|
On August 20 2013 05:27 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 05:21 LaNague wrote:so, i have conquered a province from granada, it has "nationalism" on it, which annoyingly grants a minimum revolt risk for like 10 years. The rebels are patriots, which "want to reunite with their cultural kin" Would it go away if i pay the 200(  ) diplo power for culture change? because otherwise i only get -15% tax from the culture modifier, so i would save that power. I think cultural change would end the rebels but minimum revolt risk will gradually get lower and you wont even notice it after 4-5 years. 200 Diplo is just too expensive. I think the cultural change takes a few years too. Defintely not worth it in my opinion.
oh lol, you are right, right when i continued playing, the min risk dropped. With an army ontop of the county and "handle them" its 0 now.
|
United States5162 Posts
Yea, changing culture is almost never worth it. I leave it until I have absolutely nothing to spend my dip points on and am at the limit, and only then if it's really cheap at like 25 points.
|
On August 20 2013 05:21 LaNague wrote:so, i have conquered a province from granada, it has "nationalism" on it, which annoyingly grants a minimum revolt risk for like 10 years. The rebels are patriots, which "want to reunite with their cultural kin" Would it go away if i pay the 200( ) diplo power for culture change? because otherwise i only get -15% tax from the culture modifier, so i would save that power.
Every time you get a province, you should core it immediately. After you've cored it, nationalism and such modifiers usually decrease massively, on the order of 12% to 3% etc. If you can, you probably want to change the religion as well. As for culture, it's generally not worth it, it simply costs too much diplo-power and doesn't give enough benefits. Just keep a stack in the province until the revolt risk is low enough.
|
haha yes, i was so busy colonizing america that i never attacked anyone yet, so it was my first captured province.
I only did it because it was a very rich province that suddenly became available because Granada reappeared because of Castilles internal problems.
This game is pretty fun allready, i only played Ck2 before it and all the turmoil after each ruler death was pretty tiresome, so i guess this game is for me. Will be even more fun when i play in the middle of all the other countries and not just colonize an empty america.
|
On August 20 2013 01:32 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 01:11 daemir wrote:
So, having never played a EU game before, can someone tell me what kind of ratios of different unit types I should aim in a ground army? I mean I know the basic "cannons fire in the fire phase, cav does shock", but are there some numbers that are optimal or make the most sense? Good general seems to be a super important factor, but beyond I haven't really figured in the game so far that's indicative of how much what type a land army should have. Cavalry units are fundamentally stronger than Infantry. Ideally you would want an army made out of only cavalry, but because the game imposes a limit on how much % cavalry you can have in a stack before you start taking penalties, you can't. Most Western nations are limited to 50% cavalry max. Some of the Hordes I believe can have up to 70% (thus making them incredibly strong early on, albeit the tech penalty will cause them to fall off as the game progresses). As a rule of thumb, what you want is to have your nation's ideal distribution, then add 1 extra unit of infantry. The +1 infantry serves as a safety padding that prevents you from receiving penalties you would receive if an ideal distribution was disrupted by a couple of infantry soldiers dying early on (instantly causing your cavalry % to be higher than your nation's limit). I'm not too sure about Cannons myself. Basically Cannons sit in the back row and can participate in battle from there, unlike other unit types. However, they are easily brought down once attacked. I usually have 10-20% cannons in my armies, though I have no idea if that is correct.
Hordes can go waaaaay above 70%, for what I've seen in my novgorod game. I made the error to annex most of Muscovy and now border both Crimea and Kazan. They keep beating me up with armies looking like 10k cav+2k infantry. Their ratio is something like 90%/10% in the most extreme cases.
Eastern nations are at 60%.
If it works like EU3, cavalry is slowly made worse and worse through the course of the game, because infantry fire starts going up, while cav fire stays useless. So late game your armies will have some cav for flanking (think around 4k), but not the massive amounts you use early on.
Cav is also affected more by terrain than infantry, if I'm not mistaken, so if you play in mountains, it may be wiser to use infantry.
Cannons are a late game unit (in EU3, the first ones were quite bad). They can fire from the second row in a battle, so ideally, you want the same number of infantry and cannons to have a first line of infantry and a second line of cannons.
They're also quite good during sieges, I think.
|
Interesting, in my game Byzantium got eliminated in 10 years, then as venice I lost a war against ottomans and released Byzantium with crete in the peace deal. Then I joined a coallition against ottomans, allied with a Poland/Lituania superpower and each war we do and crush Ottomans, Byzantium also declare war and bite at ottoman gaining a province each time.
