|
On August 11 2014 21:13 Velr wrote:
I agree.
Wars against big Countries are just really, really stupid.... They get downright retarded if your fighting in Sibiria or some other Territory that kills your men on its own.
You win the War.
You siege for 100% warscore (and lose all your Manpower in the process).
You get 4-5 provinces because no matter how badly you won, you can't go over 100% warscore.
Its just stupid.
In my last game i won a big ass war against Crimea... All i could do was release a tiny 2 province Vassal and take 2 provinces for myself... When you looked at the size of Crim (and me) thats just like absolutely nothing...
exactly, it makes 0 sense that every war is by default like you're playing OPM against OPM... size should matter, it should be a huge influence on end result, and even if they dont want to break the game by making u able to consume half of a blob in one war, AT LEAST make it so that if i waste 10 years and 100k manpower to 100% a country like Ottomans, i can take it apart completely, release most of their conquered tiny nations, and give back all the cores still in dispute with their neighbours... its how WW1 worked, and scenarios similar to it in EU4 are just retarded, cuz to do what i just said u should be able to do, u have to spend like 2 levels of tech worth of points...
i should look forward to my end game bosses such as France, yet my game evolves around avoiding them, even tho with smart diplomacy and good tactics i could crush them... so basically everything i do up to that point is so i can fight them, and when i do, i feel dissapointed and sad because its just retarded mechanics. even dismantling countries like hungary takes 3 wars (if done right, imo), so gl with timurds, otties, crimea, france, austria........
edit: also, how stupid it is that one province in central africa can produce a stack with higher number of soldiers than literally 95% of all >nations< in the world. ie, how does kongo produce 50k rebels, when at that point only 5 countries in the world have army bigger than that... and we're talking huge countries like ming here...
|
Yeah, i am Golden Horde in 1720 and the word that is left is a huge ottomans, Ming, Korea, south east asia, intact Viyajanagar, Africa, Americas untouched and Europe - all of russia and ucraine. My options for the next 100 years are: Take Viyajanagar out in about 6 wars, each 100% warscore, 15 years of truce in between. Might be possible. There is no way i can take Ming out in those 6 wars. I could try to break the ottomans, but even if i would get them to complete and utter defeat, the biggest blow i could do to them is make them release Hungary. After that, it's just babysteps again. taking more then maybe 12 basetax from europe means coalition with all of protestant europe. So,yay. And i can't even try to combin them, because of freaking coalitions. Makes sense, that if i go to war with china, Poland is coming into that war.
Conquest is by far too much restricted. Between AE, coalitions, 100% warscore being around 18 basetax, trucetimers and the coring costs, there is just so little map painting possible. And the wirst thing has got to be that you can't even vassalize a country below your techgroup anymore. What the fuck. Why should i be unable to vassalize an indian country? That makes absolutely no sense.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
An other issue
I'm playing quite aggressive and it comes back to bite me in the ass, there's a huge coalition against me (~10, mostly small German and Italian countries, plus Austria), I have no allies except 2 vassals so I I think I'm pretty fucked
Except Austria had huge revolutions and was already in an other war so I roll over all of them, invade every single one of them and refuse every peace offers from the original dude (the palsomething) who wants to give me like 30 golds to stop the war
Well after invading every single piece of every countries, I want to negotiate my peace, except I can only ask gold to the paldude (he has 33...) and ask for 3 lands (and for some reasons I don't know/understand can't take any from Austria/Venice)
When you win a war you should negotiate vs all the guys who fought you, not just one
|
Blob Mod and Arcade Mode both change this behaviour to make world conquest much simpler. Both have bugs in them, so not sure if it works for you or not.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
In my last game i won a big ass war against Crimea... All i could do was release a tiny 2 province Vassal and take 2 provinces for myself... When you looked at the size of Crim (and me) thats just like absolutely nothing...
Did you join a coalition against Crimea? Coalition wars only allow taking of cores and claims.
|
A lot of wars around this timeframe were huge and ended in only small and few provinces areas changing the owner. For example after 30-year war Sweden and France got some provinces that's it. Especially in Europe changes were often comparatively small.
