Religion is fricked.
Protestant just needs to be protestant with the meme versions working like syncretism does as a secondary feature.
New world natives need to be fixed. Aboriginals and Polynesians need to frick off.
Revolution is bugged. If the first target dies (usually to its own rebels), one of the modifiers/choices/whatever is permanently locked out, but if the centre is killed, it doesn't stop another nation from becoming the target and applying a fricking awful region wide modifier even when the AI decides to be a pacifist.
Also GB's rev flag is feminist wank from the 20th century and should never have been put in.
>warscore system prevented Denmark annexing its rightful territory
remember when the ottomans gradually conquered egypt in 5 successive wars with 15 years between each one? good times
Remember when England puppeted Scotland and then formed GB?
Reddit posts.
The Ottomans conquered the Mamluk sultanate in 3 years. In this moronic game you would be lucky to get 5 provinces in one go before an 80 year truce. There should be an event for the mamluks to collapse and get annexed by the Ottomans if the war is already lost
In a hypothetical EU5 I'd like to make extremely autonomous land very easy to annex, so the HEIC can grab huge swathes of the Mughals or the Ottomans can waltz in and take over the Mamluks in a single war. Same thing with frontier provinces of China, etc.
The internal stability of a state should also play a role, so the divided and weak PLC can have the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians very easily chop off bits of it while a unified and centralized France has to be beaten up much more to actually lose land.
I like this take having a province modifier based on the time from which you got said province how far it is from your capital and how integrated in the country it is to regulate its price in a peace deal is a good idea
Also you could also not put a limit to how much land you can take in a peace deal and just have agressive expansion evolve exponentially along the number of province you take depending on sais modifier
When EUIV released the Ottomans could annex the Mamluks through a mission. The CB was broken long ago and never fixed. It allowed for full annexation but was only used in a few circumstances
If they would care about history and realism they would made managing large empires much more difficult
In that case you could blob as much as you want but then your country would disintegrate afterwards
>If they would care about history and realism they would made managing large empires much more difficult
Game design is very difficult, anon.
You usually want every nation to behave very similiarly, internally.
They have huge amount of money and computing power to solve it, they simply don't care. Why waste effort on improving game mechanics when people still buy they crap? Look at CK3, almost two years after launch we had a couple of cosmetic DLCs, without fixes to core mechanics
>You usually want every nation to behave very similiarly, internally.
You want to have universal mechanics, but the actual outcome of these should depend on the exact situation. Every nation in the same situation should behave very similarly but nations in different situation should behave differently. Managing a tiny city state is very different from huge land empire, managing huge land empire is very different from huge sea empire (Portugal, Dutch)
Few years back, PDX released some graphs that show that 90% of the processing power is used on AI pathfinding.
IMO the problem would be alleviated if the AI no avoid distant expeditions, or at least scale them down. Like in 1444, France will often send all their troops to fricking Lithuanit to fight Moscovy.
If I had any faith in nu-paradox I would ask for a logistics system for EU5 because its pretty moronic how the Spanish can roll up ro Mexico with like 40k conquistadors in 1510 when youre playing the Aztecs
This, a slower and more realistic colonization system, and a real progression from feudal principalities to centralized states would fix 75% of the issues with EU.
EU4 game mechanics aren't ideal for anything pre 1400 or past 1800, its like playing HOI4 with a modern day mod.
2 years ago
Anonymous
EU4 game mechanics aren't ideal for its own time period either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They are at least acceptable, simplistic but acceptable, HOI4 mechanics literally aren't acceptable since the economy and trade system it has are as deep as a puddle, for a game set in 1940 its unacceptable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They are at least acceptable, simplistic but acceptable
Not at all. >Spanish colonization of the Americas >Inflation >The impact of said inflation on global trade >The benefits of trade >Basically anything in Sub-Saharan Africa >Naval warfare >Fortifications >Estates >Notable happenings of history, like droughts, inept government, Political shuffles, etc.
2 years ago
Anonymous
EU4 mechanics aren't can't even deal with 1400-1650.
EU4 mechanics are designed around depicting 1648-1799, anything before it would be better depicted by Crusader Kings and anything after it Victoria-series.
It is absolutely ridiculous that everybody has standing armies in 1444 and all wars are total wars.
>occupy entire >wipe out their entire army >noooooooooooo, you can't just annex all of them in a single war because YOU EXCEED YOUR DEMAND EXCEEDS 100% WAR SCORE >truce out for 15 years >repeat 3-5 times until they no longer have provinces
Well that's moronic, but I guess I make them my vassal then and— >can't vassalize because YOU EXCEED YOUR DEMAND EXCEEDS 100% WAR SCORE
What? Why the frick? Isn't the whole point of liberty's desire to prevent situations where OPM would vassalize France, because liberty desire would cause France to immediately rebel.
What is the point of these arbitrary restrictions?
> What is the point of these arbitrary restrictions?
1) you can make wars super painful: whole manpower goes down very fast and regain very slowly but you can take stuff regardless of warscore.
but then you will have:
1.1) extremely frustrated players who start as an opm, lose whole manpower during one siege and need to settle for white peace
1.2) even less functional ai which has much less room for errors now
2) you can make them less harsh but then you will need to limit expansion somehow in order to account for war being less punishing than it should be
>extremely frustrated players who start as an opm
What is the point of playing as OPM? If you goal is to form Germany, why would start as a free city, instead of a bigger regional player like Brandeburg, Austria, Bavaria, Cologne, The Palatinate?
If that is for sake of challenge, surely it would just add more challenge?
>extremely frustrated players who start as an opm, lose whole manpower during one siege and need to settle for white peace
If you want a challenge don’t then ask for it to be simplified there is a reason ulm didn’t form the German nation
I think grabbing the whole country in a single go should be possible, on one simple condition:
Each province over the limit is +whatever to revolt risk. Congratulations, you conquered, beated and humiliated some big country and made it part of your own. Enjoy policing the discontent locals now!
Agree, even if the player would have to deal with constant rebellion next 50 years, it should be a choice, in certain situations worth taking.
But I think the reason why PDX doesn't want to give the choice is that it would reveal to people how barren peace time is.
PDX keeps adding bloat like estates, state limit, and absolutism, ultimately these do not exist to make the empire management harder, but the impression the game is more complex than it actually is. Ultimately everything in the game comes down to conquest, everything serves to further it, so essentially forcing player to sit 50 years in peace while dealing with rebellions in unstable region would alarm too many people.
Agree, even if the player would have to deal with constant rebellion next 50 years, it should be a choice, in certain situations worth taking.
But I think the reason why PDX doesn't want to give the choice is that it would reveal to people how barren peace time is.
PDX keeps adding bloat like estates, state limit, and absolutism, ultimately these do not exist to make the empire management harder, but the impression the game is more complex than it actually is. Ultimately everything in the game comes down to conquest, everything serves to further it, so essentially forcing player to sit 50 years in peace while dealing with rebellions in unstable region would alarm too many people.
what a fascinating idea my Serbian brothers, let’s call this mechanic “overextension”
>”boy I wish this game gave me an option to conquer big nations quickly in exchange for penalties…*bites potato and stares vacantly* >well truce break and overextend yourself >”what! The game punishes you for that!”
The game doesnt punish you for that. >truce break and lose 2 stability >click a button three times at most >overextend yourself >push one button and wait two years
>overextension affecting anything in the slightest
Let me guess - aggressive expansion is a great mechanic to prevent player from endless conquest in all directions, right?
