|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CsM6yXI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lBbz3Fw.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NWApECO.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5dOMWtI.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/s1C01vv.jpg)
Transoxiana vassal with admin/religious ideas and lots of claims on Timurids. I messed up alliances a bit and probably should have allied Russia who is rival to Ming and Ottoman instead of allying Ottoman. Not a big deal but I wanted to fight Ottoman before Russia. I am stilling on Despotic Monarchy for the unjustified demands and -1 unrest since I have been running the prestige advisor for 10 years trying to get the +1 dip skill event. Will switch to the higher autonomy change govt. after getting Ming TCs. I am Hindu, but will convert to Shinto after something like 12000 dev. The one culture needs to be done with an Eastern religion for tributaries and Shinto gives reduced culture conversion cost.
Manpower isn't terrible now after having spammed some training fields but I still can't come close to filling FL. Kilwa capital is my only state so Asian TCs but no African TCs, will probably move it to Dagestan soon as I can't control Aden so it's pretty useless location. I will fight Portugal with Ottoman CtA and 0 mandate Ming who are fighting Russia.
I expanded very slowly and mostly in TC region only pre absolutism and also had Influence 3rd so unjustified demands wasn't bad. Claims weren't an issue with diplomats always working. Do you think Offensive is a better combat group than Quality? It seems Quality is better with high tradition for general rolls which I don't have right now, and its policies are definitely better. Although Offensive increases FL which I need and gives some unrest reduction which I don't really need. Right now I feel like winning battles is more of a bottleneck than siege time. Naval bonuses from Quality would also be very useful vs. colonizers and Ming/Japan.
I stream occasionally at twitch.tv/accordion1234, I've watched your run but you never look at chat 
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
it's hard to remember to look at chat yo :3
Are those ottoman colonies over in borneo though? That's kinda disgusting :D
The army tradition is a massive deal early on, but by now I'd think you should be always above 90 tradition, simply for getting 1 tradition/siege, not sure why your tradition is so low. If you aren't capped, then yeah, quality is going to be a bit better, but not by much. The FL is useful even if you can't fill it out right now, because the amount of mercenaries you can recruit scales linearly off of FL.
Overall the comparison goes like this: +1/+1 pips is about equal to something like 11% combat ability to everything, both quality and offensive give discipline, both give 5% discipline. Army tradition gives you about 1 more pip after 2 decades or so, if you never cap. so you compare that 1 extra pip and naval bonuses to faster siege time. It's up to you, I guess the naval bonuses are a lot bigger deal for you than for me, but I love me some siege ability. Having literally no sailors is pretty rough though :D
|
Are you saying the +1/+1 pip from Offensive is better with army tradition not maxed or maxed? It's better with maxed right? Do you know if pips still carry over?
Quality gets 10% siege ability/5% morale with Religious and -25% attrition/10% manpower recovery. Offensive doesn't have any combat stat policies. The only problem with Quality is FL which trade companies can boost temporarily but eventually I will have to increase it somehow.
Without quantity I doubt you'll be able to keep the professionalism for very long. But I guess having some is always better than having none at all.
Both Ottoman and Ming colonized along with usual colonizers. I'm using trade ships to protect and can still transfer, a chunk of income is lost but money is the least of my worries right now.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:51 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Are you saying the +1/+1 pip from Offensive is better with army tradition not maxed or maxed? It's better with maxed right? Do you know if pips still carry over?
Quality gets 10% siege ability/5% morale with Religious and -25% attrition/10% manpower recovery. Offensive doesn't have any combat stat policies. The only problem with Quality is FL which trade companies can boost temporarily but eventually I will have to increase it somehow.
Without quantity I doubt you'll be able to keep the professionalism for very long. But I guess having some is always better than having none at all.
Both Ottoman and Ming colonized along with usual colonizers. I'm using trade ships to protect and can still transfer, a chunk of income is lost but money is the least of my worries right now.
Yes, pips carry over from left to right. If you have +1fire and roll 6 fire, you get +1 shock instead etc. What I meant with the army tradition is that +1/year from quality doesn't really do anything if its maxed already, so it's not necessarily fair to say that quality also gives you +1 pip on generals.
