Europa Universalis IV

[Kane]

At this point, There's no difference between taking Byzantium or Hanover.

Hanover ain't a shitty village, even in the 15th century it wasn't. And Constantinople is socially and economically ruined by the time the Ottomans took it. So I wonder where do you want this difference to be?

 

[Cursed Platypus]

At this point, There's no difference between taking Byzantium or Hanover.

Hanover ain't a shitty village, even in the 15th century it wasn't. And Constantinople is socially and economically ruined by the time the Ottomans took it. So I wonder where do you want this difference to be?

I wasn't trying to be specific, there should be a difference between taking a small shithole and a massive city. Currently there isn't.

I don't mind some massive challenge, but when I take a massive city I expect it to be rewarding, not burn it to the ground to build a shitty village.

At this point, There's no difference between taking Byzantium or Hanover.

You will get your reward in 20 years. Its a grand strategy game you dont plan for the next 5 years you plan for centuries. How can you not understand it: you play as a whole country, you have hundreds of years to play with you are not limited to one generation. This city you took will pay a hundred times for the cost of taking it.[/quote]

If there is a difference between conquering Paris or Conquering Bearn then say it explicitly. Because currently there doesn't seem to be any. Both will reset as soon as you core them, and from them start from a small village.

And that is retarded, just like an army becoming invincible and going on a trip along it's whole empire when it retreat, making a moral failure an actual advantage for the loser in plenty of situations.

 

[Malakal]

I dont quite understand you, you get full income based on base tax right away after you core/sometimes convert a province once the revolt risk is down that is. So its different for different base tax provinces. I havent observed anything like you say ie provinces slowly regaining their power, unless you mean by that the slow drop of revolt risk and war exhaustion - both of which reduce income.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

I dont quite understand you, you get full income based on base tax right away after you core/sometimes convert a province once the revolt risk is down that is. So its different for different base tax provinces. I havent observed anything like you say ie provinces slowly regaining their power, unless you mean by that the slow drop of revolt risk and war exhaustion - both of which reduce income.

I finally pacified Rome completely, and my war exhaustion is down to 1, yet this city still earns me 1.5 gold in taxes, which isn't what it was worth before being conquered (and is far far lower than Provence's current income). It even started at 0.1 after I had cored it.

 

[Spectacle]

You can't really compare coring in EU3 and EU4. In EU3 it was quite OK to rule over large areas of non-core land for ages, the cores you got after 50 years was more of a bonus. In EU4 having more than a couple of non-core provinces will cripple your country with overextension, and acquiring cores require a significant investment of scarce monarch points.

To be honest I prefer the cores as they were in EU1, where they represented the actual, "core" of the nation, and wouldn't change except in extraordinary cases.

I really dislike how it's basically impossible to have a large non-core empire in in EU4, since historically countries often did control large areas that were not fully integrated, and were possibly lost as quickly as they were gained.

 

[Grinolf]

I finally pacified Rome completely, and my war exhaustion is down to 1, yet this city still earns me 1.5 gold in taxes, which isn't what it was worth before being conquered (and is far far lower than Provence's current income). It even started at 0.1 after I had cored it.

You don't really make any sence. Rome has base tax 12, which is very huge. It is less than Milan, but on par with Florence and more than Venice, Genova and Napoli. And 1.5 gold in month is a very good result. I can also be argued, that 12 base tax is already a stretch, since Rome richness was based on the fact, that it was Papacy residence, who draw the money from the all Catholic world. And even by the end of Roman Empire, Rome was already losing to some North Italian cities, let alone Constantinople.
Also, don't forget about tax penalty for different culture and the fact, that after conquest province lose all it's buildings, which needed be rebuild again.

And there is also trade power, which province can generate. So conquering right provinces in right places will help player acquire enormous trade income. So you don really understand game mechanic, but blame in on the game, not on yourself.

 

[Average Manatee]

If a city isn't your core you take -75% modifier to tax rate. This is because you don't really control it. You own it by virtue of military might, but the people don't give a shit. Asking for solid income before something is your core is like asking Afghanistan to pay US taxes right now. And FWIW you always get full trade and production out of a province, which gets higher and higher the later you get in the game.

EU4 is insanely generous about coring and rebels. If you fabricate a claim on something and then core it immediately you'll have very low chance of a revolt appearing unless you are far overextended/war exhausted.

 

[Kane]

I wasn't trying to be specific, there should be a difference between taking a small shithole and a massive city. Currently there isn't.