My favorite part in Imperator how it makes the least amount of sense because AE makes pops unhappy.
Yes, remember how angry the Romans were when Caesar conquered Gaul?
wowe caesar paid his debts and conquered a bumfrick nowhere that will economically drain us for 500 years to come. how happy we must be.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>economically drain us for 500
You mean how all the landless poor will receive new lands to farm? And how there will be abundance of slaves so that even the middle class can afford slaves?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And how there will be abundance of slaves so that even the middle class can afford slaves?
Slaves have always fricked the middle class over, just by undercutting them. They don't contribute to the economy either, and the end result is the centralization of wealth in the hands of elites.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Literally the new, easy to control breadbasket for Rome and the way to placiate plebs for next 300 years >Economic drain
American educated, or just moronic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>bumfrick nowhere that will economically drain us for 500 years to come. how happy we must be.
Romans didn't realize that, and that's why Western Empire was doomed to become unsustainable.
It did? Caesar became so popular that he felt confident in refusing the senate's ultimatum to relinquish his place as a governor.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except it's a great example, since the civil war was "unpopular ruling clique" vs. "super-popular conqueror of far-away places".
In other words: the government, which already was unpopular, went so down, that people were willing to side with Caesar due to how great it made for them with his political maneuvering.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The civil war didn't happened because of war in gaul
From what I've heard, it sucks for alternate history shenanigans because the event chains are too rigid. If all you care about is the warfare aspects then it might be good enough. I tried playing it for a bit but I didn't have enough time to properly get into it due to my busy schedule so I can't give you my personal take on it.
It still a walk in the park if you can just hire mercs and have billions of mapower. The truth is Knights of Honor did it right but only by infamously limiting the amount of generals you can have. Alright you conquered the world now have fun trying to police it and hold invaders with only 7 armies
Bad example. That literally started a civil war.
It did? Caesar became so popular that he felt confident in refusing the senate's ultimatum to relinquish his place as a governor.
The common romans loved a winner, the competitors for power of course were not so found of one man having too much fame and glory.
>The common romans loved a winner, the competitors for power of course were not so found of one man having too much fame and glory.
Which is irrelevant in the game it impacts pops.
do you subhuman balkanshits even play this game? You can stack up to like ~85% warscore cost already in the renaissance due to monument/ideas/age ability bloat. The current meta is vassal feeding.
I did an Oda Ikko-Ikki Theocracy run recently, it was silly getting to annex an entire country minus a single province after like 4 battles and a few forts, ultimately it was kinda boring because most of the time was spent feeding clients because screw that OE.
Ottomans, you are surrounded by much weaker, countries. So, as long as you don't attempt to fight Poland-Lithuania + Hungary before annexing the Mamluks, you can't fail.
it's almost impossible to do badly as castile. ottomans are an option too but they're a little bit too braindead, with castile you might actually have to learn how to play the game a little bit.
Would Muscovy work? I've been watching parts of playthroughs on Youtube since I bought the game (I have every expansion), and they seem like a fun time. I like to play Russia/Russians in a lot of strategy games, and I learned HOI4 with the Soviets.
No, Muscovy's start isn't very noob friendly.
Moscow strategies revolve around preventing Poland-Lithuania from expanding further in any direction, which is rather difficult considering they are much stronger than you in the startup, further complicating are the hordes who will bother you first 50 years. Not even mentioning that you will be always behind and your army will always be shit in comparison to anybody around you.
It would actually be easier to start Teutonic Order than Moscow because while the Teutonic Order is on the radar of Poland-Lithuania, the TO army is superb and if you pick your battle, and go over your force limit you can defend yourself against them with ease.
You just need to restart till you get lucky game where Lithuania isn't in PU'd and eat them before going after hordes.
> the TO army is superb and if you pick your battle, and go over your force limit you can defend yourself against them with ease.
IMO it's easier to join HRE
Sounds like a loser speech.
It is possible to defeat PL early, it is gonna hurt, I always guarantee Teutonic Order in my game, that alone usually delays their attack by a decade or two, which me more time to prepare.
You just need to restart till you get lucky game where Lithuania isn't in PU'd and eat them before going after hordes.
> the TO army is superb and if you pick your battle, and go over your force limit you can defend yourself against them with ease.
IMO it's easier to join HRE
you're both moronic, even with the PU, PLC is an easy target after killing Novgorod, just merc up a little and you can easily get 80% wsc, take money, reps and provinces to release polotsk, chernigov and smolensk and vassall feed them in the future wars. Boom failed state poland in 3 seconds, on top of that if youre quick enough you can sap off Otto expansion into Moldavia and Poland and there you have it, all of PLc for yourself you fricking moronic homosexual Black folk
The classic noob nation is Portugal, because you be as aggressive with it as you want to be and it interacts with many game mechanics such as trade companies and colonies. The most passive way to play it is ally Castile, curry favors, and occasionally use it to help clear out your North African missions. Then colonize the Cuba, make a beeline to India/spice islands, and make yourself and your gay husband Spain incredibly rich. In the wars with Granada, take at least one of its provinces or castile will get a claim on your throne that they will use aggressively in the current patch, even if you are allied with them. Make sure to bump up your trust with castile to 90 or they will decide to conquer you in the 17th century for your colonies.
Once you’ve gotten the hang of it, you can then try “intermediate” Portugal, where you ally Aragon, and backstab castile during their civil war. It’s a much more aggressive play through (and you can actually wc with it in the current patch) but it requires a lot of vassal play and monument sniping.
Last thing; in the current patch you can actually force a personal union on anyone. Including Ming.
Ming collapses in the renaissance almost every time. You arrive in China, and finish them off. Then you release what cores you have of they’re as a vassal. This gets rid of the mandate if they have it, and are now a Chinese kingdom. Force convert them to Catholicism. Place a relative on their throne. (You can keep their liberty desire sane via prestige and returningcires). Royal Marry them. Break vassalage on the first of the month, claim
throne, truce break to claim throne. You can deal with the stability hit via pope mana, and everyone already hates you in Asia so who cares about the AE. You now have a personal union with Ming who has cores on all of China.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ming itself isn’t that useful for most wars. It’s on the far side of the world and the AI is too stupid to assist via naval transports. The advantage of a pet ming early in the game is it drives your perceived power through the roof, so you can ignore AE without being coalitioned so long as you don’t also piss off europeans.
it's almost impossible to do badly as castile. ottomans are an option too but they're a little bit too braindead, with castile you might actually have to learn how to play the game a little bit.
>break mandatory 15 year truce > -6 Stability, +10 War Exhaustion, -3 Diplo Rep for 100 Years, +100 Aggressive Expansion with every country in the world
Wow, such a balanced and realistic simulation of warfare and geopolitics in the Early Modern Era
>make invading a nation much more expensive and risky >you can take what you want in a peace deal as long as you control it and the ai isnt confident that they can retake it, or even release nations (this shit really shouldnt cost diplo power) >you can even concede land for your enemy's land >after annexing a bunch of land your challenge becomes consolidating and stabilizing your realm instead of worrying about coalitions
this would fix every issue, the main problem is that its way too easy to invade a nation, you can win literally any war if you take out enough loans, in no universe starting from 1444 would granada or the byzantines be able to win against castille or the ottomans, but in eu4 the solution is "DUDE JUST TAKE OUT LOANS LMAO"
>>you can take what you want in a peace deal as long as you control it
The whole peace deal thing should be the opposite.