Right now Ottomans has 2 provinces left, Lithuania owns most of the east and Byzantium controls the whole greece 
Oh and getting 8500gold in a peace deal with Aztecs, those are really juicy.
|
What's the best way of turning loads of cash into a military advantage?
|
I logged an ungodly amount of hours for all previous Paradox titles, and so far EU4 has been what I was expecting. takes about 1 game before you realize how incredibly easy vanilla is compared to EU3 mods. my second game I took a German OPM and by 1515 i control half of modern Germany. As usual, EU games shine with regards to player-imposed restraint and rules. It's too easy to forge claim --> win war --> make core --> rinse/repeat compared to earlier games, I've found. Coring process should take VASTLY longer or be far more expensive to do, in order to prevent runaway blobbing and the like. That said, it's a great game and I've had a ton of fun with it so far. Great work!
Next stop is to WC with an Asian or african country, then maybe re-create the Mongolian empire, which is always a blast
On August 20 2013 14:40 randombum wrote:
What's the best way of turning loads of cash into a military advantage?
Mercs, fuck your force limits if you have THAT much money, etc etc. lower maintenance sliders to zero when not fighting (not zero if you have rebels, though). then mobilize before a major war and go from there
|
I can still buy mercs when I'm capped? That's going to be huge, I've been hiring them after long attrition wars when neither side has manpower left, but If i can start with 30 more troops on my 50ish limit that's going to make wars a lot easier.
|
On August 20 2013 07:09 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 01:32 Talin wrote:On August 20 2013 01:11 daemir wrote:
So, having never played a EU game before, can someone tell me what kind of ratios of different unit types I should aim in a ground army? I mean I know the basic "cannons fire in the fire phase, cav does shock", but are there some numbers that are optimal or make the most sense? Good general seems to be a super important factor, but beyond I haven't really figured in the game so far that's indicative of how much what type a land army should have. Cavalry units are fundamentally stronger than Infantry. Ideally you would want an army made out of only cavalry, but because the game imposes a limit on how much % cavalry you can have in a stack before you start taking penalties, you can't. Most Western nations are limited to 50% cavalry max. Some of the Hordes I believe can have up to 70% (thus making them incredibly strong early on, albeit the tech penalty will cause them to fall off as the game progresses). As a rule of thumb, what you want is to have your nation's ideal distribution, then add 1 extra unit of infantry. The +1 infantry serves as a safety padding that prevents you from receiving penalties you would receive if an ideal distribution was disrupted by a couple of infantry soldiers dying early on (instantly causing your cavalry % to be higher than your nation's limit). I'm not too sure about Cannons myself. Basically Cannons sit in the back row and can participate in battle from there, unlike other unit types. However, they are easily brought down once attacked. I usually have 10-20% cannons in my armies, though I have no idea if that is correct. Hordes can go waaaaay above 70%, for what I've seen in my novgorod game. I made the error to annex most of Muscovy and now border both Crimea and Kazan. They keep beating me up with armies looking like 10k cav+2k infantry. Their ratio is something like 90%/10% in the most extreme cases. Eastern nations are at 60%. If it works like EU3, cavalry is slowly made worse and worse through the course of the game, because infantry fire starts going up, while cav fire stays useless. So late game your armies will have some cav for flanking (think around 4k), but not the massive amounts you use early on. Cav is also affected more by terrain than infantry, if I'm not mistaken, so if you play in mountains, it may be wiser to use infantry. Cannons are a late game unit (in EU3, the first ones were quite bad). They can fire from the second row in a battle, so ideally, you want the same number of infantry and cannons to have a first line of infantry and a second line of cannons. They're also quite good during sieges, I think.
Hordes I'm pretty sure have %100 ratio, so they can have pure Cav stacks, that shit friggin hurts.
|
On August 20 2013 15:13 randombum wrote:
I can still buy mercs when I'm capped? That's going to be huge, I've been hiring them after long attrition wars when neither side has manpower left, but If i can start with 30 more troops on my 50ish limit that's going to make wars a lot easier.
You can't really be capped. The game doesn't stop you from breaking the force limit, even by simply hiring more regiments, the only detriment is that you have to pay an extra amount for each regiment above the limit. So assuming you have a ton of extra cash per month, you can simply keep a bigger standing army all the time.
