faffing about, quick wars against the Knights and other isolated OPMs, beating the Mamluks another two times, and now I've got the Conquer the Levant mission and if the ledger is anything to go by even the tech difference isn't going to save them. Though is does concern me a bit that somewhere I fell about 2 levels behind the rest of the world. I'm sitting on 10 and most others look like they're 11 or 12. But I figure as long as I can keep Austria off my back it shouldn't be a big deal.

Got my second idea group and picked Quality. The bonus to cav units stack nicely with the Ottoman's culture bonus to cavalry. Apparently I can Westernize now. Probably because I now share a small border with Austria. It's only a little ways into the 16th century, so maybe it'll be worth it. Just not sure I can handle the de-stabilization when I've got a rivaled Austria right on my border.

[Razade]

Well, I took on the Mamluks and after a pretty long war I finally wore them out enough to get them to cede Aleppo and Antioch. Then came some faffing about, quick wars against the Knights and other isolated OPMs, beating the Mamluks another two times, and now I've got the Conquer the Levant mission and if the ledger is anything to go by even the tech difference isn't going to save them. Though is does concern me a bit that somewhere I fell about 2 levels behind the rest of the world. I'm sitting on 10 and most others look like they're 11 or 12. But I figure as long as I can keep Austria off my back it shouldn't be a big deal.

Got my second idea group and picked Quality. The bonus to cav units stack nicely with the Ottoman's culture bonus to cavalry. Apparently I can Westernize now. Probably because I now share a small border with Austria. It's only a little ways into the 16th century, so maybe it'll be worth it. Just not sure I can handle the de-stabilization when I've got a rivaled Austria right on my border.

Quantity Ideas probably would have helped you in the long run but still time to take it. With the way Manpower Recovery works in EU4 any bonus helps.

[Grif]

Got my second idea group and picked Quality. The bonus to cav units stack nicely with the Ottoman's culture bonus to cavalry. Apparently I can Westernize now. Probably because I now share a small border with Austria. It's only a little ways into the 16th century, so maybe it'll be worth it. Just not sure I can handle the de-stabilization when I've got a rivaled Austria right on my border.

So long you keep a spare stock of ADM (for increasing stab ASAP and keeping it at least 0) and MIL (for those times when you need to tech up), you should do fine. Remember to keep your armies funded for the inevitable rebel events.

[rweird]

Tech 12 is a tactics increase, and 11 increases Cavalry fire and infantry shock.

For taking idea groups, you get one every 3 or 4 Admin tech levels, so trying to stay at least at time (even if it means delaying taking the ideas for a while) is okay.

Keep in mind that taking Vienna allows you to westernize for free with none of instability (if you think you can beat Austria).

If Austria is a rival, consider (temporarily) allying France, Spain, or Poland/PLC (likely Austrian rivals) just for some help during that war.

[Mabn]

If you plan to get into a long war replace your infantry with mercenaries so you don't run out of manpower, Austria has a strong army, but babysitting and a so-so economy mean they are terrible in attrition fights.

[AgentPaper]

Tech 12 is a tactics increase, and 11 increases Cavalry fire and infantry shock.

For taking idea groups, you get one every 3 or 4 Admin tech levels, so trying to stay at least at time (even if it means delaying taking the ideas for a while) is okay.

Keep in mind that taking Vienna allows you to westernize for free with none of instability (if you think you can beat Austria).

Unfortuantely, since he's already at tech 10, it's a bit late for that, since it would be decades at least before he could both conquer Austria (which by the sound of it is fairly big, requiring at least 2 wars to reach Vienna without border gore), and wait for the separatism to slooowly tick down.

I'd actually suggest either going for the westernization, since it's available, and not all that painful as the Ottomans (you don't need to spend as many monarch points on it as most countries), rather than trying to get the "free" decision which may end up costing you more points as you're forced to pay more for tech while you wait the 50 or so years to get it. Going for Vienna is a good idea in most cases, but only if you're aiming for it from the start, slowly pressing your way into Austria through Serbia and Croatia early on (preferably shortly after uniting Anatolia and conquering Constantinople).

That said though, westernization isn't actually all that important for the Ottomans compared to many countries, since you have quite a few options to reduce tech cost, to the point where in my games I often spend less on tech than many western nations do. Reduced piety and western arms trade (have good relations with a western neighbor) alone make up a 20% reducing in cost, almost nullifying the tech disparity already. Which, as long as you're fairly frugal with your monarch point expenditure (and don't have terrible rulers), is more than enough to keep up in tech while expanding at a moderate pace.

One thing to note here, is that if you do westernize, then that means that you will no longer be able to vassalize countries in India, China, or Sub-Saharan Africa, since their technolgy will be "too inferior" for you to make them anything but protectorates (which you can't annex, directly at least). On the other hand, if you both westernize and pick up the Expansion idea group (a great group if you plan to expand east past Persia), then you get the "Overseas Expansion" CB against basically all of India and East Asia, which can be very powerful. If you don't expect to get that far until much later in the game though, then you'll probably have the Imperialism CB (unlocked through technology) by that point anyways, and all the good colonies (or possibly just all of the colonies period) will be taken up by then, making expansion much less interesting.


If Austria is a rival, consider (temporarily) allying France, Spain, or Poland/PLC (likely Austrian rivals) just for some help during that war.

Specifically, you should open up Austria's diplomacy screen and see who their rivals are, and then pick the strongest/most likely to ally you among them. Alternatively, if you don't plan on actually attacking Austria, you could look among their allies to see if you can ally with them, which would simultaneously grant you troops and deny them from your enemy, since allies are far more likely to join the defender in a war rather than the attacker. Regardless, maintaining at least one good ally in the west will do wonders for keeping Austria off your back, most likely preventing them from declaring war at all, leaving you free to expand in every other direction at your leisure.

[Cristo Meyers]

Keep in mind that taking Vienna allows you to westernize for free with none of instability (if you think you can beat Austria).

Yeah, I'd be surprised if that could actually happen. If Bosnia and Serbia didn't exist my entire European border would be Austria. They just started grabbing land and before I knew it they were annexing Wallachia. I'm thinking it might be time to invade and vassalize Bosnia and Serbia just so I can do it before Austria does.


If Austria is a rival, consider (temporarily) allying France, Spain, or Poland/PLC (likely Austrian rivals) just for some help during that war.

Poland is the one I thought of first. Though I think France has finally gotten over that little dust-up I had with Genoa by now. I'll need to see who Austria's rivals are and hope at least one of them is a possibility.

Then again, considering at one point I had a +100 relationship with the Papal States of all people, I suppose anything's possible. The game loves giving me the 'Enemy of My Enemy' mission.

I really need to get my piety back down so I can tech-up some more. I had to push it up to get the missionary strength needed to convert Trebizond but now I'm really hurting for tech. It's not going to hurt my immediate plans for conquering the Levant (if I'm reading the Ledger correctly the Mamluks have about 20K soldiers to their name... I have 90K and Tunis has always been more than happy to help me beat them up), but that's going to be a long war because I'm hoping to take their vassals.

[rweird]

I don't see what the problem with border gore against Austria by taking Vienna would be. It'd make Austria hate you, sure, but I assume you are rivals, and it'd be taking a bunch of their land, Austria wouldn't be your friend. It wouldn't be all that defensible, although if you can beat Austria on the offensive, you probably can on the defensive if you keep up alliances, and with Western Arms Trade and negative piety, not falling to far behind on tech wouldn't be so much of an issue (and you could spend that time focusing your expansion southwards and eastwards).

Still, Westernizing (assuming no changes) takes 2500 monarch points for Anatolian tech, it drains at most 5 from each category every month, so 2500/15=166.6, so 167 months, 167/12=13 years 11 months of instability, bad events, revolts and limited (if any) expansion. The increased tech cost from being Anatolian is +25% so +150 points per tech, meaning it'd pay for itself (for each specific tech, admin, diplo, mil) after teching up 6 times.

Both strategies work, although pre-tech 10 westernization is about the only time, IMO, for non-event westernization to be taken (assuming you possess the military might to conquer one of the three provinces).

EDIT: I suppose military unfeasibility is a strong reason to try the other way to Westernize.

[Artanis]

Regarding tech and where to spend MP, being ahead of time in Admin and/or Diplo give pretty decent economic bonuses (20% production efficiency and 20% trade efficiency, respectively). It doesn't matter how far ahead you are, just so long as it's giving the Ahead of Time penalty to the cost, you get the econ boost. So I often (though not necessarily always) find it worthwhile to delay things like Ideas for a little bit if it means keeping those bonuses.

Obviously, YMMV based on game situation, what the techs and/or Ideas give you, how your economy is doing, etc.

Military tech has no explicit Ahead of Time bonus, presumably because being able to stomp your neighbors' armies is a significant reward in and of itself :smallwink:


On a related note, the Ottomans' 25% tech cost penalty isn't actually all that big. That's the same as a Western-tech country getting impatient and teching up an extra 2-3 years early.




Yeah, I'd be surprised if that could actually happen. If Bosnia and Serbia didn't exist my entire European border would be Austria. They just started grabbing land and before I knew it they were annexing Wallachia. I'm thinking it might be time to invade and vassalize Bosnia and Serbia just so I can do it before Austria does.

DO IT. They both have some spots with fairly rough terrain, and you'd rather be defending that terrain than trying to dig Austrians out of it. I've also found that they can be surprisingly effective Marches, and added control* over Ragusa is always nice.





*I don't recall if a March will give you trade power per se, but it'll certainly help keep potential enemies from snapping that stuff up.

[Cristo Meyers]

On a related note, the Ottomans' 25% tech cost penalty isn't actually all that big. That's the same as a Western-tech country getting impatient and teching up an extra 2-3 years early.

Yeah, I haven't been having much trouble with that. The game kept asking me if I'd like to burn some heretics and I kept telling it 'no', so my Piety was usually hovering at -75 to -100 (apparently my religious advisors are all Space Marines...). The mil-tech situation just got away from me, I guess. The last I remember I was at +130% Ahead of Time, next thing you know I'm 1-2 levels down.


DO IT. They both have some spots with fairly rough terrain, and you'd rather be defending that terrain than trying to dig Austrians out of it. I've also found that they can be surprisingly effective Marches, and added control* over Ragusa is always nice.

Depending on manpower and how long the upcoming war for the Levant takes I might just take the 1st and 2nd divisions over there once it's over and take care of that. Hopefully the Mamluks will fold quick and I'll be able to vassalize Ardalan and Iraq in the deal.

At the very least, vassalizing Bosnia and Serbia will give me something to offer as tribute if Austria starts pounding on me. Definitely spend an extended period at peace to catch my tech up after that, though.

I'm honestly surprised I'm doing as well as I am. There's so many different things to keep track of and that usually results in me forgetting something really important at the exact worst time.