Instead of negotiating what occupied territories you get to annex, the occupied territories should (in theory) be considered already lost to the occupier, so the peace deal should about giving back occupied territories to the loser, otherwise all occupied territories should be annexed by the winner of the war. In other words, wars should revolve around uti possidetis.
they can’t even teach the AI how to not run out of sailors, the mechanic is completely disabled for AI. Much less do naval invasions. Get out of here with teaching to do anything sophisticated, first teach Britain how to actually invade India.
It used to be better.
At this point they should just drop this global >grand >strategy >game
bullshit and reduce themselves to regional maps so they can actually design a dedicated system to support the gameplay in that specific region.
I just did a Qing run and man this game is bland now, I never felt like there was some sort of global interaction or trade going on, I was just isolated in Asia and had no contact with Europeans and I dreaded to look at the absolute mess that was the rest of the world.
Province occupation should be more procedural so neither enemy forces or yours can just go and walk across the country besieging every single cities you like
They should also implement basic military supply-chain system so pushing hard into enemy's territory feels a lot more punishing
Just remove the entire ceding province through a peace treaty thing, and replace it with auto-ceding system so when you occupied one province during the war and the former ruler isn't taking it back within a designated amount of time it will automatically become yours
How about >make war much more difficult and costly >make controlling new lands much more difficult and costly, especially if they are wrong culture/wrong religion/different type of government previously
< NOOOOO we can't fix the game mechanics, let's just add totally arbitrary limitations
>JUST MAKE WAR HARDER!
you're still scared of truce breaking so i don't think you actually want a hard game >JUST MAKE WAR MORE EXPENSIVE!
this would make the problem worse lmao have fun sitting around with a thumb up your ass for 30 years waiting for your country to recover from every individual war moron >MAKE THE GAME HARDER! >NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN TRUCERINO! THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSIONERINO! NOOOOO THE GAME IS TOO HARD AAAAAAAAAAAA IT'S UNREALISTIIIIIIIIIIIIIC!
Conquering a neighbor after 3 wars and 45 years, then waiting for AE to come down for the next conquest is just as bad of a gameplay experience. When I play a game, I want to do things, not sit around and wait. Maybe if they had more stuff I can do during peace time it wouldn't be so bad.
Impossible without a pop system or lots of flavor and unique random events/figures.
Pops are required for interesting country management, a stale list of seperatists and a "stability" modifier that governs over all is not fun or interesting. Only vic and ck have interesting internal admin, vic because of the pops and ck because of the interesting people in your vassals and holdings
>ck because of the interesting people in your vassals
all characters in CK3 are fairly static and act mostly the same, it so boring and lifeless
2 years ago
Anonymous
CK2 is still solid on this front though, and even CK3 has interesting interaction with them through your differing goals and opinions, despite how they are lacking in uniqueness and flavor. It's still inherently more interesting to plot to remove the count of dickwiener from power because he is hindering your change of inheritance law, than it is to hit "increase stability" or "decrease war exhaustion" to kill unrest.
All are pretty easy to overcome. Seperatism just means you will have at lest one revolt when you take land. And generally if you can beat a nation you can beat their rebels. Something better would be Vic2 and how wrong culture land has lower admin efficiency, making it less productive overall. This would also incentivize the use of vassals/puppets. Maybe you can't make full use of a culture's land, but a puppet who accepts that culture can
Rebellions are whack-a-mole, because of their size and timing, they pose no threat, but are just irritating chore.
Rebellions should not trigger after the arbitrary tick has finished, but wait for a time when the empire is weak
How about making conquest harder?
What if you had to leave soldiers behind in every province you occupy? Make the occupation requirement relatively to development.
E.g. 3 development requires leaving 1 regiment, 6 demands 2, while 9 takes 3
So, France's development in 1444 is 310, therefore its full occupation would require 103 regiments. Therefore, even if England would annihilate all French forces, they wouldn't be able to annex France, because their force limit is 30.
And make occupation cost attrition like every month your 1,000 men while losing 50 guys to guerillas each month, making long occupation costly.
The decoupling of garrisons and occupation forces from your military capacity has always been insane to me. Ideally, at the start of the game you'd only occupy key cities/ports and loot the rest, both to hurt your enemy and because you don't have the manpower or bureaucracy to manage large amounts of conquered territory. Only later as mass conscription comes around can you really fully occupy an enemy.
A great example would Manzikert.
The traditional Roman strategy was to keep 90% of their troops stationed in Anatolian forts, and commit only small field armies, which meant that losing forts in Anatolia was very slow reversible.
Genius Emperor Romanos IV, decided that instead of letting attrition warfare finish the Turks, he gathered all the garrisons into one big army of 50K and faced the Turks in one big battle, in which the core of the army was lost.
As the result, the Turks easily conquered all of Anatolia following the battle, because the forts had been depleted.
Really, actually occupying random areas shouldn't be worthwhile for basically the entire game. Armies should loot and raid enemy territory that isn't cities/castles; those should be your real objective.
>League War >Ottos and Russia join the same side >extra 100k troops
Every fricking time. Is there a mod that makes it so only Prots and Caths fight in the League War?
Just use it as an excuse to declare on all the shitty little nations they’ve allied just to wienerblock you. Also works great for the shitty little countries your “friends” allied to wienerblock you.
always hated this too, they should make it so you can only join the league if you have land in the hre or are protestant. But of course they don't give a frick
>ottomans join the league war >force a victory for the side in extreme minority >add a few extra conversions in and the HRE is a shell of it's former self because only a few one province nations are eligible to be electors or emperor
This is a good thing you fricking scrub. If you occupy all the territory of the war leader for 5 years you can annex any Ottoman or Russian land you want
Most of the problems in eu4 is just the ai being moronic but if they actually made the ai play like a real person most of the shitter playerbase would complain about it being too hard
uninstall.exe, ofc
The sooner you realise it, the better
I dropped out of PDX games circa '18 and dropped mods in '20, despite starting with EU2 in '02.
I don't know if it's possible to mod but I think the number of rival slots should decrease with each rank and then make it so smaller nations can rival bigger ones. That way you would have sort of a natural coalition forming as you grew stronger. Also a better chance that two smaller enemies will be allied in a war against a greater threat. The fact the AE can even cool down is abit silly to think about, there needs to be a better system.
Defenition of map-painting game.
The fundamental issue is how anti-blob mechanics are shit. AE and coalitions ultimately do not punish gradual expansion, but only rapid expansion. And because everybody gets treated the same, e.g. Ulm will face a coalition for taking five cities in HRE, if France did it they would get the same amount of AE, but coalition war would be unlikely because France AI gets scared. Thus the mechanic prevents the emergence of rivals to the blobs.
It would make more sense AE to the great powers. So, only the great powers gain it. You could make AE gain relative to the development AE receiver and the weakest great powers.
E.g. Aragon is 8th great power with 250 development, Ottomans 5th with 500 dev, and France 1st great power with 1000 dev.
Ottomans get 2× more AE because (500/250), while France gets 4× more AE.
This would make great power differences smaller because the top powers would face constant coalitions for any significant aggression, while bottom powers would grow to get less AE, and thus be allowed to expand more rapidly.
Tell me how that's moronic idea?
The only fun thing to do is to conquer the world… it’s not like ck2 where you can spend 80 years dicking around with vassals, centralizing your state, cucking your heir cause he’s a gay and you need a grandson, etc. in eu4 if you aren’t conquering it’s speed 5 time.
