EPTEuropa Universalis IV - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
| ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
| ||
Invoker
Belgium686 Posts
Brandenburg/Prussia and those kind of nations with huge discipline/moral bonus are insanely hard to beat. And I don't get why France is so weak. I've never seen them beating Austria in an actual war. When I play as Italian states(mostly tuscany - tech bonus imba), my only and best option is to make an alliance with France but they are always getting raped by Austria. Not only that, they are also dragging me down with them. Spain is not an option, because they usually don't care about my wars with Austria and they are relatively far to me. And if France don't grant them military access, they can't actually help me at all. Can't find myself a suitable ally :/ | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
| ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
On November 25 2013 16:04 Invoker wrote: I really don't like this new combat system in 1.3. Brandenburg/Prussia and those kind of nations with huge discipline/moral bonus are insanely hard to beat. And I don't get why France is so weak. I've never seen them beating Austria in an actual war. When I play as Italian states(mostly tuscany - tech bonus imba), my only and best option is to make an alliance with France but they are always getting raped by Austria. Not only that, they are also dragging me down with them. Spain is not an option, because they usually don't care about my wars with Austria and they are relatively far to me. And if France don't grant them military access, they can't actually help me at all. Can't find myself a suitable ally :/ You're not supposed to be able to beat the emperor. If you're interested in the HRE lands, then the key is to not attract the emperor's attention. Follow the HRE-specific laws as much as you possibly can, and if you have to make some noise, do it when he's too busy to look your way. | ||
|
Taktik
Poland680 Posts
Also it seems that sweden and other nations that got army morale ideas etc, got super strong. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
On November 25 2013 13:49 rezoacken wrote: Might give it a try, looks like good changes to me lol the thing is, there is 0 reason to make your vassals anything other than counts as you lose 50% of them for every title inbetween. Which is kind of against everything CK2 gameplay was about. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
On November 25 2013 23:47 LaNague wrote: the thing is, there is 0 reason to make your vassals anything other than counts as you lose 50% of them for every title inbetween. Which is kind of against everything CK2 gameplay was about. What... no. Just no stop please. thats not how math works. The new system makes it so that you can't stack counts and you are rewarded for sending your vassals to uour dukes and kings so you can get more levies which is what the game ia designed for you to do. You obviously didn't read the patch notes at all and dont understand how de juer works with levies now. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
is there any way to easily dismantle a country once it starts colonizing? I've already pushed England off the British Isles (well, France did but I was in control of most of the sieges  ) but they seem to have colonized Cuba + all of Canada in the meantime and I can only realistically demand ~3-4 colonial provinces from England per war.Also England finally made a stack on their colonial holdings so I actually have to use a real army there, and Arctic land attrition seems like  pictures: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tl6YKuC.jpg) brutally oppressing native americans (in the background you can see France after they decided to start a war against Austria + Castile / Portugal / Aragon + a bunch of randoms -- I left them to die, didn't want any part of that war, luckily they didn't lose much land) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6W1TaNf.jpg) British Isles situation - I released Scotland as vassal and will annex soon ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kum6iYa.jpg) north american situation. At least England will run out of contiguous provinces to colonize at some point (annexing my vassal Aztecs right now) Also I realize its pretty much pointless to colonize the other side of the Pacific (there's not a good trade steering path that I see - I only have decent control of Carribean and Chesapeake nodes, that being 75%+), but hey why not. Best I can see is Phillipines --> Panama (which I'd need to take control of) --> Carribean --> Chespeake, but Amusingly enough this has led to a situation where my colonial navy is ~80+ ships while my mainland europe navy is 11 transports for the occasional call-to-arms from France. I guess I could spend the last third of my campaign using my $$ to buy mercs to wipe out Austria because fuck those guys, if not for their alliance with England I'm pretty sure I could have dispatched them before they started colonizing extensively. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
On November 26 2013 00:32 Sermokala wrote: What... no. Just no stop please. thats not how math works. The new system makes it so that you can't stack counts and you are rewarded for sending your vassals to uour dukes and kings so you can get more levies which is what the game ia designed for you to do. You obviously didn't read the patch notes at all and dont understand how de juer works with levies now. this is the EU4 thread, but this is exactly how the game works, maybe you should not be so condescending. There is zero reward for not having everything counts. Read up on the issue more in the official paradox forum. Unfortunately i missed the Eu4 sale, i wanted to buy it in the humble store, but i thought it lasted 1 day longer than it did. Maybe ill be on dayle steam sale. =) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11346 Posts