[Narkis]

There's so many different things to keep track of and that usually results in me forgetting something really important at the exact worst time.

Happens to the best of us. My last game with the Ottomans ended ingloriously after I declared war on Genoa to kick them out of "my" lands. Austria jumped in as the Emperor, which was fine by me. But I didn't notice Austria was allied wth France, Spain and Poland, who all jumped at the chance to remove kebab. And there was much wailing and gnashing on teeth.

[Cristo Meyers]

Happens to the best of us. My last game with the Ottomans ended ingloriously after I declared war on Genoa to kick them out of "my" lands. Austria jumped in as the Emperor, which was fine by me. But I didn't notice Austria was allied wth France, Spain and Poland, who all jumped at the chance to remove kebab. And there was much wailing and gnashing on teeth.

This is almost exactly why Genoa still holds the islands of Chios in my game. They're allied with France, but they had a nasty noble revolt and war with Circassia that was drawing most of their attention to Crimea. I take a chance, nab Chios, and actually start marching 2 of my divisions to Genoa. The third stayed behind in Vidin. Everything's going great, no sign of France, then 'Battle of Vidin. YOU LOST.'

France had ignored the two armies besieging Genoa and just rammed an army straight down my throat. It went downhill from there.

[IthilanorStPete]

I believe that you can still use the Overseas Expansion CB from Expansion ideas as the Ottos. It's a pretty handy CB, and the Ottos can make good use of it, since they can vassalize instead of being stuck with protectorates.




I'm honestly surprised I'm doing as well as I am. There's so many different things to keep track of and that usually results in me forgetting something really important at the exact worst time.

I usually have a notebook for keeping track of what I'm planning to do and when. When you're in the thick of things like the major powers are, it's very handy.

[AgentPaper]

For tech, the simple rule of thumb is to always buy right when the tech stops being ahead of time, to avoid the extra cost while still benefiting from current tech and the "ahead of time" bonuses. This becomes less feasible as you get further and further away from Europe (as tech is simply too expensive), and there are exceptions, but it's a simple and easy rule to follow and will do you well 99% of the time as a western nation.


I believe that you can still use the Overseas Expansion CB from Expansion ideas as the Ottos. It's a pretty handy CB, and the Ottos can make good use of it, since they can vassalize instead of being stuck with protectorates.

Checking things, it seems you're right. Western, Eastern, and Anatolian all qualify. I thought for sure it was Western only, but I guess they changed that.

[Cristo Meyers]

For tech, the simple rule of thumb is to always buy right when the tech stops being ahead of time, to avoid the extra cost while still benefiting from current tech and the "ahead of time" bonuses. This becomes less feasible as you get further and further away from Europe (as tech is simply too expensive), and there are exceptions, but it's a simple and easy rule to follow and will do you well 99% of the time as a western nation.

Yeah, that's what I was kinda trying to do. It just ended up really getting away from me. I caught up pretty quick, though. Now I'm sitting on 15 when the rest of the world is an average 15-17. My admin and economic tech are way behind, though. That's where my focus is now.

The Mamluks went down with barely a whimper. The Levant fell really quickly and Egypt went down 2 wars later, with a short break to beat up on the Timurids while I waited for truces to expire.

The CK2 player in me probably took just a little more joy in beating up on the Timurids than was really healthy. :smallamused:

Managed to get both Lithuania and Poland into an alliance and Serbia as a march, so that's doing a wonderful job of keeping a Defender of the Faith Austria honest. Though they did annex Bosnia. I have the option of picking up Defender myself, but I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. I've no need for missionaries right now and my focus is probably going to be the Arabian peninsula for the near future. I suppose the prestige would be a good thing, but unless I get a bunch of random events my prestige usually hovers pretty high.

[rweird]

The -0.03 monthly war exhaustion can be a really good thing (once you are blobby enough, you rarely get significant WE from battles, and attrition only gives like .01 a month). I took it as Russia (although by that time, all other orthodox countries were my subjects), and the +5% morale, while not huge, can be helpful. Still, I don't go for it often because of the +5% tech cost associated.

[Artanis]

80% of the times I've taken DotF, I wound up losing it within a couple years when I got tired of being called into what seems like every f***ing irrelevant squabble on the planet*.

The other 20% of the times that I've taken DotF, I ultimately found myself thinking, "meh, I'm not sure this was really worth all that cash."



*I know it only gives a CtA on some wars, and a patch has further restricted it to defenders bordering you and/or on your continent. It's still rage-inducingly aggravating when you finish a long, manpower-depleting war against one megablob, only to be immediately called to fight another megablob that decided to nom a tasty-looking OPM :smallyuk:

[Grif]

80% of the times I've taken DotF, I wound up losing it within a couple years when I got tired of being called into what seems like every f***ing irrelevant squabble on the planet*.

The other 20% of the times that I've taken DotF, I ultimately found myself thinking, "meh, I'm not sure this was really worth all that cash."



*I know it only gives a CtA on some wars, and a patch has further restricted it to defenders bordering you and/or on your continent. It's still rage-inducingly aggravating when you finish a long, manpower-depleting war against one megablob, only to be immediately called to fight another megablob that decided to nom a tasty-looking OPM :smallyuk:

That's why, when you take DotF, you only do it as Orthodox, because the number of Orthodox nations are vanishingly small and usually doesn't last past 1500s. :smalltongue:

[Cristo Meyers]

80% of the times I've taken DotF, I wound up losing it within a couple years when I got tired of being called into what seems like every f***ing irrelevant squabble on the planet*.

That's pretty much what I would expect to happen. Someone declares war on Tunis, I get called in, and the next thing you know a stupid squabble between Portugal and Tunis erupts into WW1 about 300 years early.

Plus, there's really only two major Muslim powers in the world right now, and we're already in an alliance. I'd basically be spending 500 ducats to be able to say 'I'm Defender of the Muslim Faith!' while I'm beating up on the Sunni Timurids...

[Guancyto]

That's true of the various christian DotF (depending on how well the Reformation does, DotF can range from a no-brainer to a nightmare). As Ottomans, once Grenada is gone there's very little downside to taking the Sunni DotF unless Portugal and Spain are continually picking on Morocco.

They've steadily nerfed the Morale bonus, though, so the actual usefulness of it mostly comes in the form of the missionary and -warexhaust. 5% morale isn't nothing, though.

[Cristo Meyers]

That's true of the various christian DotF (depending on how well the Reformation does, DotF can range from a no-brainer to a nightmare). As Ottomans, once Grenada is gone there's very little downside to taking the Sunni DotF unless Portugal and Spain are continually picking on Morocco.

Not sure how that's going, really. I did notice that Protestantism is pretty much limited to Scandinavia though. It is, admittedly, all of Scandinavia.


They've steadily nerfed the Morale bonus, though, so the actual usefulness of it mostly comes in the form of the missionary and -warexhaust. 5% morale isn't nothing, though.

Already got two missionaries. I picked up a bonus one somewhere (I think from conquering Jerusalem) and my entire empire has been converted thanks to a long period where missionary strength was ridiculous. The average conversion time was somewhere in the realm of 19 months. I'm mostly just worried about getting drawn into yet another war between Tunis and Portugal. Though since we're in an alliance, that's likely to happen anyway...

...politics is hard.

[Artanis]

I'm mostly just worried about getting drawn into yet another war between Tunis and Portugal. Though since we're in an alliance, that's likely to happen anyway...

...politics is hard.

Nah, politics isn't hard. Once you accept that your allies are worthless and will never help you in your wars no matter how much you suck up and help them in theirs (and will be utterly ineffective even if the stars align and they DO join you), everything becomes much more clear :smalltongue:

[rweird]

If you have a lot of cash, the 500 ducats isn't a big investment, and can give you an edge in a war (or allow you to convert more stuff), and then if you lose it if you don't want to get in the war, its okay (prestige is easy to regain).

Still, it can be irritating if there are a bunch of nations, so I don't normally use it (and I'm paranoid about tech costs).

[Cristo Meyers]

Nah, politics isn't hard. Once you accept that your allies are worthless and will never help you in your wars no matter how much you suck up and help them in theirs (and will be utterly ineffective even if the stars align and they DO join you), everything becomes much more clear :smalltongue:

I've actually had really good luck with that. Tunis has been really helpful in my wars against the Mamluks. I just wish they'd stop pissing off Portugal...



Still, it can be irritating if there are a bunch of nations, so I don't normally use it (and I'm paranoid about tech costs).

That's probably my biggest hang-up right now, aside from the money. I'm already behind, and while that's pretty much the norm for the Ottomans as I understand it anything that exacerbates that always gets the side-eye.

Though this ruler has been really lucky. Between swinging back to being impious in a single year (once again, just by telling my advisors that maybe burning the heretic is a little extreme) and getting an event that netted me a -10% tech bonus (marrying a Greek slave girl, don't remember the name) I'm been catching up. I suppose it'll depend on how quickly I can re-build my gold reserves...

On a side-note: navies. I know that my navy should pretty much be all-galleys, all-the-time because of the inland sea bonuses, but I've also got a substantial transport fleet of about 26 flutes. I'm wondering if they're worth it since I'm not really planning on expanding into Europe unless the stars align just right and all my current targets would require sailing around South Africa. So I'm wondering if I should just scrap/sell the flutes and replace them with more proper warships.

[OrcusMcP]

On a side-note: navies. I know that my navy should pretty much be all-galleys, all-the-time because of the inland sea bonuses, but I've also got a substantial transport fleet of about 26 flutes. I'm wondering if they're worth it since I'm not really planning on expanding into Europe unless the stars align just right and all my current targets would require sailing around South Africa. So I'm wondering if I should just scrap/sell the flutes and replace them with more proper warships.

Galleys are excellent and cost effective in the Med, especially in the early game, but they are very rough on your force limits. Big galley fleets mean less light ships for trade/exploration and less transports.

Once you get into the 1600s, especially as a big power like the Ottomans, you can start replacing your galley fleets with big ships. They're progressively much more powerful, as well as more hardy. If you're worried about cost, remember that you don't have to do a 1:1 change from galleys to big ships. Lights ships get better and better over time as well and will help make you money, especially if you start expanding deeper into Italy/Indian ocean.

Unless you are someone like Venice who get insane bonuses to galleys, you want to transition away from them as soon as you can afford to.

[Cristo Meyers]

Once you get into the 1600s, especially as a big power like the Ottomans, you can start replacing your galley fleets with big ships. They're progressively much more powerful, as well as more hardy. If you're worried about cost, remember that you don't have to do a 1:1 change from galleys to big ships. Lights ships get better and better over time as well and will help make you money, especially if you start expanding deeper into Italy/Indian ocean.