|
On August 20 2013 15:36 Sunaj wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 07:09 Nyvis wrote:On August 20 2013 01:32 Talin wrote:On August 20 2013 01:11 daemir wrote:
So, having never played a EU game before, can someone tell me what kind of ratios of different unit types I should aim in a ground army? I mean I know the basic "cannons fire in the fire phase, cav does shock", but are there some numbers that are optimal or make the most sense? Good general seems to be a super important factor, but beyond I haven't really figured in the game so far that's indicative of how much what type a land army should have. Cavalry units are fundamentally stronger than Infantry. Ideally you would want an army made out of only cavalry, but because the game imposes a limit on how much % cavalry you can have in a stack before you start taking penalties, you can't. Most Western nations are limited to 50% cavalry max. Some of the Hordes I believe can have up to 70% (thus making them incredibly strong early on, albeit the tech penalty will cause them to fall off as the game progresses). As a rule of thumb, what you want is to have your nation's ideal distribution, then add 1 extra unit of infantry. The +1 infantry serves as a safety padding that prevents you from receiving penalties you would receive if an ideal distribution was disrupted by a couple of infantry soldiers dying early on (instantly causing your cavalry % to be higher than your nation's limit). I'm not too sure about Cannons myself. Basically Cannons sit in the back row and can participate in battle from there, unlike other unit types. However, they are easily brought down once attacked. I usually have 10-20% cannons in my armies, though I have no idea if that is correct. Hordes can go waaaaay above 70%, for what I've seen in my novgorod game. I made the error to annex most of Muscovy and now border both Crimea and Kazan. They keep beating me up with armies looking like 10k cav+2k infantry. Their ratio is something like 90%/10% in the most extreme cases. Eastern nations are at 60%. If it works like EU3, cavalry is slowly made worse and worse through the course of the game, because infantry fire starts going up, while cav fire stays useless. So late game your armies will have some cav for flanking (think around 4k), but not the massive amounts you use early on. Cav is also affected more by terrain than infantry, if I'm not mistaken, so if you play in mountains, it may be wiser to use infantry. Cannons are a late game unit (in EU3, the first ones were quite bad). They can fire from the second row in a battle, so ideally, you want the same number of infantry and cannons to have a first line of infantry and a second line of cannons. They're also quite good during sieges, I think. Hordes I'm pretty sure have %100 ratio, so they can have pure Cav stacks, that shit friggin hurts.
Maybe, but the IA still keeps infantry with it's armies for sieges.
I'm going to restart my novgorod game and expand less south, bordering both Kazan and Crimea, with them allied and Kazan calling the Timurid in, it's pretty hopeless :D
|
Playing against the hordes is a waiting game. You try to keep them busy warring with everybody else untill you get enough military tech to deal with them, then you quickly strike before others can take too big bites of their territory.
Also, nothing is more fun than to go to war with middle asian power and force them to release nomad nations - then letting the agressive nomads give you a free easy war to gobble up more territory. Worked so well in EU3 that I literally had to stop and deal with overextension in every game I ever played bordering horde territory by the 1600's despite the large number of core provinces gained at this point.
|
played sweden united pretty much scandinavia then russia comes along and rape me.
|
Russia, if formed by Muscovy, will rape pretty much anyone once they've dealt with the hordes. They have huge bonus to manpower and force limit, and you can't invade back because of attrition :D
You need to strike Russia early, when they're busy dealing with the hordes on your frontier, then unite Scandinavia, I'd say. Or be buddy with them while you play in Europe. if you intend to go to war around the Baltic, they are pretty good allies to keep poland-lithuania busy.
|
On August 20 2013 18:58 OopsOopsBaby wrote:
played sweden united pretty much scandinavia then russia comes along and rape me.
Playing Sweden right now (1670ish or so). I allied Russia after breaking free from Denmark. And I allied Lithuania. An alliance that lasted a good 50 years while I expanded to take Norway and Denmark. I also started colonizing the US by buying fleet basing rights from Spain, which I then cancelled once I had taken Iceland from Norway. I am now, way later, in wars every now and again with Russia but given my size and somewhat stable alliances with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal and lately Bohemia the wars against the Russo-Franco-Polack coalition/alliance isn't really that hard on me. In fact I once had a war all alone when I wanted to take what was left of one province Shawnee in the US that dragged France, Poland, Russia, The Hansa and a couple of other not-as-big-but-still-powerful countries in a coalition against me to war. I won it and took my Shawnee province and a couple from Poland. The fact that France is so far away from Sweden really works against them, as does Russias constant internal rebel problem and wars in the far east.
|
On August 20 2013 14:26 rezoacken wrote:
Oh and getting 8500gold in a peace deal with Aztecs, those are really juicy.
Yeah, the dev's are fixing that for the next patch, so the AI will actually use some gold before they reach 32394 gold.
|
On August 20 2013 23:12 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 14:26 rezoacken wrote:
Oh and getting 8500gold in a peace deal with Aztecs, those are really juicy. Yeah, the dev's are fixing that for the next patch, so the AI will actually use some gold before they reach 32394 gold.
The problem isn't the AI, it's the game. Buildings take from the same points pool you have for research/ideas. Native American nations already have horrible growth in that. But yeah, they should spend gold on the only reasonable think I can imagine, very high grade advisors. Buildings would just lower their tech progression even more.
I have no idea if the AI is programmed to go over it's force limit if they have the economy for it, too. I would guess that they don't.
|
It's not an especially new thing that the Aztecs & Co have lots of gold and nothing to spend it on. It also isn't that ahistoric, didn't the conquistadores basically grab ships full of gold and silver from america?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