I forgot about the -attrition+manpower policy, I even used it a lot in my playthrough, but I ended up getting rid of exploration ideas kinda early, not sure how long you intend to keep them, but since you want diplomatic ideas asap I imagine you'll want to get rid of them fairly soon.
it's true that quality does have a good policy with religious, but I'm wondering if it isn't better to just roll for an extra general every 4 years. You'll also get some professionalism, which you can use to slacken manpower. So that's essentially +10% manpower recovery speed and also extra rolls for possibly more siege pip generals. The policy is probably still a bit better, but the comparison is pretty darn close imo, so it doesn't give quality that big of an advantage over offensive.
If there's a reason to pick quality, it would be for the naval bonuses, and they are pretty damn good imo. If I understand how naval combat works, naval morale starts to matter more and more once you get 40+ heavy ships, since you'll end up winning the naval battle without ever engaging most of the enemy forces, and having more heavy ships will skew that ratio in your favour. With any luck and planning, you can destroy enemy navy almost entirely after one battle, since they tend to run to the nearest port, you just keep sequentially sieging those and keep engaging while they have 0 morale.
|
For army tradition I meant to ask whether the +1 roll is better or worse if you're maxed out on AT since pips are capped. It seems like if I am maxed out on army tradition and can roll good generals anyway I would benefit more from the combat ability. To clarify, at this stage and with Chinese tech group, nothing matters except for fire pips, if the general does not have 4 fire I would just reroll. Even if pips carry over it wouldn't matter that much.
I need to colonize every province eventually so exploration needs to stay. I'm not following rolling extra general vs. quality/religious policy. I can still do the same with Quality no?
In my understanding naval morale just means having to sacrifice less heavies. Before big engages I pick a high maneuver admiral to increase engagement width and send in width/3 heavies until the first stack is at about 2/3 morale, then I send in another same size stack, then repeat, etc. I'm guessing naval morale damage considers max morale just like land combat.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
well quality+religious policy costs you 1 mil/month, and so does recruiting a general every 4 years. So it's a fair comparison of how to spend your mil points.
|
I see, then the policy should save a lot more manpower in comparison imo.
I think with the introduction of the professionalism mechanic, +1 pip ideas are worth less than before because the mana spent on rolling generals now have other uses and can be exchanged. Since generals can teleport and the only cap on how many that can be recruited is mil points, +1 pip really just means less mana needed to get a good enough general, and in this case it's something like a 5 fire which will be used for all major battles. With max tradition the mana saved is even less, same with the difference in casualties for higher pips compared to lower pips. Siege ability and FL still matter a lot though, but then again I am not finding that to be the bottleneck.
Two years is a long time in between coring cycles compared to any tag that starts with CCR. There's no point stacking wars that give more than 100 OE if you can't release/feed the OE to subjects which requires peace. The only wars that should take longer are vs. other GPs. On the other hand for horde WCs siege time becomes the main bottleneck very early from being able to sit on very high OE and having very fast coring times.
One of the most important strategies used for Marco's 1538 run which I used also is to peace out as much warscore/OE as possible at the same time, as in within a window of 2-3 months. Primary culture group coring time is reduced by x0.5, so with 60 CCR that turns into 7 months. Coring time is rounded down so that 7.9 months coring time becomes 7 months flat. Knowing this and the fact rebel progress is capped at 10%/month, changed from 20% several patches ago, being able to core under 10 months means no rebels will spawn as long as rebel progress starts at 0 and dies down at no or low OE. In this scenario it's important to reach 100 WS with all declared wars at the same time. Siege time suddenly becomes a big bottleneck since each coring cycle is now about a year, or 7 months + a few months for rebel progress to die down.