I've got two small fleets of light ships on Trade Protection duty. They seem to be bringing in their money's worth, though I'm still in the dark about some of the elements of trade. I've got the guy in Constantinople collecting trade and another steering trade in Alexandria (or maybe Aleppo...), and my two small ship fleets are nearly doubling the ducats in Alexandria and Aleppo according the little pop-up in-game window, but ask me what all that means and whether it's the most optimal dispersal of resources and all I can do is shrug and go 'looks like it's working.'


Unless you are someone like Venice who get insane bonuses to galleys, you want to transition away from them as soon as you can afford to.

That's what I was thinking too. Especially since I'm now usually looking at the larger French or Spanish navies rather than the Genoese or Venetian ones. War galleys just won't cut it against them.

Looks like it's more math for me! Let's see how much my national budget can bear before we start hitting a negative income. I think I'll sell off the flutes. I just can't see a use for them right now. My next conquest target is the Arabian Peninsula. I can just walk.

[OrcusMcP]

How small are your trade fleets? 5? 10? 2? Obviously it depends on location/situation, but I usually try to ensure I have a good dominating trade fleet in my home node (either holding trade if it's competitive, or hunting privateers if I'm dominant) and then having 5 or 10 size trade fleets in the main feeder nodes.

So in your case, you may want to get a 10-20 size trade fleet in constantinople depending on how many pirates people are sending at you, and then having 5 each for Aleppo and Alexandria. The Aleppo and Alexandria fleets will also help keep your eastern Med clear of sneaky transports. If you're trying to get into some of the really competitive nodes like Aden, Ceylon or Malacca you'll want larger trade fleets until you establish dominant positions on land.

EDIT: Almost forgot about Crimea. If you haven't secured that node, do it, and again get a decent trade fleet there.

[Cristo Meyers]

How small are your trade fleets? 5? 10? 2? Obviously it depends on location/situation, but I usually try to ensure I have a good dominating trade fleet in my home node (either holding trade if it's competitive, or hunting privateers if I'm dominant) and then having 5 or 10 size trade fleets in the main feeder nodes.

So in your case, you may want to get a 10-20 size trade fleet in constantinople depending on how many pirates people are sending at you, and then having 5 each for Aleppo and Alexandria. The Aleppo and Alexandria fleets will also help keep your eastern Med clear of sneaky transports. If you're trying to get into some of the really competitive nodes like Aden, Ceylon or Malacca you'll want larger trade fleets until you establish dominant positions on land.

EDIT: Almost forgot about Crimea. If you haven't secured that node, do it, and again get a decent trade fleet there.

At the moment the Aleppo and Alexandria fleets are 5 each. I don't actually have one protecting trade in Constantinople. Oddly enough, when I check the pop-up that shows what the results of sending a fleet there would be, the number of ducats actually decreases. Though I'm pretty sure I'm the dominant one there.

Believe me, I want Crimea. But it's still held by Genoa and even though they've been broken by rebels at least twice now they're still allied to France and Austria. One of those I could maybe deal with, but definitely not both.

Would the trade fleet need to be all light ships, or could I mix some Caravels into the main fleet and use it?

[OrcusMcP]

At the moment the Aleppo and Alexandria fleets are 5 each. I don't actually have one protecting trade in Constantinople. Oddly enough, when I check the pop-up that shows what the results of sending a fleet there would be, the number of ducats actually decreases. Though I'm pretty sure I'm the dominant one there.
Yeah, especially in the Med, even you're super powerful Ottomans, get some trade fleet in constantinople, if only to counteract/chase away pirates.


Would the trade fleet need to be all light ships, or could I mix some Caravels into the main fleet and use it?
Only light ships give you trade power, so any other ships in that fleet wouldn't affect things.

[Cristo Meyers]

Thanks for playing tutor, guys. This is really helpful.



Only light ships give you trade power, so any other ships in that fleet wouldn't affect things.

Looks like about ten of the naval limit that'll be freed up by getting rid of those transports is going to caravels then. Should leave about 16, we'll see how many large ships the budget can handle and just let attrition take care of the war galleys. The new fleet shall be glorious, it shall be big, it shall... likely sit in port gathering dust while I stomp through the desert. But at least it'll give the Venetians a huge case of ship-envy!

So the wiki mentioned that trade in the home node is automatically collected. I'm assuming Constantinople is my home node, so do I need a merchant there collecting or should I push him off to Aleppo/Alexandria to steer?

[SilverLeaf167]

You should only collect in your home node when your merchants have nowhere else to go, as the additional benefit from them is very small. You should definitely steer whenever possible.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with trade, as it gets pretty complicated, but the main two things to consider when deciding where to steer are Trade Power and Trade Value. If you have no Power in a node, your steering won't really do anything. If there's very little Value there, there's nothing to steer. Same thing if almost all of the value is already going in the direction you want, as steering it is obviously unnecessary.
Generally speaking though, Aleppo and Alexandria are both good choices. Alexandria in particular is pretty contested, so it might be the better option if you have any Power (or ships) there.

[tonberrian]

So the wiki mentioned that trade in the home node is automatically collected. I'm assuming Constantinople is my home node, so do I need a merchant there collecting or should I push him off to Aleppo/Alexandria to steer?

That depends, but usually, no. Adding a merchant in Constantinople will increase the amount of money you bring in by 10% (ish, I forget if that is a pure multiplier or just adds on to others). Most often, especially early-game, it's more efficient to put your merchant in another node and steer that towards Constantinople or even just collect there (which decreases your effective trade power by 50% in that node, decreasing your share by up to 50%). For example, it might be worthwhile to send a merchant to Venice to collect with a massive trade fleet - Venice has no trade nodes downstream, so it gets very rich.

[AgentPaper]

You should always have at least a few transport ships around, even if you're not planning some kind of naval invasion. As the Ottomans in particular, I'd suggest having at least enough transports to ferry around a full army(usually around 20 ships early on, ramping up to 40 or so in the late game), for a number of reasons.

1) You never know when rebels will pop up on some random island, like Crete, Cyprus, or Rhodes, that you need to quell with a full army. Shipping troops onto the island one at a time won't cut it here. You could potentially wait for them to leave the island, then crush them and take it back, but this takes time and isn't an ideal solution. Especially if the island has a fort, it means sitting on the island for a long time taking it back, and probably more rebels later on.

2) Ships move a lot faster than marching armies. With a large empire sprawled across the Mediterranean, having the ability to ship a fleet from Constantinople to whatever front you need them on in a matter of days, rather than months, is a huge advantage.

3) Even if your enemy doesn't have islands, they will probably have a coastline. Being able to pick up your troops and drop them behind an enemy fort can be a huge strategic or even tactical advantage, allowing you to hunt down their army while it's weak, or siege more land and forts at once to end the war more quickly.

4) Even if you don't have plans to attack Europe right now, plans change, and if nothing else you may need to defend against them. Naval dominance is of little use if you can't use it to drop troops on their islands or to strike vulnerable targets (like landing in Spain and holding up on a mountain fort to siege).

The divide between the Mediterranean and Indian oceans is certainly a concern, but at least until you're able to build the Suez Canal, that just means you'll want to eventually build up a mirror Indian fleet, with it's own set of transports, and heavy/light ship fleets to fight on the open waters and protect your trade interests.

[Cristo Meyers]

1) You never know when rebels will pop up on some random island, like Crete, Cyprus, or Rhodes, that you need to quell with a full army. Shipping troops onto the island one at a time won't cut it here. You could potentially wait for them to leave the island, then crush them and take it back, but this takes time and isn't an ideal solution. Especially if the island has a fort, it means sitting on the island for a long time taking it back, and probably more rebels later on.

Or your newly acquired port of Chios... blasted fanatics.

Yeah, Genoa ended up all on its own for a while and with no Austria or France backing them up taking Chios and Caffa was child's play. Now if I could just wrest Euboea and Crete from Venice...

Ended up keeping the fleet and reforming it. My combat capability is now about a 50-50 mix of galleas and carrack. Too bad that between the light ships and transports that only amounts to about 20 warships. Though in a war the light ships get drafted into the main fleet anyway.

'Course, then I ended up getting dragged into a war with Spain and the entire dang thing went up in smoke. Oh sure, France, I can handle the Spanish Armada. No problem

If I didn't need that alliance to keep Austria in line I swear...

Though I did get a chance to beat up on Austria when Poland declared war on Pomerania to Cleanse Heresy. All the Austrian troops were up by the front lines while I stayed in back and started carpet-sieging. Too bad I can't follow up on their depleted manpower with taking a massive stability hit that I can't afford.

Somewhere my land force limit jumped up to about 156 or so. I'm currently using only about 112. I wish there were room in the budget to max that out.

[rweird]

I assume the force limit boost is the Ottoman ambition (once you complete your national ideas, you get an additional bonus, +33% land force limit in the Ottoman's case).

In other news, the Roman Empire (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-31st-march-2016.916870/) is now a thing in EU4 as well.

[AgentPaper]

Or your newly acquired port of Chios... blasted fanatics.

Yeah, Genoa ended up all on its own for a while and with no Austria or France backing them up taking Chios and Caffa was child's play. Now if I could just wrest Euboea and Crete from Venice...

Ended up keeping the fleet and reforming it. My combat capability is now about a 50-50 mix of galleas and carrack. Too bad that between the light ships and transports that only amounts to about 20 warships. Though in a war the light ships get drafted into the main fleet anyway.

'Course, then I ended up getting dragged into a war with Spain and the entire dang thing went up in smoke. Oh sure, France, I can handle the Spanish Armada. No problem

If I didn't need that alliance to keep Austria in line I swear...

Though I did get a chance to beat up on Austria when Poland declared war on Pomerania to Cleanse Heresy. All the Austrian troops were up by the front lines while I stayed in back and started carpet-sieging. Too bad I can't follow up on their depleted manpower with taking a massive stability hit that I can't afford.

Somewhere my land force limit jumped up to about 156 or so. I'm currently using only about 112. I wish there were room in the budget to max that out.

Oh, uh, I would have recommended keeping the ~20 transport ships and then everything else as galleys. Trade ships are not really a good idea as the Ottomans, at least not until you've already well and truly established your dominance over the Mediterranean and are expanding deep into Asia/Indonesia. You get more trade power by conquering places.

[OrcusMcP]

Oh, uh, I would have recommended keeping the ~20 transport ships and then everything else as galleys. Trade ships are not really a good idea as the Ottomans, at least not until you've already well and truly established your dominance over the Mediterranean and are expanding deep into Asia/Indonesia. You get more trade power by conquering places.

That's true, but the Med can get lousy with pirates from Spain/France/Italy/Ottoman enemies so having some light ships to help chase those away can be helpful.