Additionally it would be too easy if you could break huge countries in just one war. I think the system is better than people make it out to be.
|
The thirty years war had no winner either. They basically exhausted every participant to high war exhaustion and peace desire and had to negotiate some kind of peace. Sweden still got Vorpommern and France the Sundgau. And just some years before that, the golden horde rolled over eastern europe. WHich was a complete and total victory and that's probably why the keptmost of the land. I mean, i get that in a war of Austria + stuff vs France, the winner does not take half of the land of the loser. But if i am Asia(tm) and attack Ming, with 3 times his men and 8 military tech ahead, and then i can only take 15 of the 150 basetax, Korea, Manchu, Japan, all south ease asian country joins a coalition, my country dies of overextension and in order to even do it, i have to siege 30 provinces down, i am starting to believe that maybe this is just so that the ai stays true to historic guidelines.
Think about it, if France could take half of burgundy in one war, and it would make 5 wars against it's neighbours, they would be hald of the HRE after 100 years. The game is bad at balancing powers, which kept europe in history from annexing more in the first place, so it decides that the AI and the player is restricted from big wins.
|
This is a screenshot of said game:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=289984488
The war happened about 50+ years later or something (ive eaten up the chagathai kanate, Balutschistan, Oman and most of India at that Point + had 2 Vassals in South/Eastern-Europe to fuck a bit with the Ottomans :p). I basically sat at constant 100% OE for 50+ years eating may way thru everything east of me asap...
Btw: at over 200% OE things get really ugly  .
Crimea also grew a good Junk (way to profit from your "eternal friendship with the Ottomans ).
Then the war happened... I win handily but naturally still lose tons of manpower due to sieging (and battling opponents that are 4-5 Miltech ahead is just Manpower intensive ).
So i get 100% Warscore and can't even hurt them enough to put a dent into the powerbalance of the region? That just feels strange and unrealistic... The war was a total slaughter, i didn't lose a single battle despite a few siegestacks.
Why is it so much more profitable to beat up minors than actually going against other Major powers? Shouldn't that really solidify your position in a Region?
|
so Castille declared on me again...
for some reason, them declaring war on me and not the other way around invoked the whole coalition, most importantly, France, Austria, Ming, Oirat (huge in my game), every Indian nation... it's probably game ending situation, maybe it helps me that CB is to show superiority and not conquest (it's a Crusade, i'm muslim)... or maybe it makes it even worse, if its smaller cost for stuff... somebody knows? also, didnt coalition work in a way they get involved in defensive wars? i really don't get it...
for top3 Euro powers (Austria, Castille and France) to get into coalition against me, all i had to do was force vassal on 2-province minor siena (capital+florence)
and how stupid is it that nomads and chinese would join a crusade?
|
On August 12 2014 09:59 pPingu wrote:
An other issue
I'm playing quite aggressive and it comes back to bite me in the ass, there's a huge coalition against me (~10, mostly small German and Italian countries, plus Austria), I have no allies except 2 vassals so I I think I'm pretty fucked
Except Austria had huge revolutions and was already in an other war so I roll over all of them, invade every single one of them and refuse every peace offers from the original dude (the palsomething) who wants to give me like 30 golds to stop the war
Well after invading every single piece of every countries, I want to negotiate my peace, except I can only ask gold to the paldude (he has 33...) and ask for 3 lands (and for some reasons I don't know/understand can't take any from Austria/Venice)
When you win a war you should negotiate vs all the guys who fought you, not just one
It depends on the kind of war it is. In a coalition war, you can't negotiate with anyone but the war leader (although that's only true for countries that got the automatic coalition call-in, if the war leader called in its allies too, you can negotiate with those). You can, however, ask for any country you've occupied completely as your vassal.
Coalition wars are rarely a great opportunity for gaining land, and if you wanted to take land from Austria, why did you declare on the Palatinate instead of them?
On August 12 2014 19:10 snailz wrote:
for some reason, them declaring war on me and not the other way around invoked the whole coalition, most importantly, France, Austria, Ming, Oirat (huge in my game), every Indian nation... it's probably game ending situation, maybe it helps me that CB is to show superiority and not conquest (it's a Crusade, i'm muslim)... or maybe it makes it even worse, if its smaller cost for stuff... somebody knows? also, didnt coalition work in a way they get involved in defensive wars? i really don't get it...
No, coalitions work both ways. If any member of the coalition is being DOWed by the coalition target, or any member of the coalition DOWs on the target, all coalition members will be called into that war (automatically, with no option to decline.