For this run I think it's good to stay at peace as often as possible between cycles if only because there is no other way to reduce war exhaustion besides buying it down. If a war only takes a year to end and it's started two years before, the extra time spent sitting on 100 ws waiting for cores to finish is time when war exhaustion can tick down. The only advantage is that the AI can't develop in the mean time and increase war score. It's not worth it to go over 100 OE even with enough unrest reduction when coring time is this long.
|
Tips for beating Muscovy as Great Horde? I can win the first war relatively easy, but do usually die to lack of money and beating them a second time after they bully Novgorod seems pretty impossible lmao.
|
The strategy with major powers is usually to hit them early or get a strong enough defensive alliance and just expand faster while leaving them be.
In the case of Muscovy PLC, Kazan and Novgorod are all helpful allies, with Kazan being the most realistic choice if they don't rival you. Or you can just leave Muscovy be and conquer their eastern and southern border, since they can't really go west and have a hard time expanding north.
If you have trouble winning the second war, extend the first war until their war exhaustion skyrockets and other nations DOW them. If you have money problems with Horde you likely don't have enough cav or aren't (long) enough in wars, since looting with cavalry brings roughly twice as much money as they cost. Taking their trade-provinces is also an easy way to keep a nation down since that heavily cuts into their income (and is very beneficial to yours). Ottomans is really the only nation I ever expect to give me trouble again if I win a first war.
If you are way bigger you can guarantee Novgorod, I doubt that's a possibility in your case though.
|
Zulu, Ryuku one culture/faith on very hard is a nice challenge, I will watch your live stream  .
Btw, in 1.25, if you are a Ming tributary and your relationship is less then -50, ming always cancel the tributary no matter how many trust you have. Is it a new thing or a bug?
|
Scip, do you have any thoughts on whether this is possible? I'm beginning to think it isn't. The goal is a one culture, which almost certainly requires a one faith. The plan was to switch to Sunni via decision and use Dhimmi to spawn Shinto zealots. I am assuming religious rebels won't teleport from Japan so I'd need to grant one or several Japanese vassals Ming or Korean provinces and spawn zealots from there. I would also need to switch out Humanism to get more unrest and spawn more zealots. Assuming it takes something like 70 years to get the reduced culture conversion cost from Isolationism and 50 or so years to convert a 50 dev province, I would need to one tag in 1740s at the latest, which I doubt is possible from this point. Another option is to go Buddhist for easier conversion but 5% less culture conversion cost reduction, cccr is capped at 90%.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EJG6kFA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/x68gx29.jpg)
|
Two of you were on Sui King's EU4 best players tier list rankings. xD
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
LOL, bly (zulunation) and who else? 749?
I have absolutely no idea about the one culture dude, I've never played past like 1630 before my current playthrough, I've got no estimates for the endgame. But it really doesn't seem realistic. Russia is pretty gigantic, it will take like what, 6 wars, maybe fewer if you use nationalism CB to take them down? Just sieging that stuff down to 100% them will take ages. And that's not even taking into account Europe.
Nice job taking down portugal though, I should probably get to that as well. Taking all those colonial nations from them could really help my bank and they are allied pretty much only to spain in my game. What mil idea group did you decide to go at the end?
|
Bly=bbqftw right? That list made no sense.
|
749 = bbqftw, siu king is by far the worst "top player" and tried to butt into the marco drama when he had no business doing so. It's hard to compare skill in a single player sandbox game, but if we're talking about general min maxing, resource management and not specific categories like horde WCs, Scip is actually better than marco and probably florry who are generally considered the top two players. Neither of them really does normal WC runs anymore. I doubt DDRJake plays his own game given the balance changes in the past few patches.
Russia has lv2 forts and no cannons so they are not the biggest problem, about 3 wars with nationalism CB that can be chained with trucebreaks and primary culture coring time. I actually took Diplomatic 6th since Chinese units do get a boost at tech 23 and will probably get Offensive or Quantity next. You're right that siege time will be important now, not as much in terms of forts but for carpet sieging.
|
I was looking at one culture as Russia before they took -15% culture conversion from Russia but the best i could achieve is whole continental Asia + large part Europe + about half of Africa. The thing is that random AI forced conversion on OPM with huge amount of development means You could get screwed easily.
Granted i am not as good as You guys, plus i avoid release nations, religion/country switeches etc. as they break my immersion so perhaps it is doable.
|
What is a good way to change religion with the help of rebels? Is there anything to keep in mind while doing so?