[Sian]

What do people plan to do as their first game post-Mare Nostrum? ... I'm considering trying to do "Third Way" again, with Pate, now that it would be possible to expand into central Africa to get the strength to tackle Ethiopia / Mamluk / Ottoman (Depending on how deep north i've gone) easier

[Cristo Meyers]

I assume the force limit boost is the Ottoman ambition (once you complete your national ideas, you get an additional bonus, +33% land force limit in the Ottoman's case).

That's gotta be it. I just finished up the Ottoman's tree. Just hadn't been paying much attention to it because I'm concentrating more on tech than ideas.


That's true, but the Med can get lousy with pirates from Spain/France/Italy/Ottoman enemies so having some light ships to help chase those away can be helpful.

I'm actually completely pirate-free last I checked. No one seems to want to go privateering anywhere near the Constantinople/Alexandria/Aleppo triad in my game. I only keep the 15 light ships around because they're paying for themselves in protecting trade and the only time I faced a threat in terms of naval power was the aforementioned Spanish Armada.


What do people plan to do as their first game post-Mare Nostrum? ... I'm considering trying to do "Third Way" again, with Pate, now that it would be possible to expand into central Africa to get the strength to tackle Ethiopia / Mamluk / Ottoman (Depending on how deep north i've gone) easier

I'm going to have to look around (and hope Common Sense goes on sale). I'm really looking for something outside of my usual European stomping grounds.

[Sian]

I'm going to have to look around (and hope Common Sense goes on sale). I'm really looking for something outside of my usual European stomping grounds.

Might i suggest Ethiopia? ... as soon as you manage to snipe Mamluks (when Ottoman attack them), you're able to ally and marry into Europe, as with Religious as first idea group you have one of the strongest CBs right off the bat, and it works on just about all your potential enemies.

[mythmonster2]

Well, according to the latest dev diary, you can finally go for a true Roman empire (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-31st-march-2016.916870/) after Mare Nostrum.

[SilverLeaf167]

I'm actually completely pirate-free last I checked. No one seems to want to go privateering anywhere near the Constantinople/Alexandria/Aleppo triad in my game. I only keep the 15 light ships around because they're paying for themselves in protecting trade and the only time I faced a threat in terms of naval power was the aforementioned Spanish Armada.

That reminds me: though it makes sense mechanically, it's pretty weird that "Protect Trade" and "Hunt Pirates" are separate options in the first place. If the ships "protecting trade" just ignore all the privateers that are... well, attacking trade, I'm not sure what they're even supposed to be doing. :smallbiggrin:
I can barely even remember how it worked way back in the past. I think pirates spawned randomly when an area was ignored for long enough, and ships protecting trade stopped that from happening by visiting all the tiles regularly? I actually kinda liked the concept, though the execution was annoying.

[rweird]

If you don't have Wealth of Nations, pirates (hostile to everyone, blockade all ports on tile, I don't know what determines size) can spawn in coastal sea tiles with ports which haven't been patrolled in 90 days IIRC. If you have wealth of nations, I think that the privateer option replaces randomly spawned pirates.

[Cristo Meyers]

Might i suggest Ethiopia? ... as soon as you manage to snipe Mamluks (when Ottoman attack them), you're able to ally and marry into Europe, as with Religious as first idea group you have one of the strongest CBs right off the bat, and it works on just about all your potential enemies.

Hm, could be interesting. I'll look into it. Thanks.


That reminds me: though it makes sense mechanically, it's pretty weird that "Protect Trade" and "Hunt Pirates" are separate options in the first place. If the ships "protecting trade" just ignore all the privateers that are... well, attacking trade, I'm not sure what they're even supposed to be doing. :smallbiggrin:

Patting merchants on the head and telling them everything's okay?

I like to think my trade fleets are just a government-sponsored agency that lets noble families get rid of annoying heirs for a while under the guise of 'military service.' Just without the danger of actually getting stabbed by an angry Austrian.

[Flickerdart]

That reminds me: though it makes sense mechanically, it's pretty weird that "Protect Trade" and "Hunt Pirates" are separate options in the first place. If the ships "protecting trade" just ignore all the privateers that are... well, attacking trade, I'm not sure what they're even supposed to be doing. :smallbiggrin:
Presumably the ships escort trade fleets and patrol to spook off pirates. Hunting pirates would involve chasing down pirate ships in force, and not focusing on protecting anybody.

[OrcusMcP]

What do people plan to do as their first game post-Mare Nostrum? ... I'm considering trying to do "Third Way" again, with Pate, now that it would be possible to expand into central Africa to get the strength to tackle Ethiopia / Mamluk / Ottoman (Depending on how deep north i've gone) easier

It'll be a while before I have to chance to get/try Mare Nostrum, but I have a soft spot for Morocco, so that'll probably be my first game once I get MN, since the slave raids sounds pretty neat.

[Leecros]

Well, according to the latest dev diary, you can finally go for a true Roman empire (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-31st-march-2016.916870/) after Mare Nostrum.

Great...and here i thought my days of playing the Byzantine Empire was over when i got the Basileus achievement.

[rweird]

You don't need to be Byzantium for that if I read it correctly. I think it is sort of like Unify Islam for Christians.

[Grif]

You don't need to be Byzantium for that if I read it correctly. I think it is sort of like Unify Islam for Christians.

I'm gonna do it as BYZ anyway. It seems fitting. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

You don't need to be Byzantium for that if I read it correctly. I think it is sort of like Unify Islam for Christians.

Christians and Pagans.

New challenge: Import vikings into EUIV, build a viking Rome.

[rweird]

I know technically pagans too, although I figure the pagan part is only really intended for custom nations (although pagan hordes might have a pretty good shot at it too), although I bet someone will make a Totemist Rome or something eventually. Still, I feel like this means they made add in Hellenic (or something similar) as a religion.

The converter also would have a big use for that.

Still, I note that is says it gives you Roman culture, I wonder if it'd give any bonuses to culture conversion, automatically convert things, or confer any bonuses besides Roman ideas, because if not, everything being the wrong culture (and possibly wrong culture group) would be a hefty penalty.

[Leecros]

You don't need to be Byzantium for that if I read it correctly. I think it is sort of like Unify Islam for Christians.

That's...a bit weird if i have to be honest.

i hope that at least they have the presence of mind to make one of the conditions "BYZ doesn't exit", because otherwise there could technically be situations where there are two Roman Empires...

and then the Byzantophiles will revolt.

+10 Revolt Risk from causing a paradox.

Paradox:smalltongue:

[rweird]

The description of the event implies that Byzantium can exist ("We can scoff at whatever pretenders may claim in Constantinople or the Holy Roman Empire), and it might destroy the HRE or something. In fact, it might mean HRE/Byzantium can't form it.

The "there are two (or three) Roman Empires" was kind of true as long the HRE existed (and before when Rome was divided).

The Russian Empire claimed to be the successor of Byzantium due to some marriage (hence calling themselves Tsars), while the Ottoman sultan was crowned as Emperor after he conquered Constantinople, splitting the Eastern Roman Empire (which in turn split from the Western Roman Empire, later "recreated" as the HRE), so for most of the timeline of EU4, there are three claimants to be the Roman Empire. I don't see a problem with multiple existing at once.

[Cristo Meyers]

So, yeah, for the longest time Poland and Lithuania were in a PU. Then I blink and this happens:

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/270587945656306336/01B0AAEACCA2F20B61699D2C8BA8587246AD7DA1/

...stronk.

The dang thing finally fires. They are now large, have over 200000 troops, and a military alliance with me and a rivalry with both Austria and Russia. :smallamused:

In the grim darkness of the mid-18th century there is only going to be war. They've already called me to arms twice.

I'm not doing too bad for myself, really.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/270587945656306684/8BF7FB7F6A1F13EF8EA51B8F52A9E8B826742FB1/

Not quite the actual historical borders of the Empire in 1750, though if you account for the fact that Serbia is my vassal it's close. I suppose I could've run roughshod over Tunis if I'd really wanted to, but I prefer having that buffer state between me and Portugal.

[AgentPaper]

So, yeah, for the longest time Poland and Lithuania were in a PU. Then I blink and this happens:

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/270587945656306336/01B0AAEACCA2F20B61699D2C8BA8587246AD7DA1/

...stronk.

The dang thing finally fires. They are now large, have over 200000 troops, and a military alliance with me and a rivalry with both Austria and Russia. :smallamused:

In the grim darkness of the mid-18th century there is only going to be war. They've already called me to arms twice.

Assuming you're talking about the decision where Poland chooses to inherit Lithuania, that hasn't fired or else it would be called the Commonwealth, not Poland. Looks like Poland didn't take that decision and instead just straight-up annexted Lithuania by spending diplo power, which the AI does sometimes for whatever reason.

Definitely very scary, though. If you haven't already, go to their diplomatic screen, on the far right tab, and increase their trust as high as you can get to ensure that they don't turn on you.


I'm not doing too bad for myself, really.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/270587945656306684/8BF7FB7F6A1F13EF8EA51B8F52A9E8B826742FB1/

Not quite the actual historical borders of the Empire in 1750, though if you account for the fact that Serbia is my vassal it's close. I suppose I could've run roughshod over Tunis if I'd really wanted to, but I prefer having that buffer state between me and Portugal.

Not bad for a first run. You're pretty close to the end, actually (1821), so I'd suggest just keep going until then. You've still got time for a few wars if you so desire, or just wait it out.

[Cristo Meyers]

Assuming you're talking about the decision where Poland chooses to inherit Lithuania, that hasn't fired or else it would be called the Commonwealth, not Poland. Looks like Poland didn't take that decision and instead just straight-up annexted Lithuania by spending diplo power, which the AI does sometimes for whatever reason.

Definitely very scary, though. If you haven't already, go to their diplomatic screen, on the far right tab, and increase their trust as high as you can get to ensure that they don't turn on you.

Oh, they are my new best friends. I just sent a diplomat and he's pretty much on permanent Improve Relations duty. It's sitting at a comfortable +125 or so with a military alliance.


Not bad for a first run. You're pretty close to the end, actually (1821), so I'd suggest just keep going until then. You've still got time for a few wars if you so desire, or just wait it out.

Yeah, I'm probably going to run out the clock tomorrow before the patch hits. I definitely want to finish annexing Hormuz, but beyond that I don't have any particular goal besides occasionally feeding Serbia provinces. I could easily crush Tunis, but they've been game-long allies and it would just be doing it for the sake of doing it.

[AgentPaper]

Oh, they are my new best friends. I just sent a diplomat and he's pretty much on permanent Improve Relations duty. It's sitting at a comfortable +125 or so with a military alliance.

I don't mean your relations, I mean trust. It's a different number that you can find in the diplomatic screen, on the third tab on the right as I mentioned. It starts at 50 and can be increased by 5 at a time by spending favors (which you gain over time while allied to them). You can also use favors to call them to war, though unless you want to attack Austria I don't think you'll need that right now.


