|
On September 09 2013 19:37 KaiserJohan wrote:
Coalitions are simply broken. It's an awesome idea but practically a mess and I never join them anymore. Some of the reasons include;
1. You cannot peace out in a coalition war. Makes no sense WHATSOEVER, both gameplay and history wise, to not be able to do it
2. Only the nation in the coalition which DOW'd gets to negiotiate. And he will get ALL the spoils. Even if it's little OPM Lorraine DOWing France and the rest of the world doing all the work.
3. As the target of the coalition, simply destroy the nation which DOW'd you and the war is OVER... so as france, if Lorraine DOW's you, just occupy lorraine and POFF, coalition war is over...
It really does get insanely annoying. In my game as England, I conquered most of France, having to take a bit off of Spain because they expanded like crazy and I felt like I needed to cut them down a bit. Now, no matter whether I dow a 1 province random country somewhere or try to take bites out of the HRE, Spains and Portugal jump into the fray and I have to fend off another 50-100 stack because I took 2 provinces from them 60 years ago. >_>
|
On September 09 2013 21:57 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 19:37 KaiserJohan wrote:
Coalitions are simply broken. It's an awesome idea but practically a mess and I never join them anymore. Some of the reasons include;
1. You cannot peace out in a coalition war. Makes no sense WHATSOEVER, both gameplay and history wise, to not be able to do it
2. Only the nation in the coalition which DOW'd gets to negiotiate. And he will get ALL the spoils. Even if it's little OPM Lorraine DOWing France and the rest of the world doing all the work.
3. As the target of the coalition, simply destroy the nation which DOW'd you and the war is OVER... so as france, if Lorraine DOW's you, just occupy lorraine and POFF, coalition war is over... It really does get insanely annoying. In my game as England, I conquered most of France, having to take a bit off of Spain because they expanded like crazy and I felt like I needed to cut them down a bit. Now, no matter whether I dow a 1 province random country somewhere or try to take bites out of the HRE, Spains and Portugal jump into the fray and I have to fend off another 50-100 stack because I took 2 provinces from them 60 years ago. >_>
Yeah, this is one of the problems. If you're aggressive towards a country, it makes sense that they enter a coalition, but why don't they leave them? It makes no sense.
"I have 100 aggressive expansion with England, they are douches, I'll go into a coalition against them." - Makes sense
"I have 0 aggressive expansion with England, but they took a province from me 100 years ago so I'll stay in a coalition against them." - Makes no sense
The most logical system would be if there was a chance based coalition system. For example, a country with 50 AE has a 10% chance to enter a coalition against said country every month. At 0 AE, there's a 20% chance to leave the coalition each year.
That way, you would be forced to keep control over your AE, while not being punished for fighting wars which you need to fight.
|
On September 09 2013 22:08 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 21:57 dismiss wrote:On September 09 2013 19:37 KaiserJohan wrote:
Coalitions are simply broken. It's an awesome idea but practically a mess and I never join them anymore. Some of the reasons include;
1. You cannot peace out in a coalition war. Makes no sense WHATSOEVER, both gameplay and history wise, to not be able to do it
2. Only the nation in the coalition which DOW'd gets to negiotiate. And he will get ALL the spoils. Even if it's little OPM Lorraine DOWing France and the rest of the world doing all the work.
3. As the target of the coalition, simply destroy the nation which DOW'd you and the war is OVER... so as france, if Lorraine DOW's you, just occupy lorraine and POFF, coalition war is over... It really does get insanely annoying. In my game as England, I conquered most of France, having to take a bit off of Spain because they expanded like crazy and I felt like I needed to cut them down a bit. Now, no matter whether I dow a 1 province random country somewhere or try to take bites out of the HRE, Spains and Portugal jump into the fray and I have to fend off another 50-100 stack because I took 2 provinces from them 60 years ago. >_> Yeah, this is one of the problems. If you're aggressive towards a country, it makes sense that they enter a coalition, but why don't they leave them? It makes no sense. "I have 100 aggressive expansion with England, they are douches, I'll go into a coalition against them." - Makes sense "I have 0 aggressive expansion with England, but they took a province from me 100 years ago so I'll stay in a coalition against them." - Makes no sense The most logical system would be if there was a chance based coalition system. For example, a country with 50 AE has a 10% chance to enter a coalition against said country every month. At 0 AE, there's a 20% chance to leave the coalition each year. That way, you would be forced to keep control over your AE, while not being punished for fighting wars which you need to fight.
Out of all problems with coalitions I have, this is not one of them. Quite the contrary, I sometimes find the AI is too quick to leave coalitions. Basically, you conquer a bunch of provinces and get AE -> ppl get angry and go into coalition against you -> you wait X years for AE to go down/increase rep with rivals -> everyone leaves coalition and then you can just go conquer again.
I find improving relations and simply waiting does the job
|
yeah same to the guy above. I'm sitting rather pretty as hindustan and if it wasn't for the peace out rules I'd simply stomp out every nation from here to the ottomans and would already have a chunk of china.