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
What is the Marco drama? I haven't been following the EU4 scene at all.
The best way to change religions via rebels is as Bly said, if you are muslim, dhimmi estate everything you want to convert to, make dhimmi mad, remove the estate from provinces spawning zealots in the process and they will convert everything. Without Dhimmi, I've only used religious conversion via rebels early on in the game (like switching from Ibadi to Shia, or stuff like that), because early game you can have the rebels often convert all of your provinces in the process of rising up.
Yeah, comparing "skill" in a game like this is pretty difficult. You say my macro might be better, but that's probably because I play at speed1 and often pause while they don't. I think it's a better idea to compare achievements, like your Kazan WC is pretty damn impressive, or that OPM WC by 749, but it's hard to say that one of you is more skilled than the other from that.
|
On May 13 2018 19:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:
749 = bbqftw, siu king is by far the worst "top player" and tried to butt into the marco drama when he had no business doing so. It's hard to compare skill in a single player sandbox game, but if we're talking about general min maxing, resource management and not specific categories like horde WCs, Scip is actually better than marco and probably florry who are generally considered the top two players. Neither of them really does normal WC runs anymore. I doubt DDRJake plays his own game given the balance changes in the past few patches.
Russia has lv2 forts and no cannons so they are not the biggest problem, about 3 wars with nationalism CB that can be chained with trucebreaks and primary culture coring time. I actually took Diplomatic 6th since Chinese units do get a boost at tech 23 and will probably get Offensive or Quantity next. You're right that siege time will be important now, not as much in terms of forts but for carpet sieging.
Oh right my bad, mixed you guys up. I think doing something like a best player list in eu4 is pretty stupid, since there really isn't a way to objectively compare people in this game. Still, Scip probably has the most patience and the most free time so he'd be numba one in my book.
|
On May 13 2018 21:55 Scip wrote:
What is the Marco drama? I haven't been following the EU4 scene at all.
The best way to change religions via rebels is as Bly said, if you are muslim, dhimmi estate everything you want to convert to, make dhimmi mad, remove the estate from provinces spawning zealots in the process and they will convert everything. Without Dhimmi, I've only used religious conversion via rebels early on in the game (like switching from Ibadi to Shia, or stuff like that), because early game you can have the rebels often convert all of your provinces in the process of rising up.
Yeah, comparing "skill" in a game like this is pretty difficult. You say my macro might be better, but that's probably because I play at speed1 and often pause while they don't. I think it's a better idea to compare achievements, like your Kazan WC is pretty damn impressive, or that OPM WC by 749, but it's hard to say that one of you is more skilled than the other from that.
When I used Marco's strategy to beat his 1538 world record he flipped out and started flaming in a way I hadn't seen since pre tribunal system Bronze elo US server. Siu King then tried to fan the flames, this was in the reddit thread about my run. The list is clearly clickbait but I find it funny that someone whose most impressive run is probably a kamchadal WC on normal that finished in the 1800s could have the idea he's better than the players listed below him. He also savescums endlessly on stream because of the amount of mistakes. With that said he is a content creator unlike me or some of the others on that list so he has reasons besides an overinflated ego. Siu King is also one of the few streamer/youtubers who are actually decent at the game unlike Arumba, Reman, Shenryrr or w/e.
While it's hard to compare skill there are fundamentals that some players clearly understand and execute better than others, micro is one, which depends on speed of play, knowledge of combat mechanics and a bit of actual RTS type multitasking mechanics, macro/resource management is another, and also creativity, aggressiveness, etc. I also find it funny that I never realized how good you are until recently.
In terms of who the actual best players are at the game, they probably come from other communities and are unknown. For example I joined small group on the Chinese EU4 forum that discusses and posts runs. They've done things like a Brazilian Horde 1 tag/faith/culture, VH TTM with every province colonized, 1560s Ottoman HRE WC, etc. I learned a lot from them and the ones who still play are at least as good as the Marcos and Florrys. There are also expert players in the Russian/Ukranian communities as well as other non English communities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