Yeah, I'm probably going to run out the clock tomorrow before the patch hits. I definitely want to finish annexing Hormuz, but beyond that I don't have any particular goal besides occasionally feeding Serbia provinces. I could easily crush Tunis, but they've been game-long allies and it would just be doing it for the sake of doing it.

Persia is another natural route of expansion for the Ottomans. The land is fairly rich, and secures your trade with India. If it was earlier in the game, I'd say it would allow you to expand into India, but it's probably too late for that.

Other than that, you could try to build a small trade empire by taking over some key provinces in India and Indonesia. The western powers have probably expanded there somewhat already, but there should still be some smaller native countries for you to gobble up.

And of course expanding south further into Africa is also good. The provinces aren't rich, but they are easy to conquer. Again, if it was earlier this would be a good move since at the far south (Mutapa) there is a lot of gold, but you'd have to really book it to get there now, assuming England or Portugal or someone hasn't taken it already.

[Cristo Meyers]

I don't mean your relations, I mean trust. It's a different number that you can find in the diplomatic screen, on the third tab on the right as I mentioned. It starts at 50 and can be increased by 5 at a time by spending favors (which you gain over time while allied to them). You can also use favors to call them to war, though unless you want to attack Austria I don't think you'll need that right now.

Oh. I didn't even know there was such a thing. The tooltip says that Poland trusts me somewhat, I had no idea it went deeper than that. Thanks.

[rweird]

I think the more advanced form of trust is a Cossacks DLC paid feature (I don't know if you have it).

Still, answering calls to arms is one of the biggest non-Cossacks ways to gain trust, and rejecting them universally hurts trust. I think it may tick up a bit over time too.

[Cristo Meyers]

I think the more advanced form of trust is a Cossacks DLC paid feature (I don't know if you have it).

Still, answering calls to arms is one of the biggest non-Cossacks ways to gain trust, and rejecting them universally hurts trust. I think it may tick up a bit over time too.

That would probably be why. I don't have Common Sense or Cossacks yet.

[rweird]

I believe you still can find trust by going to the declare war screen, and mousing over the check mark or X for whether the ally would join. One of the things would say something like Trust +[number] (assuming your trust isn't negative). I think it can go up to 100.

[Cristo Meyers]

I believe you still can find trust by going to the declare war screen, and mousing over the check mark or X for whether the ally would join. One of the things would say something like Trust +[number] (assuming your trust isn't negative). I think it can go up to 100.

All I could find was a tooltip that would pop up when I hovered over their opinion of me. Admittedly, it said they trusted me implicitly. And now they're the Commonwealth, so apparently that happened.

The endgame saw me in no less than eight wars: two started by Poland, 5 started by me, and one started by Tunis. It would've been nine, but I told the Commonwealth to take a hike when they started a war against Russia in 1820. Ended the game in complete control of the Arabian Peninsula, Serbia and Circassia as marches, and quite firmly in 1st place with a score of around 17000. All just in time for the newest expansion patch to hit.

[mythmonster2]

Speaking of the new expansion, the full patch notes are out (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/patch-1-16-full-patchnotes.917705/). Is it just me, or does this seem like one of the most underwhelming expansions yet? The patch has the most exciting stuff (at least in my opinion): Corruption, the African map expansion, and states and territories. The expansion itself has... automatic naval missions, an espionage rework, and trade leagues for merchant republics.

[SilverLeaf167]

Speaking of the new expansion, the full patch notes are out (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/patch-1-16-full-patchnotes.917705/). Is it just me, or does this seem like one of the most underwhelming expansions yet? The patch has the most exciting stuff (at least in my opinion): Corruption, the African map expansion, and states and territories. The expansion itself has... automatic naval missions, an espionage rework, and trade leagues for merchant republics.

Yeah, the naval rework was supposed to be the flagship feature (hehe) of this expansion, but said "rework" seems to involve little more than tiny tweaks. It's overshadowed by all this other stuff, but most of that seems kinda petty too. It's closer to Wealth of Nations than any of the actually major DLC.

[Leecros]

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I still feel its worth mentioning again, because Mare Nostrum seems to embody it.

One of the unfortunate results of Paradox's DLC policy is that for the DLC's, you're not only paying for the DLC stuff, but also the free stuff that comes with the patch. They factor it all in together when figuring out the price of the DLC(I believe they went into detail about the policy in a post for one of the newer CKII expansions). They have to, because obviously they have to play their employees and the employees have to devote time to working on all of these free features. The only other option would be to develop only paid DLC features and that would indeed be unfortunate.

This does mean that the people who buy the DLC's compared to those who just play for the free features get a little underscored. At least for EUIV where whole swaths of the map aren't blocked like in CKII DLC's.

This isn't really a criticism of the Paradox business model. It just...is what it is. Personally i feel as if the people who devote money to the DLC's are the real MVP's of the Paradox War Machine. Unfortunately many do not see it that way(as the "Mixed" review rating on Steam tells).

[OrcusMcP]

Yeah, it's a tricky line to walk, but they walk it pretty decently.

I still wonder whether they might look into a subscription model for Vic3 or CK5 sometime down the line.

[Leecros]

I still wonder whether they might look into a subscription model for Vic3 or CK5 sometime down the line.

I certainly hope we see Vicky 3 long before CK5... :smalltongue:

[Corvus]

As I mentioned a bit early, I was having my first attempt at importing a CK2 game to EUIV. I was finally starting to get a hang of editing the save file to fix problems with the conversion (thought it was still taking ages to find that one small fragment I need to change something amongst the thousands of lines ) and then along comes the patch and breaks it on me.

It wasn't just the incompatibility of saves - the conversion is now worse that it was previous, if you can belief it. For hundreds of years my sailors had plied the waters off Africa, Arabia, Persia and India. Now all of a sudden they have forgotten how. Terra Incognito has descended on the oceans and now it is impossible to sail from Arabia to India.

But it gets worse. One of my provinces has also been lost to terra incognito, and not one out on the edge of the Empire. One of the provinces in old Nubia, ruled over by my Empire for six hundred years and surrounded by other parts of the empire, is no longer accessible.

I am hoping that somewhere in the save game file is a option to turn off ti on provinces/sea zones otherwise I am going to have to play with ti turned off when I get around to finishing fixing up the save game.

But the real big one is the new state/territory system. It has done a number on the Empire. On the old build I had a very modest income even before mothballing forts, standing down armies and disbanding heavy ships. Loading up the conversion now shows a massive deficit of -56 gold. Even with the standing down/mothballing/disbanding, it is still negative by a rather larger -15 gold. And that is before hiring any advisers. My army and navy both go way over the force limit now, resulting in huge penalties.

The problem is that I have something like 50 territories under the new system, and they provide far, far less tax and force limits than they used to. It is a bit of a pain, really.

[SilverLeaf167]

When doing my own conversion, I edited the mod files rather than the save. I find it both easier and much more flexible. However, unless you're starting from scratch or something, it's probably better to stick with what you've got.

With province discovery based on regions these days, editing it in the save file seems pretty tricky. Can't say I'm sure how to do it, as the regions are listed as nondescript numbers instead of their actual names. It'd be easy to if we knew which number refers to which region. I think there's a good chance the TI will just disappear after a month or something (you do own the province, after all). I had some weird problems with TI myself, but they're easy to fix in the files and the rest just fixed themselves.

As for the states/regions, I doubt there's really anything you can do. It might be a better choice to roll back to the old patch, given all these problems you're having, unless you really want to use some of the new features. Part of the issue is also that the region you're playing in is way poorer in EU4 than in CK2; you could edit every province individually to add development manually, if you wanted to, but it's a lot of fiddling.

[Eldan]

I've decided to just abandon the idea of conversions and stick to trying my best with custom nations and some console commands, instead. Less work.

As in, for development, I use the console to give myself monarch points, then develop the provinces ingame.

[Artanis]

the conversion is now worse that it was previous, if you can belief it.

I can absolutely believe it. One big problem - possibly the single biggest problem - that converting saves always faced was that there was not a 1:1 equivalence between the provinces in the two games. The first such thing that comes to mind is the many examples of when an entire CK2 duchy is represented as a single EU4 province. IIRC, the converter did something to the provinces to account for that and offset it...but it works worse and worse every time they change the province layout in one game or the other.

In general, I'm going to second Eldan's suggestion of using the console, but also add that, depending on what you're importing, you could use the import instead of a custom nation. You only get so many points to spend on custom nations, so it may not be worthwhile - or possible - to recreate your CK2 realm using it. In cases like that, it might be better just to import and then use the console to do things like give you cores on those weird "shards" (a screenshot of which was posted a while back) and give you cash to offset the sudden lack of income on top of all the add-MP-to-make-development-"correct" stuff.



Aside: I wonder if the Workshop has a working converter. I doubt it (especially with the new patch), but it might be worth a quick look, I guess *shrug*

[OrcusMcP]

While I haven't used it myself, I know other Mega-LPs on Something Awful have used something like this (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/announcing-a-scenario-editor-and-map-viewer.707474/), and it may serve you well.

[Aotrs Commander]

So, having a random browse on Steam...

For the next 22 hours or so, EUIV is currently 75% off and some of the later expansions are 66% off. There is a collection which has the main game and the first three expansions plus a some other DLC at 75% off. (So for £32 I could get the game and the first six expansions (sans Cossacks and Mare Nostrum, whose mixed reviews suggest I would probably better to not plump for at this time.)

I have never played EU of any stripe, though I have played a fair bit of Civ or Civ-equivilent over the years (mostly Civ II and IV, the latter of which I think it still the best (though I never have gotten the second expansion for V) and also notably Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes); less recently, though. I have heard people talk about it a lot, though, and EUIV certainly has a very positive set of reviews.

So, ladies and gentleman, sell me the game. How does this differ from the Civ-type paradigm? You may assume that I know basically nothing apart from what is on its wikipedia page, 'cos that's essentially true. (Worth mentioning in passing
that my preferred strategy in $X/Civ type-games is to charge up the tech tree and then stomp on people (usually on the mid-low difficulties...) - but heck, at this point, I don't even know if EUIV even has a tech tree...0

Further, then, if I were to choose now to jump on the bandwagon1, what would be the recommendations? Would it be worth getting the colelction plus latter three DLCs? (Or does it go on sale often enough I might as well wait or something? Since between AoE 2/AoE3 and Homeworld Remastered and Pillars of Eternity White March 2 I've got a positive backlog of games at the moment.)



1I assume the major sale is because of the new DLC.

[SilverLeaf167]

Well, assuming you already know it's "pausable real-time" and other basics like that, I'd say one of the biggest things is the asymmetrical start. In Civ and most other strategy games, everyone starts with the same general assets (like a single settler and a warrior), maybe with some handicaps based on difficulty. In EU4, every country is in its unique situation: in addition to plenty of differences between "national ideas" (basically extensive and interesting sets of country-specific bonuses), some countries have a better start than others. France for instance is much larger and stronger than most of its neighbors, as it was historically. A tiny tribe in America on the other hand is going to have a pretty rough time.