I was watching a video the other day about fun nations and when showing wars the guy basically most of the times had 100% warscore and then annexed a shit load of provinces which should give him a shit ton of aggressive expansion, yet he was fine
Was he cheating or what? In my experience it's very difficult to reach 100% warscore because of all the allies not to mention the aggressive expansion which makes it so I can barely annex 3 provinces at a time (with claims) before it reaches 30+
Also; the current patch highly encourages heavy use of vassals. If you are too low IQ for this, play as the Mughals and just core everything. Here is in example; in previous patches, the ideal way to play was to put everything into TC to avoid the state cap. Now the ideal is to put trade centers into tc, and have the rest of the land administered by a vassal (or even better, a personal union, lmao). What you note in this picture is the land owned by Ming is getting +40% to goods produced due to trade power of my TC, but my TC provinces themselves don’t receive this. Also roughly half of the TC buildings bonuses *also effect provinces you don’t own*, such as ming in this picture.
The net effect is early in the game you should be only coring ports, feeding the rest to vassals, and smashing even further away nations immediately after. Strong duchies let’s you sit on 6-10 vassals no problem.
>play as daimyo >other daimyos take turns declaring war on me >win two wars >more wars keep coming >go bankrupt from all the loans >get annexed by 1450 anyway
The game simply has too stark of a difference between "control" and "ownership", fundamentally the distinction between the 2 should be minor and mostly diplomatic and other mechanics should represent how well ruled and how well pacified a given province is.
Essentially if the game allows you to occupy an entire empire in one single war then the issue is not making expansion slower by forcing the winner to only take one small part, instead things like coalitions, war exhaustion and military losses need to be fine tuned to prevent too many such cases.
Again, if occupation itself would cost you 1000 men per 3 development, it would prevent wars which in annexation after one war, even if the attacker wipes out all their armies because they don't have enough manpower and mercs to carry out full occupation.
It would also give quantity actual merit, at the moment quality is always better than quantity, because higher-quality troops will take fewer losses.
> at the moment quality is always better than quantity,
It always surprises me how bad you guys are at this game. No, if you are trying to wc quantity is best mil group, followed by offensive (I personally like aristocratic for idiosyncratic reasons; but in an optimum play through it’s hard to justify)
Unironically probably the worst feature in the game, removes every single piece of geography from the game except the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. >be Portugal, want to fight the Ottomans for trade in the Red Sea >100k Turks march across Europe and siege down Lisbon >France marching thousands of men across the SAHARA DESERT to protect Kongo >
If it wasn't for Anbennar, there would be literally zero reasons at this point to play EU4. And not even EU4 has brought me back since before the Afrikangz shit. This game just has too many moronic mechanics and factors involved. I can't even imagine how much of a fricking mess EU5 will be when they get around to that and figuring out what systems they want to pluck out of EU4 (while selling back the rest and more as DLC, of course), and what new moronic bullshit they want to sell with EU5.
Innovativeness - moronic, you were already rewarded for teching up quicker than others.
Professionalism - moronic, the game already has a ton of modifiers for an army which could be used instead
Power Projection - moronic, destroying rivals is already inherently rewarding, no need for an another number
Favours - "gather 20 friendship points and an allied giant nation will attack almost anyone"
Governmental capacity - ???, random number to gimp AI
Ages - no idea what is the reason for this thing to exist, just an another source of bloat
>Ages - no idea what is the reason for this thing to exist, just an another source of bloat
It is pretty strange, I particularly hate the idea of the golden age.wyv4y
>win a war that was declared on you >you're not allowed to take any of the land from the aggressor no matter how thoroughly you annihilated them because... because you just can't, okay!
I mean, the point is to depict localized warfare instead of total wars, but even that is ruined, because it takes five years to warscore to tick to 100% when you have occupied the warscore.
Obviously, you are encouraged to arrange strategic marriages and with some luck to boot you will have a claim on an entire kingdom because your hracters great grandfather was the cousin of the recently deceased King or something. Or you just inherit it right away.
If you just forge a claim you should only be allowed to take that province.
CK2 has a lot more going on than any EU game .
claims in CK games are devalued because anyone can easily fabricate claims, which ultimately means that marrying for alliances and genetics is always better.
Additionally, devs were moronic to introduce "political concerns" modifiers that prevent AI from making marriages with any neighboring rulers, despite the fact that before, during, and after HYW English kings married French princesses
It's insane of much they tried to put content characters and marriages when vassal interactions, centralization, founding and proper city development and courts, still, come so short. Vassals are what matters, always mattered. The whole point is that you can't just declare war. CK2 tried to at least add the option, vestigial as it is, for you to consider your vassals as more than just opinions and adviors, positive factors to your rule, stats / mana to boost in a fluctuating way how powerful you are.
It's silly when you think about the transition from CK to EÙ where in one history isn't just made by men but IS literally just men, and not just in a philosophical way, while in EU history is the amount of stat mana relative to how you use it and expansion down time in coring cost and infamy.
ANOTHER POLAND UPDATE?
I don't want to sound like a wehrabooish großgermanisus but Prussia and the german states haven't been touched in ages. They're still from a time where a CB would count as a mission! I want real content, real flavor for Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony; for Pfalz and Hannover, and the Hansa!
you need to respect the BALANCE OF POWER bro
>loses war
>occupied & puppeted for 75 years
Why did you have to go there man?
I'm honestly not sure if it is even possible to buff ottomans even more.
Religion is fricked.
Protestant just needs to be protestant with the meme versions working like syncretism does as a secondary feature.
New world natives need to be fixed. Aboriginals and Polynesians need to frick off.
Revolution is bugged. If the first target dies (usually to its own rebels), one of the modifiers/choices/whatever is permanently locked out, but if the centre is killed, it doesn't stop another nation from becoming the target and applying a fricking awful region wide modifier even when the AI decides to be a pacifist.
Also GB's rev flag is feminist wank from the 20th century and should never have been put in.
>warscore system prevented Denmark annexing its rightful territory
Remember when England puppeted Scotland and then formed GB?
Reddit posts.
Denmark is not a real country
remember when the ottomans gradually conquered egypt in 5 successive wars with 15 years between each one? good times
>not minmaxing stab cost and AE modifiers to chain truce break with minimal loss
>not firing C&C disaster to get shitloads of Absolutism cap and mimaxxing CCR to gigablob
Both ngmi
Oh just ignore the -5 STAB penalty
Ah yes let me fire the C&C disaster in *checks notes* 1600, ergo 1610 by the time its finished
The Ottomans conquered the Mamluk sultanate in 3 years. In this moronic game you would be lucky to get 5 provinces in one go before an 80 year truce. There should be an event for the mamluks to collapse and get annexed by the Ottomans if the war is already lost
>Use an event to railroad the result of a tactic
>Don't put the tactic in the game
Yup. PDX time.
In a hypothetical EU5 I'd like to make extremely autonomous land very easy to annex, so the HEIC can grab huge swathes of the Mughals or the Ottomans can waltz in and take over the Mamluks in a single war. Same thing with frontier provinces of China, etc.
The internal stability of a state should also play a role, so the divided and weak PLC can have the Prussians, Russians, and Austrians very easily chop off bits of it while a unified and centralized France has to be beaten up much more to actually lose land.
I like this take having a province modifier based on the time from which you got said province how far it is from your capital and how integrated in the country it is to regulate its price in a peace deal is a good idea
Also you could also not put a limit to how much land you can take in a peace deal and just have agressive expansion evolve exponentially along the number of province you take depending on sais modifier
When EUIV released the Ottomans could annex the Mamluks through a mission. The CB was broken long ago and never fixed. It allowed for full annexation but was only used in a few circumstances
They are trying to balance history with game design.