It would also cause a blobbing exponentially growing problem where you'd take over all the people around you and then when the people past them get mad you take all of them over and so on and so forth until you control the whole map by 1600.
|
On September 09 2013 23:06 Sermokala wrote:
yeah same to the guy above. I'm sitting rather pretty as hindustan and if it wasn't for the peace out rules I'd simply stomp out every nation from here to the ottomans and would already have a chunk of china.
It would also cause a blobbing exponentially growing problem where you'd take over all the people around you and then when the people past them get mad you take all of them over and so on and so forth until you control the whole map by 1600.
It would make more sense to balance AE then. It's far more annoying to have countries with 0 AE be in a coalition against you than to get more AE from wars but at least have countries which act in a sensible fashion concerning their AE.
EDIT: My current train of thought is that AE is far more global than the game makes it seem. The reason that countries left the coalition might have been that Denmark actually had quite a lot of AE with me... and when I integrated them, that AE disappeared, making other countries leave the coalition... This would mean that the AE you have with a specific country is not the only thing impacting the coalition, but countries are also affected by the AE of other countries in the area/coalition.
|
I find that countries leave coalitions just fine, although sometimes the AI glitches and will forget about it. But I rarely ever want them to leave a coalition. Coalitions are the most overpowered thing for you. It's pretty easy really:
- Get an overpowered CB (Religious, Diplomatic, Exploration, etc.).
- Start a war against a small country on which your CB works. Never actually annex their last province.
- All the countries in the coalition that can will join the war.
- Your OP CB works against all of them for peace negotiations. Enjoy your -75% Aggro and cost reduction on the whole coalition.
- Bonus points for giving your provinces to your Vassal while you're annexing him.
Obviously, you have to be able to win the war, but if you've been balancing your enemies right, this should be no problem, as they won't really help each other. Rebels are your friends.
If there are too many countries in the coalition, you'll either have to split them up (i.e. find a way to get a truce with half of them and juggle the wars), or make them quit (improve relations + gift + military access).
|
On September 10 2013 02:39 Pwere wrote:
I find that countries leave coalitions just fine, although sometimes the AI glitches and will forget about it. But I rarely ever want them to leave a coalition. Coalitions are the most overpowered thing for you. It's pretty easy really:
- Get an overpowered CB (Religious, Diplomatic, Exploration, etc.).
- Start a war against a small country on which your CB works. Never actually annex their last province.
- All the countries in the coalition that can will join the war.
- Your OP CB works against all of them for peace negotiations. Enjoy your -75% Aggro and cost reduction on the whole coalition.
- Bonus points for giving your provinces to your Vassal while you're annexing him.
Obviously, you have to be able to win the war, but if you've been balancing your enemies right, this should be no problem, as they won't really help each other. Rebels are your friends.
If there are too many countries in the coalition, you'll either have to split them up (i.e. find a way to get a truce with half of them and juggle the wars), or make them quit (improve relations + gift + military access).
That must be a bug... the CB costs should only affect the peace offers included in the CB. If you go to war with Poland on a revolutionary CB, you shouldn't get reduced costs when taking provinces from Bohemia, etc.
|
The CB works on full annexation and all conquests. There's no restriction...
The downside of the coalition is that you can't enforce religion/trade on your target, but only on the coalition leader. They've got a lot of fixing to do...
|
On September 09 2013 21:13 PerryHooter wrote:
Am I the only one who gets super confused by the trading system? Could anyone maybe explain it briefly for me, like a "EUIV trading for dummies"-guide? Like, how can it benefit you to send trading downstream to another node, rather than collecting it directly?
Like some have said:
-Collecting in a trade region outside your capital gives you a huge penalty.
-Steering increases trade value downstream (sometimes upstream but it sucks). Downstream means to the next node according to the arrows, once you have a merchant in a node to steer trade you can select the direction (which path you want to steer trade) by clicking the little boxes on each path.
-How much you collect or steer in a node is dependent of your trade power in that node compared to other nations (the circular diagram) and % modifiers (steering power, embargoes etc).
-Light Ships increase trade power when protecting trade
-Embargo reduces the trade power of the target. It gives you a trade efficiency negative unless you embargo a rival.
The basic ideas are:
-Collect in home region. For example as Venice, the Venice trade node.
-Look for which node can send trade to your home trade, put merchant there, send ships there. As Venice, Alexandria and Ragusa.
-When you have extra merchants you can even look farther if there are nodes sending trade to a node that is sending trade to your home node. For example as Venice, if you already steer from Alexandria and Ragusa you may want to steer from Constantinople.
-If there is a trade node that cannot send trade to your home region but in which you have huge trade power (colonies), it can be worth it to collect there too. For example as Venice, if you colonize North America there is no way to send trade from there to venice so you're better collecting there if you have a huge chunk of the trade power.
-Rival your biggest competition and embargo them (if you don't fear them).
|
On September 09 2013 19:06 Tobberoth wrote:
I really wish there were more information on coalition mechanics. The basic mechanic makes perfect sense to me: Be too aggressive and other countries get together to stop you. However, it seems so random, as if you're not supposed to be able to play smart against it.