Closely related is the predetermined map. While it obviously doesn't offer the same kind of variation as random maps in games like Civ, all the countries being in the same places allows you to develop actual strategies (beyond stuff like build order), learn how the world works over multiple playthroughs, notice different patterns and even get attached to things. Every country is very different with its own challenges and possibilities, and despite the map staying the same the game can still be very different every time. So there's still plenty of variation, but it's a... different sort. You can randomize the Americas if you have the DLC, but YMMV on the results.

Civ already has more diplomacy than most strategy games, but EU4 has even more. Apart from alliances and such, there's everything from (six kinds of) puppet states to (diverse though underused) espionage to the complicated web of the Holy Roman Empire. You also need excuses for wars, fabricated or not, and you can't just keep whatever you occupy: the peace deal system is pretty involved. There is a very simple tech tree (with three linear paths), but you can't get that far ahead, so while the tree is important and definitely makes a difference in a close fight, it'll only allow you to stomp vastly inferior "primitive" countries and such. Snowballing is definitely a thing, but it's based on general strength and not tech, and my impression is that it was made quite a bit more difficult recently.

I'd say almost all of the big DLCs are worth it, but that's obviously pretty impractical when you obviously just want to try it out first. All the cheapest stuff you can safely ignore, but the most important are some of the expensive ones: I'd say Common Sense, The Cossacks and the Art of War, in order of "changes made to the game". You can definitely get into the game without buying any of them, though.

Civ seems to be a very common gateway drug for Paradox players, and it was mine as well. Seems to work alright. I think there are enough similarities that you can get into EU4 much easier than, say, a Starcraft player could. :smalltongue: There are AARs (basically text-form let's-plays) in my signature that can give you a basic impression, but don't really go that deep into the mechanics.

[Artanis]

So, having a random browse on Steam...

For the next 22 hours or so, EUIV is currently 75% off and some of the later expansions are 66% off. There is a collection which has the main game and the first three expansions plus a some other DLC at 75% off. (So for £32 I could get the game and the first six expansions (sans Cossacks and Mare Nostrum, whose mixed reviews suggest I would probably better to not plump for at this time.)

I have never played EU of any stripe, though I have played a fair bit of Civ or Civ-equivilent over the years (mostly Civ II and IV, the latter of which I think it still the best (though I never have gotten the second expansion for V) and also notably Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes); less recently, though. I have heard people talk about it a lot, though, and EUIV certainly has a very positive set of reviews.

So, ladies and gentleman, sell me the game. How does this differ from the Civ-type paradigm? You may assume that I know basically nothing apart from what is on its wikipedia page, 'cos that's essentially true. (Worth mentioning in passing
that my preferred strategy in $X/Civ type-games is to charge up the tech tree and then stomp on people (usually on the mid-low difficulties...) - but heck, at this point, I don't even know if EUIV even has a tech tree...0

Further, then, if I were to choose now to jump on the bandwagon1, what would be the recommendations? Would it be worth getting the colelction plus latter three DLCs? (Or does it go on sale often enough I might as well wait or something? Since between AoE 2/AoE3 and Homeworld Remastered and Pillars of Eternity White March 2 I've got a positive backlog of games at the moment.)



1I assume the major sale is because of the new DLC.
Are you familiar with the various Total War games, which are significantly more historically accurate than the Civ series? Paradox's games compare to Total War in about the same way that Total War compares to Civ. Tired of playing as England, France, China, or the Iroquois that are all basically the same with one or two units to differentiate them? Well, in EU, you can do anything from beat the daylights out of Europe as France (a.k.a. The Big Blue Blob) to see how many months you can avoid being massacred as f***ing Ryukyu :smalltongue:


As for some specifics:

First, obligatory wiki link: http://www.eu4wiki.com/Europa_Universalis_4_Wiki

Europa Universalis doesn't really have a tech tree. The technology system is just "spend points in these three categories to upgrade your stuff". There is some more customization in the Ideas system, where you choose a set of things to focus on (e.g. you can choose to focus on Quantity, giving you more troops; or you can choose to focus on Trade, giving you better trade income, and so on). However, charging up the tech tree is VERY much a thing in EU, since various areas are just plain better at teching up. Western nations (like France, Spain, England, etc.) gain increasingly large advantages over the rest of the world as time goes on and they get a larger and larger tech lead.

The collection...eh, might as well. I haven't played the latest few expansions, so I'll let others with more applicable experience comment on them.


Edit: addendum

This EU3 LP (http://lparchive.org/Europa-Universalis-III-Divine-Wind/) might be useful. It's the previous game in the series, and a LOT of the gameplay mechanics are significantly different, but it can give you an idea of the EU series's "feel" (for lack of a better term). Also, the official Paradox forums have a section for AARs (a.k.a. LPs) that might be fun and/or informative to read.

[OrcusMcP]

So, here are my big sells on EU4, since you're looking.

CiV was a big gateway drug/game for me to get into Paradox games as well, and there's a good reason for that. Civ sells you on the grand sweeping epic of history. Guiding a nation to glory or obscurity, specifically in a fantasy world where everyone starts with an roughly equal playing field.

Europa Universalis has a similar feel, but a different way of going about it. EU has that same grand, sweeping feel, but in a much more focused and strategic setting. Rather than carefully planned tactical maneuvering with your units, the general composition, leadership, and movement of your armies are more important. Rather than blank slate of a world you paint with your civilization, you are dealing with the rough geo-political situation of the age of exploration. Rather than seamlessly upgrading your civilization through the ages of the world, in EU the world pushes back through revolts, reformations, revolution and more. It's a change, but if the Civ experience is starting to get a little stale, it's a welcome one.

It's definitely worth checking out, especially if it's on sale. I'm not sure which DLCs are must-buys the same way I am about CK2, but check it out.

Edit:

I'd say Common Sense, The Cossacks and the Art of War, in order of "changes made to the game". You can definitely get into the game without buying any of them, though.I'll mostly agree with Silverleaf here. I'd say try it Vanilla first, though.

[AgentPaper]

So, having a random browse on Steam...

For the next 22 hours or so, EUIV is currently 75% off and some of the later expansions are 66% off. There is a collection which has the main game and the first three expansions plus a some other DLC at 75% off. (So for £32 I could get the game and the first six expansions (sans Cossacks and Mare Nostrum, whose mixed reviews suggest I would probably better to not plump for at this time.)

The mixed reviews on Cossacks and Mare Nostrum aren't because they're poor quality, they're because the expansions don't add a ton of new content, and so many don't think they're worth the price. Of course, the reason they don't add a ton of content is because most of what they did add with those releases was added in the free patch which everyone can play, so the complaints about it are a bit...entitled, to say the least.

That said, as a new player coming in you should feel no compulsion to buy them, at least not to start. I buy every single DLC as soon as it comes out, but that's because even though I've spent $140 on the game, that's still only $1 per 10 hours of entertainment. Looking at it that way, the game's a steal.


Further, then, if I were to choose now to jump on the bandwagon1, what would be the recommendations? Would it be worth getting the colelction plus latter three DLCs? (Or does it go on sale often enough I might as well wait or something? Since between AoE 2/AoE3 and Homeworld Remastered and Pillars of Eternity White March 2 I've got a positive backlog of games at the moment.)

Usually I'd suggest just getting the base game and going from there, but with the huge discount you may as well go for the full bundle, since it has most of the major content patches in it.


I have never played EU of any stripe, though I have played a fair bit of Civ or Civ-equivilent over the years (mostly Civ II and IV, the latter of which I think it still the best (though I never have gotten the second expansion for V) and also notably Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes); less recently, though. I have heard people talk about it a lot, though, and EUIV certainly has a very positive set of reviews.

So, ladies and gentleman, sell me the game. How does this differ from the Civ-type paradigm? You may assume that I know basically nothing apart from what is on its wikipedia page, 'cos that's essentially true. (Worth mentioning in passing
that my preferred strategy in $X/Civ type-games is to charge up the tech tree and then stomp on people (usually on the mid-low difficulties...) - but heck, at this point, I don't even know if EUIV even has a tech tree...0

The main way that this differs from CIV is that diplomacy and foreign politics plays a much larger role. In Civ, most of the game is focused on internal factors: building buildings, training armies, picking techs, moving workers around, etc. You usually win the game by playing the civ-building game better than anyone else, rather than through clever tactics or strategic thinking. Alliances don't really mean much, and when you fight a war, you either win or you lose and then one of you is gone forever.

In EU4, the empire management game is purposefully fairly simplistic. You can build buildings, research tech, and train armies, but there's not a lot of depth to that game. There is no tech tree, only tech levels (in 3 categories) which you build up separately using different pools of points that build up over time without much interference from you. Buildings simply cost money, and are very long-term investments. You should build them when you have the spare cash, but you could just as easily ignore them and do alright; conquering more land is the real way to gain in power. There are only 3 types of military units (infantry, cavalry, and artillery which unlocks later on), which have a few fairly simple rules of thumb as to how many you want of each, and a "force limit", which basically says how big of an army you can support, and which you'll be at or hovering close to throughout the game. In general, a country of a certain size will have a fairly predictable strength militarily and economically.

What really sets EU4 apart is the diplomatic game. Alliances are a big deal, and outside of the Ottomans or Ming, basically no country can really get away with not having any. You're limited to 4, and keeping them happy and interested in staying allied with you is a big part of what makes the game tick. You have to be very careful who you choose to ally as well, since they may want the same stuff you do, or be so much more powerful that they really don't feel obliged to help you in offensive wars very often, or they might call you into a bunch of unwinnable wars that deplete both of your nation's strength and cause you to lose territory.

Another big difference with EU4 is that most wars are not winner-takes all. If you're fighting a small country (or are playing as a small country), like say Brittany or Tuscany or whatever, then you might annex them (or be annexed) in a single war. For most countries, though, you will only be able to take a few provinces (cities, in Civ terms) in a single war, even if you were able to occupy most or all of their land. Then you have a truce of 5-20 years or so before you can declare war again to take more land, which generally leads to a much more drawn-out game. It also means that you can't just win one war and be done with it. A lot can happen in 20 years, and while you may have had the advantage before, there's a lot that your opponent can do to turn the tables, even after losing territory. Of course, the same goes for you, and while you may lose wars here and there, as long as you keep your head straight you can absolutely turn things around and come out on top in the end, by making smart alliances, building up your own strength (mostly by not getting involved in other wars), and waiting for a chance to strike, such as when your rival is already at war, or weak from a previous war.