Ottomans are the last faction that need more power to blob.
If they would care about history and realism they would made managing large empires much more difficult
In that case you could blob as much as you want but then your country would disintegrate afterwards
>Large empire is difficult, because it just is, ok?
Go home, Ubik. You're drunk again
>If they would care about history and realism they would made managing large empires much more difficult
Game design is very difficult, anon.
You usually want every nation to behave very similiarly, internally.
They have huge amount of money and computing power to solve it, they simply don't care. Why waste effort on improving game mechanics when people still buy they crap? Look at CK3, almost two years after launch we had a couple of cosmetic DLCs, without fixes to core mechanics
>You usually want every nation to behave very similiarly, internally.
You want to have universal mechanics, but the actual outcome of these should depend on the exact situation. Every nation in the same situation should behave very similarly but nations in different situation should behave differently. Managing a tiny city state is very different from huge land empire, managing huge land empire is very different from huge sea empire (Portugal, Dutch)
Why is this game runs like shit? It's literally just painting map
Few years back, PDX released some graphs that show that 90% of the processing power is used on AI pathfinding.
IMO the problem would be alleviated if the AI no avoid distant expeditions, or at least scale them down. Like in 1444, France will often send all their troops to fricking Lithuanit to fight Moscovy.
If I had any faith in nu-paradox I would ask for a logistics system for EU5 because its pretty moronic how the Spanish can roll up ro Mexico with like 40k conquistadors in 1510 when youre playing the Aztecs
honestly even basic logistics system will solve so many problems.
This, a slower and more realistic colonization system, and a real progression from feudal principalities to centralized states would fix 75% of the issues with EU.
>All wars are total wars: The game
That's HOI4
It's PDX at this point.
>That's PDX since EU2
Ftfy
And the only reason why it wasn't true in EU1 was because I genuinely struggled with using transport fleets.
*because AI
You have border conflicts in hoi4
And it's both an underutilized and yet also shit mechanic.
>attack their ally
>siege them down and white peace them
>truce now a fraction of the time
EU4 is a game of exploiting mechanics thanks to mana.
Just like in reality
Just play with MEIOU
2 dogshit opinions in a row, damm, post a frog next time so my fitler hides your moronation.
Not an argument
Yikes
>MEIOU
Extended Timeline or bust, homosexual.
Why do you need an extended timeline? To blob some more? MEIOU is what EU4 should have been to begin with, not some shitty tacked on mod.
>imagine not beating the shit out of the Parthians as Rome from 58 AD, and preventing your fall so that Glorious Rome lasts until the present day
EU4 game mechanics aren't ideal for anything pre 1400 or past 1800, its like playing HOI4 with a modern day mod.
EU4 game mechanics aren't ideal for its own time period either.
They are at least acceptable, simplistic but acceptable, HOI4 mechanics literally aren't acceptable since the economy and trade system it has are as deep as a puddle, for a game set in 1940 its unacceptable.
>They are at least acceptable, simplistic but acceptable
Not at all.
>Spanish colonization of the Americas
>Inflation
>The impact of said inflation on global trade
>The benefits of trade
>Basically anything in Sub-Saharan Africa
>Naval warfare
>Fortifications
>Estates
>Notable happenings of history, like droughts, inept government, Political shuffles, etc.
EU4 mechanics aren't can't even deal with 1400-1650.
EU4 mechanics are designed around depicting 1648-1799, anything before it would be better depicted by Crusader Kings and anything after it Victoria-series.
It is absolutely ridiculous that everybody has standing armies in 1444 and all wars are total wars.
>win one battle against large ai
>ai bankrupts itself to buy 5 different merc companies
>all this over 3 provinces
tbh isn’t that the story of France befire the revolution?
>all this over 3 provinces
Wait until you have to death war the ai because you want a colony that has a fort nearby.
EU4 does not have truce, it has time-limited non-aggression pacts.
A truce would imply that the war auto-resumes once the truce expires.
>occupy entire
>wipe out their entire army
>noooooooooooo, you can't just annex all of them in a single war because YOU EXCEED YOUR DEMAND EXCEEDS 100% WAR SCORE
>truce out for 15 years
>repeat 3-5 times until they no longer have provinces
Well that's moronic, but I guess I make them my vassal then and—
>can't vassalize because YOU EXCEED YOUR DEMAND EXCEEDS 100% WAR SCORE
What? Why the frick? Isn't the whole point of liberty's desire to prevent situations where OPM would vassalize France, because liberty desire would cause France to immediately rebel.
What is the point of these arbitrary restrictions?
> What is the point of these arbitrary restrictions?
1) you can make wars super painful: whole manpower goes down very fast and regain very slowly but you can take stuff regardless of warscore.
but then you will have:
1.1) extremely frustrated players who start as an opm, lose whole manpower during one siege and need to settle for white peace
1.2) even less functional ai which has much less room for errors now
2) you can make them less harsh but then you will need to limit expansion somehow in order to account for war being less punishing than it should be
Paradrones are morons and trannie devs are incompetent, got it.
>Preventing human snowball bad, because it is, ok?
>Also: HURRR THERE IS NOTHING BUT MAP PAINTING IN THIS GAME
>extremely frustrated players who start as an opm
What is the point of playing as OPM? If you goal is to form Germany, why would start as a free city, instead of a bigger regional player like Brandeburg, Austria, Bavaria, Cologne, The Palatinate?
If that is for sake of challenge, surely it would just add more challenge?
>Check my GR0ßULMIUM reddit!
>extremely frustrated players who start as an opm, lose whole manpower during one siege and need to settle for white peace
If you want a challenge don’t then ask for it to be simplified there is a reason ulm didn’t form the German nation
I think grabbing the whole country in a single go should be possible, on one simple condition:
Each province over the limit is +whatever to revolt risk. Congratulations, you conquered, beated and humiliated some big country and made it part of your own. Enjoy policing the discontent locals now!
Agree, even if the player would have to deal with constant rebellion next 50 years, it should be a choice, in certain situations worth taking.
But I think the reason why PDX doesn't want to give the choice is that it would reveal to people how barren peace time is.
PDX keeps adding bloat like estates, state limit, and absolutism, ultimately these do not exist to make the empire management harder, but the impression the game is more complex than it actually is. Ultimately everything in the game comes down to conquest, everything serves to further it, so essentially forcing player to sit 50 years in peace while dealing with rebellions in unstable region would alarm too many people.
what a fascinating idea my Serbian brothers, let’s call this mechanic “overextension”
>get overextended (an exeption)
>two years later everything is fine again
Woah great mechanic
>”boy I wish this game gave me an option to conquer big nations quickly in exchange for penalties…*bites potato and stares vacantly*
>well truce break and overextend yourself
>”what! The game punishes you for that!”
The game doesnt punish you for that.
>truce break and lose 2 stability
>click a button three times at most
>overextend yourself
>push one button and wait two years
>overextension affecting anything in the slightest
Let me guess - aggressive expansion is a great mechanic to prevent player from endless conquest in all directions, right?
My favorite part in Imperator how it makes the least amount of sense because AE makes pops unhappy.
Yes, remember how angry the Romans were when Caesar conquered Gaul?
wowe caesar paid his debts and conquered a bumfrick nowhere that will economically drain us for 500 years to come. how happy we must be.