A single war is rarely game ending unless you're small enough to be vassalized or annexed or something. You keep cores on everything you owned, so you can usually draw out the war for a bit, lose some provinces (or even better, release parts of your land as sovereign nation, you can usually ally&rm those immediately and diplo-annex them back in 10 years), wait for the coalition to go away and regain everything you lose.
The Holy War CB doesn't help you that much, although the goal of "show superiority" is winning 80% of battles, so even if you're helplessly outgunned, you only need to win 20% to keep them from getting ticking warscore. Draw out the war, run away, try keeping your capital, let them siege all your shit, give them something for peacing out and use the long truce to reintegrate everything you released and rebuild your army to eventually attack whoever has your provinces now.
On August 12 2014 19:10 snailz wrote:
and how stupid is it that nomads and chinese would join a crusade?
They didn't; they joined a coalition war. The original CB might have been Crusade, but what coalition members get called into is a coalition war.
|
So, let me think for a second what just happened. I started a war with Viyajanagar and Bengal, who were not in the coalition. I seperate peaced Bengal for 100 warscore, so Shan and Bengal joined the Coalition. And then i saw, that Shan was now a two province minor, so, clever idea, take them out before they can cause trouble, they are in the coalition anyway, right?
Who is in the coalition? Just Oirat and Timurids, no big deal. Oirat is a one province minor bordering only me, Timurids are still a power, 67 base tax, but military no threat, so i will just siege the two provinces and that's it, right? Nope. Timurids of course take ovber as a warleader and somehow, after having had 3 wars vs them in the last 2 decades, they are now allied to Ottomans. Who have 230k men. They take over as the warleader, because they can, and call in France and Netherlands, because it makes total sense for those to be allied, right 
No big thing, between them, they only have 450k troops. Easy.
|
On August 12 2014 16:39 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
A lot of wars around this timeframe were huge and ended in only small and few provinces areas changing the owner. For example after 30-year war Sweden and France got some provinces that's it. Especially in Europe changes were often comparatively small.
Additionally it would be too easy if you could break huge countries in just one war. I think the system is better than people make it out to be.
The big diference is that countries didnt really siege and control every single province of their enemy and completelly decimated their army. I dont think blobing and dismantling big countries should be made easier, but more for gameplay reasons than historical ones. It would make sense to be able to demand more with a full warscore and by showing huge superiority over your opponents. Just wouldnt make for a very good game.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
Yeah the game is really fun and I probably spent more time on it than I would like to know but I think this summarizes my feelings about it really well
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Can you support on already revolted rebels?
Every time when I see revolted rebels, I want to support it, but the "send" button is always greyed out, it work's on other countries where there aren't any revolted rebels.
I see other people on the stream they were freely to support rebels regardless if it's already revolted.
|
|
|
I hope this will be an actual expansion instead of DLC that adds a tiny bit of gameplay for 10 euro. Don't get me wrong I love the game but the prices you pay for the ''expansions'' aren't remotely close to proportional to the amount of gameplay they give in return.
|
They already said the next expansion would be a bigger one, who knows how much.
|
On August 14 2014 03:55 Bojas wrote:I hope this will be an actual expansion instead of DLC that adds a tiny bit of gameplay for 10 euro. Don't get me wrong I love the game but the prices you pay for the ''expansions'' aren't remotely close to proportional to the amount of gameplay they give in return.
I only started playing with CoP and WoN, so I can't compare the vanilla game to those expansions. But a bigger expansion would be nice indeed
|
|
|
Most features serve a practical purpose. They don't add any gameplay. It's like Blizzard releasing LotV with main feature ''probes are now automatically made''. I don't mind them removing tedious tasks from the game, but they're advertising them as main features of their ''expansion''.
The gameplay changes that they do add, aren't very big. Making clientcountries seems like fun, but it seems not very different than colonial nations and vassals. Adding provinces to Africa and Asia is cool I guess, but not very exciting.
Maybe I'm judging this too soon, they are going to implement a lot of small gameplay changes apparently. We'll see. I think I would much prefer if they skipped the 4 ''expansions'' they made and put that time into making an ''old school'' expansion that increases the gameplay value by 30% or more instead of the small margins these dlcs do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6OihL.gif)