To me, I love EU4 because it feels like I'm playing a multiplayer game with other countries, even though they're AI, whereas in Civ I mostly feel like I'm playing solitaire, even when I'm playing multiplayer. In game design terms, Civilization is a competition, where everyone is competing to build the biggest, baddest empire, and whoever does that best wins. Whereas in Europa Universalis, it's truly a game where you and your opponents are butting heads throughout the game, rather than just for a little while at the end after everyone has finished building up.

[Eldan]

Don't forget that wars can be very costly. Manpower is a precious resource. It's basically what you need to "heal" your units. A unit is 1000 men and as long as you have manpower, those 1000 men (basically hit points) are restored at the end of the month to some degree. When you're out... things start to suck.
Then there's war exhaustion. The longer the war goes, the more men die, the more provinces are sacked, the more your economy begins to suffer and your internal unrest goes up. Suddenly, you get peasant rebellions, and nationalists for some tiny country you thought you conquered 30 years ago and religious sects.

And then you manage to win a war, with 250 manpower left, six loans to pay off, your harvest burned down and four rebellions, and before you can start integrating your precious new territory, a former ally declares that they'd rather have that tasty stretch of land you can't defend now.


It gets better in multiplayer. We had prety regular five-player rounds for a while and every so often, we'd pause the game for twenty minutes in the middle of a semi-world war and debate peace terms on Skype. Because peace terms can actually get pretty involved. "You withdraw your strategic influence from the baltic coast, I'll release Silesia as a buffer state, you mothball that fortress in Danzig and I give up my protectorate over Mali in exchange for 200 gold."

Meanwhile, we killed 200'000 Russians in one battle to make a minor point about redrawing the borders.

[Aotrs Commander]

Hmm. Almost completely different sort of thing to what I was expecting... So, after taking what you all said on board, and some consideration...

The wikia gives me the impression its something that's not really "like" much else, so *shrug* worth a crack. The wikia said a play through is in excess of 12 hours at fastest speed (and that ain't likely with me...), so by the time I've had a couple of games, even if I don't touch it again, it'll have sunk about as much time as Grey Goo did...

(I am a bit... erratic on games sometimes - something like AoE 2 I can spend apparently 100 hours on (even if I find it only modestly good) as I do all the campaigns, but sandbox-y stuff - even building stuff - often doesn't to the same extent.

I've just it the Forgotten campaigns in AoE 2 and that 100-hour plus mark, and it's just getting slightly wearying, so a break might help anyway (since I'm determined to move onto AoE 3 only when I've done AoE 2 and not to start HMR until the new patch comes out.)

So. If I grab the collection pack, Age of War, Common Sense, El Dorado (the latter two with the content packs), that comes to just under £35 (which is about what I consider acceptable for a full new game (sort of money I pledge to kickstarters etc).)

I'll leave Cossacks and the new one for the moment (since they're another tenner a go (Cossacks is only reduced 20%) £40-50 is perhaps a bit steep if I don't play more than a game or two in the event. (Which is pretty much what happened with Civ 5 and Beyond Eath). Can always get 'em later if I find I like it that much. (Unless you want to tell me the paid bit of Cossacks brings stuff to the table that is utterly impossible to play without once you've played with it on, because it's so damn good or something.)

[tonberrian]

Also, if you play online with someone, you get the benefits of the the host's dlc. So if they have Cossacks, you get to play with estates and stuff.

[Guancyto]

Cossacks gets you the Estate system (internal factions that vie for influence and provide rewards if loyalty is cultivated) which some people like and some people hate and nobody at all seems to consider essential, so passing on that seems like a reasonable idea. It also gets you a more detailed system of government if you're playing as a Horde (mostly that's going to be the Mongol Empire's various successor states) but again, in no way essential.

Honestly very few of the expansions are that important in general. Some are good if you plan to play a specific nation. It goes:

Conquest of Paradise: Quality-of-life improvements for colonizing powers (England, Spain, France, etc.), pretty good overhaul for North American natives
Wealth of Nations: Mostly obsolete, since most of the expansion mechanics have been included in later expansions as well (piracy, for instance). A little more detail for Merchant Republics, Trade Companies are still good for a mercantile power, canals are an interesting late-game project.
Res Publica: Interesting if you intend to play the Dutch, otherwise completely skippable.
Art of War: QoL improvements for diplomacy and war. The first generally worthwhile expansion; you'll probably be doing a lot of war! Thirty Years' War is an interesting event if you hang out in Europe.
El Dorado: Nation Designer is neat for making your own custom nations and plonking them down into Europa Universalis. New mechanics for Mesoamericans. If neither appeals to you, skip it.
Common Sense: Second generally worthwhile expansion. Province development is honestly pretty overrated (it being a paid feature sounds a lot worse than it is), but an option nonetheless. England (and later, constitutional governments) get to mess about with a Parliament. Subject interactions are good for messing about with your vassals.
Cossacks: As above. Oh! Somewhat expanded diplomacy; you get to tell the AI how much you hate them, and other nations that hate them will take that under advisement.
Mare Nostrum: I'm sort of at a loss what this expansion even does? I mean, I guess Trade Leagues would be interesting if there were trade nations that didn't all hate each other? Hiring your dudes out as mercenaries sounds vaguely interesting. Naval Missions is a long-overdue naval QoL improvement.
Sabaton Soundtrack: Best expansion that isn't even an expansion.


Meanwhile, we killed 200'000 Russians in one battle to make a minor point about redrawing the borders.
To be fair, that's about how it works in single-player, too...

...damn are those Russians numerous.

Having come from Crusader Kings 2, where you always needed a casus belli ('cause for aggression') for war and peace negotiations were trinary (win, draw, loss) and only ever for one thing (usually territory), I really started on EU4 when I played England and found out that you could declare war on an Irish minor nation because it's Tuesday, slaughter their armies and for a peace treaty tell them that all they have to do is tell the world how badly you beat them.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

For me the greatest draw is the historical accuracy. In Civ you play as a blue blob with musketeers that's says France in a fantasy world. In EU4 you play as France, smack dab in the middle of the Hundred Years War, with disparate rebellious Duke's, most notably the powerful Burgundy. And then your King dies and his heir is a drooling imbecile so you suddenly have a pretender seize the throne.

But it also has the benefit of playing as people you've never heard of. Like the now infamous Ulm. It also is a little less Euro centric than many other games: non Europeans don't play as smoothly, but in what other games is the conflict between the Bahmani Sultanate and the kingdom Of Vijayanagra present?

[Guancyto]

But it also has the benefit of playing as people you've never heard of. Like the now infamous Ulm. It also is a little less Euro centric than many other games: non Europeans don't play as smoothly, but in what other games is the conflict between the Bahmani Sultanate and the kingdom Of Vijayanagra present?
Funny story: before EU4 I had never even vaguely heard of the Palatinate.

Turns out I'm from the Palatinate (among other places; 'murica!). Hooray for Central German emigrants!

(There was also the "wait, Hessian mercenaries were... from Hesse? Well that makes entirely too much sense.")

[Grif]

Funny story: before EU4 I had never even vaguely heard of the Palatinate.

Turns out I'm from the Palatinate (among other places; 'murica!). Hooray for Central German emigrants!

(There was also the "wait, Hessian mercenaries were... from Hesse? Well that makes entirely too much sense.")

I'd say EU (as a series) improved my grasp of medieval and Renaissance history immensely. :smallwink:

[tonberrian]

EU4 and CK2 were the most successful things ever to teach me about geography.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

And historical flags! Though Vicky can get some ahistorical ones in there, but I am pretty good at recognizing coat of arms nkw

[Leecros]

I'll be honest, for me the best thing about the latest patch and expansion is the timeline feature. It is something that i so terribly wished for for so long.

It's not perfect, I would like to see it show when provinces are occupied and be able to delve deeper into the snapshots of history, but it is still a more useful tool than anything that's been in the game in the past(or third party programs). Especially for people who want to to an AAR or Let's Play.

[Aotrs Commander]

Attempted first game.

Summation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20645470&postcount=744) as done on ponythread, if anyone's interested...

The TLDR was started as Portugal (y'know, one of the three recommended beginner powers), spent four hours of wasted time under the delusion that I should have been doing something (especially considering the starting alliance with England you're given), when in fact I should have ditched the alliance with England immediately and twiddled my thumbs for several years while I waited to tech up.

Typical Paradox. Actually expecting to be able to play without first having to get what I should be doing (and sometimes how in the interface to do basic thing in some games) explained by more experienced players/reading the strategy guides? Foolishness.

They put out some good games, but the common thread between them is no-one among them or their developers seems to have the most basic clue as to how to explain/tutorialise anything with any degree of proficiency.

(I mean, even the sodding HELP system gets it wrong. You click the button that's suppoed to be the query button which "makes the entire interface clickable." It bloody doesn't, lads. The bits that you can actually click on that it brings up are vanishingly few in number.)

(Game is as kvetchy as Civ IV. It's my favourite of the series, but by frag but sometimes it can be a real frustrating thing to play when the RNg decides "nope, I'mma screw you now.")



Will attempt second game in the morning. On easy.

[Guancyto]

Ah, the pitfalls of the Portuguese. Reminds me of Crusader Kings 2 where people don't say "play the tutorial" (because the tutorial is naff) but "play Ireland."

My suggestion would be to try the Ottomans instead of swinging at Portugal again - you're big and rich enough that whatever setbacks you do encounter won't be punishing, you don't have to worry about European politics at all, and you're surrounded by a succession of progressively-stronger enemies that you can overcome.

Edit: Also, nobody's going to draw you into a huge war with France and Aragon who will proceed to crush you until you give up on continental affairs.

[SilverLeaf167]

As an added bonus, this thread has lots of discussion about how to learn the game as the Ottomans, so you can just read through it.

[AgentPaper]

One piece of advice for newer players, since it seems we have a few here at the moment: Use the ledger. Specifically, use the Military tab to keep tabs on everyone's military strength, both their overall army strength (number of troops) and their manpower reserves. You can also use the Naval tab to check up on navies.

Before you start any war, you should check the military tab and see how big their army is, and also how big of armies any of their allies have. Add them up, and compare them to how large your army is (plus any subjects/allies joining the war), and you can get a good idea of how difficult the war is going to be. Of course, other factors come into play, such as whether you're ahead or behind in tech, how far apart your enemies are (which could let you take them out one at a time), etc., but just looking at raw troop numbers is a good start. If you compare numbers and see that you have twice as many troops as them, then you'll probably have an easy war, and if you have half, then it's going to be a hard fight. And if it comes out about even, then that's when you need to think hard about who you're fighting, what their tech is, what kind of terrain you'll be fighting in, and all those other modifiers that might tip the balance one way or the other.