>economically drain us for 500
You mean how all the landless poor will receive new lands to farm? And how there will be abundance of slaves so that even the middle class can afford slaves?
>And how there will be abundance of slaves so that even the middle class can afford slaves?
Slaves have always fricked the middle class over, just by undercutting them. They don't contribute to the economy either, and the end result is the centralization of wealth in the hands of elites.
>Literally the new, easy to control breadbasket for Rome and the way to placiate plebs for next 300 years
>Economic drain
American educated, or just moronic?
>bumfrick nowhere that will economically drain us for 500 years to come. how happy we must be.
Romans didn't realize that, and that's why Western Empire was doomed to become unsustainable.
Remember how just about anyone was angry after winning the war and conquering new lands, at any point of the history? Those were the times!
When Hitler conquered Paris, your average Berliners were lamenting:
>"Gee, why did we have to win? I wanted another station war"
Bad example. That literally started a civil war.
It did? Caesar became so popular that he felt confident in refusing the senate's ultimatum to relinquish his place as a governor.
Except it's a great example, since the civil war was "unpopular ruling clique" vs. "super-popular conqueror of far-away places".
In other words: the government, which already was unpopular, went so down, that people were willing to side with Caesar due to how great it made for them with his political maneuvering.
The civil war didn't happened because of war in gaul
SUPREME RULER has exactly this. If you conquer a somewhat strong country, you have to keep military around for some months; otherwise rebels pop up.
Dont care, shill
Is it worth the $20 unironically?
I'm tryna have a bit of map-painting fun over the next week
I played it alot, now I'm a little burned out of it.
From what I've heard, it sucks for alternate history shenanigans because the event chains are too rigid. If all you care about is the warfare aspects then it might be good enough. I tried playing it for a bit but I didn't have enough time to properly get into it due to my busy schedule so I can't give you my personal take on it.
It still a walk in the park if you can just hire mercs and have billions of mapower. The truth is Knights of Honor did it right but only by infamously limiting the amount of generals you can have. Alright you conquered the world now have fun trying to police it and hold invaders with only 7 armies
The common romans loved a winner, the competitors for power of course were not so found of one man having too much fame and glory.
>The common romans loved a winner, the competitors for power of course were not so found of one man having too much fame and glory.
Which is irrelevant in the game it impacts pops.
>forge a questionable claim on ONE province
>take a dozens
>nobody minds this
B-r-a-v-o
do you subhuman balkanshits even play this game? You can stack up to like ~85% warscore cost already in the renaissance due to monument/ideas/age ability bloat. The current meta is vassal feeding.
I did an Oda Ikko-Ikki Theocracy run recently, it was silly getting to annex an entire country minus a single province after like 4 battles and a few forts, ultimately it was kinda boring because most of the time was spent feeding clients because screw that OE.
moron Here.
What is the best country to play as for learning this game?
Ottomans, you are surrounded by much weaker, countries. So, as long as you don't attempt to fight Poland-Lithuania + Hungary before annexing the Mamluks, you can't fail.
Would Muscovy work? I've been watching parts of playthroughs on Youtube since I bought the game (I have every expansion), and they seem like a fun time. I like to play Russia/Russians in a lot of strategy games, and I learned HOI4 with the Soviets.
No, Muscovy's start isn't very noob friendly.
Moscow strategies revolve around preventing Poland-Lithuania from expanding further in any direction, which is rather difficult considering they are much stronger than you in the startup, further complicating are the hordes who will bother you first 50 years. Not even mentioning that you will be always behind and your army will always be shit in comparison to anybody around you.
It would actually be easier to start Teutonic Order than Moscow because while the Teutonic Order is on the radar of Poland-Lithuania, the TO army is superb and if you pick your battle, and go over your force limit you can defend yourself against them with ease.
You just need to restart till you get lucky game where Lithuania isn't in PU'd and eat them before going after hordes.
> the TO army is superb and if you pick your battle, and go over your force limit you can defend yourself against them with ease.
IMO it's easier to join HRE
Sounds like a loser speech.
It is possible to defeat PL early, it is gonna hurt, I always guarantee Teutonic Order in my game, that alone usually delays their attack by a decade or two, which me more time to prepare.
you're both moronic, even with the PU, PLC is an easy target after killing Novgorod, just merc up a little and you can easily get 80% wsc, take money, reps and provinces to release polotsk, chernigov and smolensk and vassall feed them in the future wars. Boom failed state poland in 3 seconds, on top of that if youre quick enough you can sap off Otto expansion into Moldavia and Poland and there you have it, all of PLc for yourself you fricking moronic homosexual Black folk
The classic noob nation is Portugal, because you be as aggressive with it as you want to be and it interacts with many game mechanics such as trade companies and colonies. The most passive way to play it is ally Castile, curry favors, and occasionally use it to help clear out your North African missions. Then colonize the Cuba, make a beeline to India/spice islands, and make yourself and your gay husband Spain incredibly rich. In the wars with Granada, take at least one of its provinces or castile will get a claim on your throne that they will use aggressively in the current patch, even if you are allied with them. Make sure to bump up your trust with castile to 90 or they will decide to conquer you in the 17th century for your colonies.
Once you’ve gotten the hang of it, you can then try “intermediate” Portugal, where you ally Aragon, and backstab castile during their civil war. It’s a much more aggressive play through (and you can actually wc with it in the current patch) but it requires a lot of vassal play and monument sniping.
Last thing; in the current patch you can actually force a personal union on anyone. Including Ming.
>Last thing; in the current patch you can actually force a personal union on anyone. Including Ming.
More on this?
Ming collapses in the renaissance almost every time. You arrive in China, and finish them off. Then you release what cores you have of they’re as a vassal. This gets rid of the mandate if they have it, and are now a Chinese kingdom. Force convert them to Catholicism. Place a relative on their throne. (You can keep their liberty desire sane via prestige and returningcires). Royal Marry them. Break vassalage on the first of the month, claim
throne, truce break to claim throne. You can deal with the stability hit via pope mana, and everyone already hates you in Asia so who cares about the AE. You now have a personal union with Ming who has cores on all of China.
Ming itself isn’t that useful for most wars. It’s on the far side of the world and the AI is too stupid to assist via naval transports. The advantage of a pet ming early in the game is it drives your perceived power through the roof, so you can ignore AE without being coalitioned so long as you don’t also piss off europeans.
it's almost impossible to do badly as castile. ottomans are an option too but they're a little bit too braindead, with castile you might actually have to learn how to play the game a little bit.
>break mandatory 15 year truce
> -6 Stability, +10 War Exhaustion, -3 Diplo Rep for 100 Years, +100 Aggressive Expansion with every country in the world
Wow, such a balanced and realistic simulation of warfare and geopolitics in the Early Modern Era
>make invading a nation much more expensive and risky
>you can take what you want in a peace deal as long as you control it and the ai isnt confident that they can retake it, or even release nations (this shit really shouldnt cost diplo power)
>you can even concede land for your enemy's land
>after annexing a bunch of land your challenge becomes consolidating and stabilizing your realm instead of worrying about coalitions
this would fix every issue, the main problem is that its way too easy to invade a nation, you can win literally any war if you take out enough loans, in no universe starting from 1444 would granada or the byzantines be able to win against castille or the ottomans, but in eu4 the solution is "DUDE JUST TAKE OUT LOANS LMAO"
>>you can take what you want in a peace deal as long as you control it
The whole peace deal thing should be the opposite.