At first, I though it had to do with aggressive expansion... the higher you have with a country, the higher the chance that it joins a coalition against you. However, I've had countries join coalitions against me even if they have 0 aggressive expansion and I haven't touched them diplomatically. Sure, I'm a huge powerful country close to them, but it seems like if they haven't gotten any aggressive expansion, they shouldn't care about that.
Another weird aspect: I had like 5-6 countries in a coalition against me as sweden. Then I formed scandinavia, and every country left the coalition. Why?
I've found that they seem to stick to the coalition as long as no other big threat appears. So if they only hate you or only view you as a threat then you're going to be coalitioned against forever. They can only have one coalition target at a time though (just like you) so just wait until someone else gets their attention - or make that happen yourself with diplomacy and smart play.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
The mechanics for leaving coalitions is simple iirc:
if they are outraged with you, they'll leave when you have positive relationship at the end of a month.
if they aren't outraged, they will leave when you have relationship at -99 or better at the end of a month.
|
Fuck. I really want to play this but after my long ass Austria game that keeps crashing whenever I try to save past a certain date it took all passion out of the game. I was really damn enjoying that Austria game too. God damnnn itttt why do all great games have to be so buggy? I don't mind the usual Bethesda style bug which is just weird animations or something but game breaking bugs piss me off to no end. I've tried like every suggestion online to try and fix it but nothing helps. Damn it damn it damn it
|
On September 10 2013 07:18 Scip wrote:
The mechanics for leaving coalitions is simple iirc:
if they are outraged with you, they'll leave when you have positive relationship at the end of a month.
if they aren't outraged, they will leave when you have relationship at -99 or better at the end of a month.
This is invaluable if true, I will have to do some testing on that. This is exactly the kind of knowledge I was looking for.
|
what about a TL eu4 multiplayer game? are there enough people interested in?
i am playing it with a friend for a while now and it seems to run very stable (hi eu3), but we are just 2 soooo....
|
So, I'm a noob playing castille (a.k.a soon-to-be-Spain). I have gotten quite far, think it's around year 1550 and I have a few colonies in south america and just now I've fought the aztecs whom I just rolled over. I occupied all of their provinces before negotiating peace in order to get a good deal.
It turned out they had 6.6k gold in their treasury (!) which they would give me along with two provinces in the peace deal. I wonder, did I just break the game? I mean I never get higher than maybe 250 before I spend it all on buildings, ships and stuff, so that amount of money seems totally ludicrous. Sure they might be rich from gold mines and stuff but I wonder if I didn't just find a bug in the game. Don't think it would be fun to continue with that much gold even, would give me such a huge and unfair advantage over the other european powers.
|
Not a bug, they accumulate gold because they don't have much to spend it on there.
|
Poland after 70 years. LOL. Spain and France may be overpowered, Denmark may be good, but this is ridiculous :D.
![[image loading]](http://picload.org/image/ooloopw/commonwealth.jpg)
And I only started one war against the Teutonic Order to force them into vassalization. Thats it. Apart from that i just reaped the benefits of getting called into wars with fithy protestants while being Defender of the Catholic Faith. I Vassalized and annexed, Lithuania, Moldavia, warzwa (part of Poland), Brandenburg and Mecklenburg^^. I got a Marriage with Muskovy before they started considering me a rival. Might force them into a personal union if the opportunity arises. If i had taken a second diplomatic idea instead of a military one I could even westernize within approximately 50 years :D. But now its too late  .
|
Poland also has some of the best national ideas in the game. But there are other ways to become powerful. You don't need to start with 40 provinces either. Hell, you don't even need ten. All you need is to...
+ Show Spoiler +...climb your way to the top of the Roman Empire. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fjbm0g9.png)
Perry, that isn't a glitch, but money isn't all that important. By the year 1600, a lot of african/american nations will have a few thousands. When a CPU eventually steals it, he builds a bunch of useless buildings, which barely helps him at all. The Devs mentioned that they would do something about it, but it isn't that game breaking.
|
buildings are also bad beacuse they cost monarch points that can be used for tech. better to use it as a stockpile so you can get mercs in a war to suicide onto their stack and grind down some moral for a better victory.
expecialy if your in a backwater country you need every point to keep your military tech up.
|
On September 12 2013 08:11 Sermokala wrote:
buildings are also bad beacuse they cost monarch points that can be used for tech. better to use it as a stockpile so you can get mercs in a war to suicide onto their stack and grind down some moral for a better victory.
expecialy if your in a backwater country you need every point to keep your military tech up.
Tech are pretty useless, excluding military, investing in ideas is usually better (I only tech admin if my ideas are full, because the benefits are really small).
Buildings are decent if you play in a mod reducing the insane trade income (because of increase from steering), because you'll have a lot less money.
Military tech is mandatory, and dip is pretty good if you colonize/trade (new ships), but adm can be disregarded as long as you have ideas to fill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