[Grif]

Ah, the pitfalls of the Portuguese. Reminds me of Crusader Kings 2 where people don't say "play the tutorial" (because the tutorial is naff) but "play Ireland."

My suggestion would be to try the Ottomans instead of swinging at Portugal again - you're big and rich enough that whatever setbacks you do encounter won't be punishing, you don't have to worry about European politics at all, and you're surrounded by a succession of progressively-stronger enemies that you can overcome.

Edit: Also, nobody's going to draw you into a huge war with France and Aragon who will proceed to crush you until you give up on continental affairs.

In my Portugal games, I found Castile seems to ally the BBB or at least leave France alone most of the time, and thus I was perennially never involved in continental affairs until I settled like all of SA and half of NA and the Spice Islands.

[Aotrs Commander]

Okay, having read more thoroughly through the wiki...

Colonial nations? As a lawful, control-freak-sort of person, I REALLY don't like the idea of not being able to conquer the world proper-like. The idea of losing control of my colonial assets just grates on my world-view. So. Questions related to same. Would it be better to only grab four provinces in each region, if I wanrt to maintain control (especially if I have to keep troops around somewhere) - or in at least some central region, in case things go south? Do Trade companies provinces count towards the five-province limit? What happens if a colonial nation establishes and I colonise a province in the same area? Am I just feeding the coonial nation until the point it's just going to break free and stomp me into the ground...? (See: history.)

As EUIV sort of seems to suggest that its the sort of game where you pick your own goals (since there are no victory conditions other than "not be dead by 1821", it so far appears to be very good at styming all the ones I've come up with (lead Aztec et al invasion of Europe, colonise the entirity or a huge amount of the New World and establish a massive overseas Empire... Help the English wipe out France...)

Given the apparently increasing stringency of conquest (looking at the new territory and states stuff), is it really possible to conquer the world at all...?



As I can see at the moment, Portugal is good for making lots of money - I'm just not entirely sure what I should be DOING with that once I have it eventually established. Until learning about Colonial nations, I assumed I would expand into America and then slowly take it over Civ-style, with the extra power base providing more stuff to be able to start marching through Europe and whatnot eventually. But the game doesn't seem to work that way.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

You still get lots of power but you're constrained by historical plausibility. You won't be able to raise large armies if colonial because that isn't plausible until very late game. You can use the massive amount of gold you get to hire massive amounts of mercenaries though. And colonial Nations breaking away isn't a certainty, merely a late game challenge that you should be able to fairly easily crush.

[OrcusMcP]

Okay, having read more thoroughly through the wiki...

Colonial nations? As a lawful, control-freak-sort of person, I REALLY don't like the idea of not being able to conquer the world proper-like. The idea of losing control of my colonial assets just grates on my world-view. So. Questions related to same. Would it be better to only grab four provinces in each region, if I wanrt to maintain control (especially if I have to keep troops around somewhere) - or in at least some central region, in case things go south?
Yes, that's right. If you want to not have colonial nations form, you can't have more than 4 provinces in a particular colonial region. There are some areas where you can straddle the borders of a few colonial regions and get a decent sized territory you directly control.

Do Trade companies provinces count towards the five-province limit?
Trade company regions and colonial regions are separate. Colonial regions are the Americas and Australia/New Zealand. Trade company regions are the African coast, India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, China and Japan.

What happens if a colonial nation establishes and I colonise a province in the same area? Am I just feeding the coonial nation until the point it's just going to break free and stomp me into the ground...? (See: history.)
Yes, that's how they work. Though really, as long as you're not squeezing them dry or getting thoroughly stomped on at home, colonial nations are pretty easy to keep in line.

One of the things you'll have to shed coming from Civ is the idea that everything you own is best administered by you. In Civ you have full control over each and every one of your cities. In history, that doesn't really happen, and EU tries to model the difficulty of administrating far flung regions in different ways. With the Colonial nations, trade companies, client states, autonomy, etc, they're trying to teach players that sometimes you just have to let go.


As EUIV sort of seems to suggest that its the sort of game where you pick your own goals (since there are no victory conditions other than "not be dead by 1821", it so far appears to be very good at styming all the ones I've come up with (lead Aztec et al invasion of Europe, colonise the entirity or a huge amount of the New World and establish a massive overseas Empire... Help the English wipe out France...)
Those are all totally viable goals to aim for, but some are more tricky than others. Get used to how the game plays, learn what is and isn't worth working for.


Given the apparently increasing stringency of conquest (looking at the new territory and states stuff), is it really possible to conquer the world at all...?
Yup. Lots of people have done it, but it takes a lot of very careful power gaming. As I mentioned, if you really want to conquer the whole world, you need to do it with a light hand.


As I can see at the moment, Portugal is good for making lots of money - I'm just not entirely sure what I should be DOING with that once I have it eventually established. Until learning about Colonial nations, I assumed I would expand into America and then slowly take it over Civ-style, with the extra power base providing more stuff to be able to start marching through Europe and whatnot eventually. But the game doesn't seem to work that way.
You absolutely can do that. The money Portugal gets from colonial nations and trade companies make up for Portuguese lands in Europe being fairly poor. colonial and trade money lets you buy up a bunch of mercs to protect your manpower, and your fleet will likely be on par with England and the Dutch if not better.

[rweird]

Trade companies and colonial regions, in the base game are mutually exclusive. Ultimately, it isn't, in my experience, very much work to keep your colonial nations happy and not wanting independence (in any case, they need to win a war to break free). Every colonial nation has a liberty desire value. Relative military power increases it when high. Opinion decreases it. Administrative efficiency of overlord increases it as well (gained at high Admin tech). Most significantly, raising tariffs (which costs Admin points), increases liberty desire, while decreasing them (which also costs admin points) decreases it. Events and stuff that change tariffs don't change liberty desire from the tariff increase, which makes them the recommended method.

AI colonial nations often can break free, but in my experience, that is more commonly due to the failures of the naval AI. I've never had trouble keeping my colonial nations in line (although I've never really tariffed them significantly).

Once a colonial nation forms (if the overlord owns 5 core provinces in the region), all further provinces the overlord acquires in that colonial region (once colonized), will be ceded to the colonial nation.

Because States cost more the further away from the capital they are, making overseas territories states probably would be pretty costly, so colonial nations could be cheaper (although they wouldn't provide land force limit or manpower for the overlord in non-colonial wars, they'd probably give more money).

Ahistoric goals are possible, although to some extent, EU4 naturally follows the course of history (not perfectly, although you won't see anyone invading Europe besides possibly hordes and the Ottomans), although a player can change that, those things aren't easy (and may require multiple tries, or more experience before you attempt it).

[Aotrs Commander]

Noted and noted... I am now starting, aiming towards the strategy suggested in the Portuguese wikia page (on Easy). Might as well treat this as a glorified tutorial anyway, since the actual tutorial was A Bit Pants...

We'll see how this goes...

[Leecros]

Might as well treat this as a glorified tutorial anyway, since the actual tutorial was A Bit Pants...


The actual tutorial probably hasn't been updated since the game's release.

Just saying.

[Mabn]

Noted and noted... I am now starting, aiming towards the strategy suggested in the Portuguese wikia page (on Easy). Might as well treat this as a glorified tutorial anyway, since the actual tutorial was A Bit Pants...

We'll see how this goes...
I have played hundreds of hours of EUIV and CKII and I still do not understand their tutorials

[Artanis]

Paradox games have tutorials? :smallconfused:





:smalltongue:

[Leecros]

The best way I can think of to do a tutorial for a Paradox game would be to set up an entirely scripted game. Every war declaration by the AI and victories and defeats between them, every war declaration from you and how you spend your money and development. All of that would have to be directed. With the tutorial walking you through it in its entirety, because It's incredibly difficult to set up a tutorial that would actually cover everything throughout the entirety of the game otherwise. Especially because of how fluid the game can become depending on where you are and what you're doing and what's happening with the other nations.

Of course, the problem with that is that the "Tutorial game" would have to be entirely on rails and wouldn't be a true experience of the game.

[Artanis]

The best way I can think of to do a tutorial for a Paradox game would be to set up an entirely scripted game. Every war declaration by the AI and victories and defeats between them, every war declaration from you and how you spend your money and development. All of that would have to be directed. With the tutorial walking you through it in its entirety, because It's incredibly difficult to set up a tutorial that would actually cover everything throughout the entirety of the game otherwise. Especially because of how fluid the game can become depending on where you are and what you're doing and what's happening with the other nations.

Of course, the problem with that is that the "Tutorial game" would have to be entirely on rails and wouldn't be a true experience of the game.

I don't think that not being a true experience of the game would be terribly relevant when all is said and done. Paradox games are so stupidly deep that a tutorial can't get anywhere near teaching everything, and as such would probably be best contained to the absolute basics: what the buttons do, what the numbers mean, how to control your units, etc. Once you get through that, it'd just say, "grats on learning what some of the icons are, go try a real game now."

[SilverLeaf167]

Apart from playing yourself, watching streams/videos of experienced players is a pretty good way to learn a lot of useful stuff. I watched a bunch of each before starting and picked up CK2/EU4/Vic2 pretty easily after gleaning the basics from there.

Some of the major YouTubers are Quill (https://www.youtube.com/user/quill18), Shenryyr (https://www.youtube.com/user/shenryyr2) and Arumba (https://www.youtube.com/user/arumba07). They all play a variety of Paradox games and have direct contact with the company. Personally I find that after playing enough myself most of them have started to seem either too try-hard or too incompetent to be that entertaining, which happens with a lot of games I suppose. :smalltongue: Especially since Paradox playthroughs tend to last really long, so it's hard to watch a whole series and I usually just glimpse at every few videos or something to see where it's going.

Can't really say which one's the best to watch. Arumba in particular is (in)famous for doing a lot of math, including some streams consisting of literally nothing but spreadsheets, but that doesn't stop him from missing really obvious things when actually playing. The multiplayer series are more interesting because they force everyone to keep moving and have multiple people with good chemistry. Quill actually did something of a tutorial series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaLP7m_g5Q4) recently, though I haven't really watched it, but I can imagine it being helpful.

Apparently this turned into something of a ramble about Paradox streamers. Huh. :smallamused: Either way, maybe take a look. The wiki you already found is by far the best out of any Paradox games' (and remarkably up to date) so it's definitely worth using too.

[Guancyto]

Just as a note, conquering the world is a default objective in Civ, but in EU4 it's a tremendously tedious undertaking on account of... well, there's no such thing as a Duel Map in EU4, you really have to take the whole WORLD. Unless you're an honest-to-god pro you need to "win" the game almost right at the start (one of the most enduring openings is "start as England, take over France in the Hundred Years' War, conquer Spain and Portugal and subjugate enough German Prince-Electors to become Holy Roman Emperor" where any meaningful opposition is the first thing you crush) and spend the rest of the game cleaning up.