Instead of negotiating what occupied territories you get to annex, the occupied territories should (in theory) be considered already lost to the occupier, so the peace deal should about giving back occupied territories to the loser, otherwise all occupied territories should be annexed by the winner of the war. In other words, wars should revolve around uti possidetis.
>you can win literally any war if you take out enough loans
doesn't matter if you end up bankrupting
Albania really put the hurt on them, as did Wallachia.
>even release nations
Personally, I would make it so that all releasable states are automatically vassals of the state demanding their release.
they can’t even teach the AI how to not run out of sailors, the mechanic is completely disabled for AI. Much less do naval invasions. Get out of here with teaching to do anything sophisticated, first teach Britain how to actually invade India.
It used to be better.
At this point they should just drop this global
>grand
>strategy
>game
bullshit and reduce themselves to regional maps so they can actually design a dedicated system to support the gameplay in that specific region.
I just did a Qing run and man this game is bland now, I never felt like there was some sort of global interaction or trade going on, I was just isolated in Asia and had no contact with Europeans and I dreaded to look at the absolute mess that was the rest of the world.
Province occupation should be more procedural so neither enemy forces or yours can just go and walk across the country besieging every single cities you like
They should also implement basic military supply-chain system so pushing hard into enemy's territory feels a lot more punishing
Just remove the entire ceding province through a peace treaty thing, and replace it with auto-ceding system so when you occupied one province during the war and the former ruler isn't taking it back within a designated amount of time it will automatically become yours
>remove long truces
>remove conquest limits
>remove coalitions
>game over in less than 50 years
good idea morons
How about
>make war much more difficult and costly
>make controlling new lands much more difficult and costly, especially if they are wrong culture/wrong religion/different type of government previously
< NOOOOO we can't fix the game mechanics, let's just add totally arbitrary limitations
>lets make it more tediously boring and no fun allowed to appeal to my autism
how about no its a video game to play for fun
Yes it's really fun to wait 15 years between truces or have 5 wars to conquer one country
>what is truce breaking
Admit it, you're too cowardly to get a - 5 stab hit.
>JUST MAKE WAR HARDER!
you're still scared of truce breaking so i don't think you actually want a hard game
>JUST MAKE WAR MORE EXPENSIVE!
this would make the problem worse lmao have fun sitting around with a thumb up your ass for 30 years waiting for your country to recover from every individual war moron
>MAKE THE GAME HARDER!
>NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN TRUCERINO! THE AGGRESSIVE EXPANSIONERINO! NOOOOO THE GAME IS TOO HARD AAAAAAAAAAAA IT'S UNREALISTIIIIIIIIIIIIIC!
Conquering a neighbor after 3 wars and 45 years, then waiting for AE to come down for the next conquest is just as bad of a gameplay experience. When I play a game, I want to do things, not sit around and wait. Maybe if they had more stuff I can do during peace time it wouldn't be so bad.
Have about having some other content in the game beside wars? Managing a realm was extremely demanding task even without wars
Impossible without a pop system or lots of flavor and unique random events/figures.
Pops are required for interesting country management, a stale list of seperatists and a "stability" modifier that governs over all is not fun or interesting. Only vic and ck have interesting internal admin, vic because of the pops and ck because of the interesting people in your vassals and holdings
>ck because of the interesting people in your vassals
all characters in CK3 are fairly static and act mostly the same, it so boring and lifeless
CK2 is still solid on this front though, and even CK3 has interesting interaction with them through your differing goals and opinions, despite how they are lacking in uniqueness and flavor. It's still inherently more interesting to plot to remove the count of dickwiener from power because he is hindering your change of inheritance law, than it is to hit "increase stability" or "decrease war exhaustion" to kill unrest.
what is separatism, autonomy, non-accepted culture revolt risk modifiers
All are pretty easy to overcome. Seperatism just means you will have at lest one revolt when you take land. And generally if you can beat a nation you can beat their rebels. Something better would be Vic2 and how wrong culture land has lower admin efficiency, making it less productive overall. This would also incentivize the use of vassals/puppets. Maybe you can't make full use of a culture's land, but a puppet who accepts that culture can
Rebellions are whack-a-mole, because of their size and timing, they pose no threat, but are just irritating chore.
Rebellions should not trigger after the arbitrary tick has finished, but wait for a time when the empire is weak
Petty trifles
How about making conquest harder?
What if you had to leave soldiers behind in every province you occupy? Make the occupation requirement relatively to development.
E.g. 3 development requires leaving 1 regiment, 6 demands 2, while 9 takes 3
So, France's development in 1444 is 310, therefore its full occupation would require 103 regiments. Therefore, even if England would annihilate all French forces, they wouldn't be able to annex France, because their force limit is 30.
And make occupation cost attrition like every month your 1,000 men while losing 50 guys to guerillas each month, making long occupation costly.
The decoupling of garrisons and occupation forces from your military capacity has always been insane to me. Ideally, at the start of the game you'd only occupy key cities/ports and loot the rest, both to hurt your enemy and because you don't have the manpower or bureaucracy to manage large amounts of conquered territory. Only later as mass conscription comes around can you really fully occupy an enemy.
A great example would Manzikert.
The traditional Roman strategy was to keep 90% of their troops stationed in Anatolian forts, and commit only small field armies, which meant that losing forts in Anatolia was very slow reversible.
Genius Emperor Romanos IV, decided that instead of letting attrition warfare finish the Turks, he gathered all the garrisons into one big army of 50K and faced the Turks in one big battle, in which the core of the army was lost.
As the result, the Turks easily conquered all of Anatolia following the battle, because the forts had been depleted.
Making it scale with the existing absolutism mechanic i think can be a good way to implement it
Really, actually occupying random areas shouldn't be worthwhile for basically the entire game. Armies should loot and raid enemy territory that isn't cities/castles; those should be your real objective.
>League War
>Ottos and Russia join the same side
>extra 100k troops
Every fricking time. Is there a mod that makes it so only Prots and Caths fight in the League War?
Just use it as an excuse to declare on all the shitty little nations they’ve allied just to wienerblock you. Also works great for the shitty little countries your “friends” allied to wienerblock you.
always hated this too, they should make it so you can only join the league if you have land in the hre or are protestant. But of course they don't give a frick
Portugal wouldn't be able to join then.
(me)
No wait, I'm dumb, I forgot they were in a union with Spain then, what you posted makes perfect sense.
>ottomans join the league war
>force a victory for the side in extreme minority
>add a few extra conversions in and the HRE is a shell of it's former self because only a few one province nations are eligible to be electors or emperor
>NOOOOOO HOW COULD MY NEIGHBORS EXPLOIT MY PRECARIOUS SITUATION FOR THEIR PERSONAL GAIN????
This is a good thing you fricking scrub. If you occupy all the territory of the war leader for 5 years you can annex any Ottoman or Russian land you want
>wins war
>has to wait 10 years to rain hellfire on the same xenos again
I uninstalled
I just wish it was harder to integrate vassals. I hate seeing the AI get all these free vassals only to swallow them up 10 years later.
Most of the problems in eu4 is just the ai being moronic but if they actually made the ai play like a real person most of the shitter playerbase would complain about it being too hard
>Start game as small/mid sized nation
>Have fun for the first 150-200 years
>Become the dominant regional power by 1600
>Quit
How do I fix this cycle?
uninstall.exe, ofc
The sooner you realise it, the better
I dropped out of PDX games circa '18 and dropped mods in '20, despite starting with EU2 in '02.
So why are you here?