Are there no good CBs like imperialism, holy war, revolutionary war were in EU3? Also, the tech system is kind of weird. The whole game feels so focussed on the monarch points, and there is no way to influence how many you get. So basically, you have to get lucky and get a good king, then you maybe even have a bit of surplus and can build ultimately rather useless buildings. Or you get a shitty king and can't even fill up your ideas or fall behind in tech, and there is just nothing you can do to influence this. It feels kind of weird to be so powerless regarding the income of the main ressource of the game. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
deus vult (one of the religious ideas) gives free CB vs. neighboring heathens, 75% aggressive expansion I think - so I guess not even better than conquest I am pretty new to this type of game though and have not played around with many of the mechanics though (both my games involve lots of beating up new world and african natives) | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
Win a war against them force them to release these new countries, but as I said this takes a while. I think in my game the USA culture group started spawning around 1720 but I am not that sure anymore | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
The only way to increase monarch points that I know of is to hire more expensive advisers, but even if you have the cash to spare to hire 3/3/3 advisors you'll still have to cut down on either ideas or tech if you get an awful king. However if you turn off lucky nations, the AI will usually have significantly fewer ideas and slower tech.So if you want to play on more even footing, you could do that. Also, high admin and diplomacy tech levels are not super relevant in most games | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11346 Posts
In my current nearly finished Ottoman game, i saw two directions i could take. Either rampage to the east without a care in the world just completely ignoring aggressive expansion, or get some of the stronger nations in europe as allies and ignore everyone else, and then fight constant coalition wars there. I chose the latter, which means that britain and denmark love me and are my allies, while everyone else hates me at ~-600 aggressive expansion, and i got basically nonstop worldwars going on for the last 100 years or so. I then win those gigantic wars, and take 1-2 provinces, which means i get another gigantic coalition war against all of europe a few years down the line. But i see no way of preventing this from happening while still expanding at a reasonable pace. If you expand, everyone somehow related to what you took will hate your guts until you lose a coalition war. So either take stuff that isn't related to anyone relevant (aka europeans), or have constant world wars. Or maybe intentionally "lose" a coalition war every once in a while, since that apparently resets aggressive expansion? Or was it just the releasing of nations i did in those lost wars? I guess if i were christian i could just go for the whole PU scam all the time, while expanding eastwards and/or colonizing. | ||
|
Yurie
11694 Posts
| ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
The monarch points might possibly need adjustments. It seems like a lot of the time, if you're ahead it tech, you're better off wasting your surplus on whatever. If you hit 999 in october, it's better to not do anything and let the last months get to waste, and invest in january. But I like the fact that your ruler decide where you're going. It's his country after all, so if he's 5 in administration, and only 1 in military, then he will improve the administration, and not be too bothered about the military. This makes sense. Anyway, as a republic, you can pick your ruler to some extent, so I think it's fine. Having a incompetent ruler has always been one of the weaknesses of the monarchy. In Sweden, the reign of Gustav II Adolf, who is recognized as our most successful king, was followed by Queen Kristina, who is recognized as one of the worst swedish monarchs. I haven't looked up their stats in the game, but I'm sure there's a huge difference between the two, especially in military. About coalitions, just stop grabbing territories and they will leave you alone. This is the main thing that I love about this game. When I win a war, I really need to think carefully about what territories to annex, and sometimes it's better to make them release vassals than grabbing territory. It takes time to get used to it, and I just lately went through 6 coalition wars (3 teams) in a short time period, and if I hadn't grabbed any territories I probably could have avoided 2-3 of those wars. Grabbing territories from coalition wars is a bad idea. Another huge improvement is the battle systems. In EU3 and CK2, you would have a huge battle, and then the winner would chase down the survivors until they wiped. In this game, the loser flees and tries to regroup, in the hope that they can win the next battle. I have had many wars where I lost the initial battle, but then managed to regroup and win. The opposite have almost happened aswell, almost, but I've never lost a war so far. Burgundian merceneries are so strong. The major flaw with the game imo is that the AI can't work as a team as well as I'd hoped, and England also seems quite awkward when it comes to land combat in mainland Europe. I'm not sure where the problem lies, but they don't seem to like transporting units to the continent. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
(this may have had something to do with annexing Corscia, Sardinia, some random one-province nation on the italian mainland and vassalizing Milan in the first 20 years of the campaign, also annexing Provence - well I had forged a claim, then France and Burgundy decided to kill off all of their army then not take the city, what else was I supposed to do?) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11346 Posts
| ||
| ||