I don't know if it's possible to mod but I think the number of rival slots should decrease with each rank and then make it so smaller nations can rival bigger ones. That way you would have sort of a natural coalition forming as you grew stronger. Also a better chance that two smaller enemies will be allied in a war against a greater threat. The fact the AE can even cool down is abit silly to think about, there needs to be a better system.
Defenition of map-painting game.
The fundamental issue is how anti-blob mechanics are shit. AE and coalitions ultimately do not punish gradual expansion, but only rapid expansion. And because everybody gets treated the same, e.g. Ulm will face a coalition for taking five cities in HRE, if France did it they would get the same amount of AE, but coalition war would be unlikely because France AI gets scared. Thus the mechanic prevents the emergence of rivals to the blobs.
It would make more sense AE to the great powers. So, only the great powers gain it. You could make AE gain relative to the development AE receiver and the weakest great powers.
E.g. Aragon is 8th great power with 250 development, Ottomans 5th with 500 dev, and France 1st great power with 1000 dev.
Ottomans get 2× more AE because (500/250), while France gets 4× more AE.
This would make great power differences smaller because the top powers would face constant coalitions for any significant aggression, while bottom powers would grow to get less AE, and thus be allowed to expand more rapidly.
Tell me how that's moronic idea?
The only fun thing to do is to conquer the world… it’s not like ck2 where you can spend 80 years dicking around with vassals, centralizing your state, cucking your heir cause he’s a gay and you need a grandson, etc. in eu4 if you aren’t conquering it’s speed 5 time.
At this point the two games really just need to be merged into a new series and go from 476 to 1776 and just go by month ticks instead of days.
I was watching a video the other day about fun nations and when showing wars the guy basically most of the times had 100% warscore and then annexed a shit load of provinces which should give him a shit ton of aggressive expansion, yet he was fine
Was he cheating or what? In my experience it's very difficult to reach 100% warscore because of all the allies not to mention the aggressive expansion which makes it so I can barely annex 3 provinces at a time (with claims) before it reaches 30+
railroaded mission personal unions are garbage
Also; the current patch highly encourages heavy use of vassals. If you are too low IQ for this, play as the Mughals and just core everything. Here is in example; in previous patches, the ideal way to play was to put everything into TC to avoid the state cap. Now the ideal is to put trade centers into tc, and have the rest of the land administered by a vassal (or even better, a personal union, lmao). What you note in this picture is the land owned by Ming is getting +40% to goods produced due to trade power of my TC, but my TC provinces themselves don’t receive this. Also roughly half of the TC buildings bonuses *also effect provinces you don’t own*, such as ming in this picture.
The net effect is early in the game you should be only coring ports, feeding the rest to vassals, and smashing even further away nations immediately after. Strong duchies let’s you sit on 6-10 vassals no problem.
Catholicism could be split in half and it would be the first and second best religion in game.
>play as daimyo
>other daimyos take turns declaring war on me
>win two wars
>more wars keep coming
>go bankrupt from all the loans
>get annexed by 1450 anyway
Had to restart 4 times until I actually was able to make an alliance with more than one daimyo. Now I'm colonizing Southeast Asia.
The game simply has too stark of a difference between "control" and "ownership", fundamentally the distinction between the 2 should be minor and mostly diplomatic and other mechanics should represent how well ruled and how well pacified a given province is.
Essentially if the game allows you to occupy an entire empire in one single war then the issue is not making expansion slower by forcing the winner to only take one small part, instead things like coalitions, war exhaustion and military losses need to be fine tuned to prevent too many such cases.
Again, if occupation itself would cost you 1000 men per 3 development, it would prevent wars which in annexation after one war, even if the attacker wipes out all their armies because they don't have enough manpower and mercs to carry out full occupation.
It would also give quantity actual merit, at the moment quality is always better than quantity, because higher-quality troops will take fewer losses.
> at the moment quality is always better than quantity,
It always surprises me how bad you guys are at this game. No, if you are trying to wc quantity is best mil group, followed by offensive (I personally like aristocratic for idiosyncratic reasons; but in an optimum play through it’s hard to justify)
How come none of you are complaining about conditional military access ? EU4 is the only Paradox game that has this moronic shit.
Unironically probably the worst feature in the game, removes every single piece of geography from the game except the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
>be Portugal, want to fight the Ottomans for trade in the Red Sea
>100k Turks march across Europe and siege down Lisbon
>France marching thousands of men across the SAHARA DESERT to protect Kongo
>
If EU5 doesn't come with some attrition or other feature to prevent this shit, I'm not buying.
If it wasn't for Anbennar, there would be literally zero reasons at this point to play EU4. And not even EU4 has brought me back since before the Afrikangz shit. This game just has too many moronic mechanics and factors involved. I can't even imagine how much of a fricking mess EU5 will be when they get around to that and figuring out what systems they want to pluck out of EU4 (while selling back the rest and more as DLC, of course), and what new moronic bullshit they want to sell with EU5.
>This game just has too many moronic mechanics and factors involved.
Name one and explain why it is moronic? Checkmate you can't.
Innovativeness - moronic, you were already rewarded for teching up quicker than others.
Professionalism - moronic, the game already has a ton of modifiers for an army which could be used instead
Power Projection - moronic, destroying rivals is already inherently rewarding, no need for an another number
Favours - "gather 20 friendship points and an allied giant nation will attack almost anyone"
Governmental capacity - ???, random number to gimp AI
Ages - no idea what is the reason for this thing to exist, just an another source of bloat
>Ages - no idea what is the reason for this thing to exist, just an another source of bloat
It is pretty strange, I particularly hate the idea of the golden age.wyv4y
god I just want to be a dutch east indies dude in singapore slaying jungleasiatic poon on the reg and dying of malaria at the age of 30
>win a war that was declared on you
>you're not allowed to take any of the land from the aggressor no matter how thoroughly you annihilated them because... because you just can't, okay!
I mean, the point is to depict localized warfare instead of total wars, but even that is ruined, because it takes five years to warscore to tick to 100% when you have occupied the warscore.
Obviously, you are encouraged to arrange strategic marriages and with some luck to boot you will have a claim on an entire kingdom because your hracters great grandfather was the cousin of the recently deceased King or something. Or you just inherit it right away.
If you just forge a claim you should only be allowed to take that province.
CK2 has a lot more going on than any EU game .
claims in CK games are devalued because anyone can easily fabricate claims, which ultimately means that marrying for alliances and genetics is always better.
Additionally, devs were moronic to introduce "political concerns" modifiers that prevent AI from making marriages with any neighboring rulers, despite the fact that before, during, and after HYW English kings married French princesses
It's insane of much they tried to put content characters and marriages when vassal interactions, centralization, founding and proper city development and courts, still, come so short. Vassals are what matters, always mattered. The whole point is that you can't just declare war. CK2 tried to at least add the option, vestigial as it is, for you to consider your vassals as more than just opinions and adviors, positive factors to your rule, stats / mana to boost in a fluctuating way how powerful you are.
It's silly when you think about the transition from CK to EÙ where in one history isn't just made by men but IS literally just men, and not just in a philosophical way, while in EU history is the amount of stat mana relative to how you use it and expansion down time in coring cost and infamy.
This is the only problem with CK2
literally the only one
ANOTHER POLAND UPDATE?
I don't want to sound like a wehrabooish großgermanisus but Prussia and the german states haven't been touched in ages. They're still from a time where a CB would count as a mission! I want real content, real flavor for Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony; for Pfalz and Hannover, and the Hansa!