A massive city has higher tax income and higher manpower than a small shithole. What else do you want?

 

[Jarpie]

Is there any way to increase the supply limit for ships?

 

[Malakal]

Is there any way to increase the supply limit for ships?

You will have to expand on that question. Do you mean supply as in attrition or supply as in force limit ie max fleet size you can have at normal cost?

Because you cant do anything about fleet range which causes attrition other than getting specific techs and ideas (probably since I havent yet played a naval game and dont know if there are ideas increasing the range there should anyway).

Force limits can be increased by building naval buildings and getting naval ideas. Almost every building after the first one in line gives more force limits.

 

[Jarpie]

Is there any way to increase the supply limit for ships?

You will have to expand on that question. Do you mean supply as in attrition or supply as in force limit ie max fleet size you can have at normal cost?

Because you cant do anything about fleet range which causes attrition other than getting specific techs and ideas (probably since I havent yet played a naval game and dont know if there are ideas increasing the range there should anyway).

Force limits can be increased by building naval buildings and getting naval ideas. Almost every building after the first one in line gives more force limits.

I meant the range, 150 is pretty damn short.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

EU4 does make it harder to just grab stuff en masse tho. But that's not due to the coring process really, but Overextension and getting a huge Coalition rammed up your ass. I like that. It adds a nice diplomatic layer of juggling alliances and biding your time for the chance to strike.

Currently playing as Sweden, aim is becoming the master of North America. Good leeway so far, I'm going to let my British bros have northern edge of Kwanada, but Spanish are going to get ejected wherever they are found! Beyond that hijinks continue around the Baltic, still need to figure out a good way to annex what remains of Denmark (previous personal union plan was ruined when their queen shat out a new heir) and connect my mainland to my Hamburg and Lübeck (conquest of Holstein seems to be the only way given how much effort trying to vassalize them peacefully has been).

Beginning to think the new battle mechanics are inferior, an obliterated and shattered enemy stack turns completely invulnerable and restores morale faster and reinforces quicker (presumably because they do a retarded sight seeing trip around their own provinces while you hunt them down?)

I find it preferable to ping-pong myself. It's another one of those things where fighting far away from home isn't a good thing, since that stack isn't going to be of any use for several months when, say, you retreat across Russia.

 

[Zeriel]

Overextension rapes trade into the gutter, too. It's a pretty solid check on expansion. I'm almost certain world conquest is much easier in EU3 as a result.

 

[Average Manatee]

Overextension is ridiculously stupid since it doesn't scale and is empire-wide. Spain conquers 6 Aztec provinces in a single war? Same amount of overextension if they conquered the same provinces in Portugal, and regardless of whether they are a huge empire or an OPM. Result is 20k stacks of rebels. In fucking MADRID. Shit makes no sense.

World Conquest would be easy if you abuse vassals/PUs, which give cores when you annex them. More specifically, abuse selling provinces to them and then annexing. Another fun fact I learned from my Aztec game is that you can sell colonies to vassals to both develop more colonies at once and to get the cores for free. I had as many as 12 colonies at a time. Still gotta defend them yourself though since the AI is crap.

 

[Mortmal]

Yeah I went the delhi>Mughal route but think I spent too much time mucking around. Though I think it took me three successive wars with Delhi to claim all the provinces due to war score imbalance. Either way not doing too bad now, have muslim tech and Indian units(which....kinda meh), and a couple provinces that give me better Islamic cavalry. Have a personal union/alliance with the Mamluks and a sizable Iraq that came outta something. Only problem are the Ottomans potentially gobbling everyone up.

Yes the units are kinda meh and you dont have a chart to compare it with other tech groups on the fly ; so its very hard to know before engaging a western enemy stack if you will win or not, lot of things to take into account ,ideas, prestige discipline . However with the massive income you will get from the east you can get the best military advisors and get all the military ideas to compete.
The game is really more fun in iron man mode, you have to be a bit more cautious , no reloading after failing an attack with your massive stack of units.

 

[Merkwürdigliebe]

5 provinces? I laugh at your good fortune. Try all of Russia, from the borders of Sweden to Korea. And you can't remove the leader while they do it. Have fun with your 2 general limit empire-wide.

Fuck, those must've been some badass Swedes, the kind that Luzur wants to be

Saw the AI do that once in EU3

Spoiler

This was after some instability and rebellion though, but they got their shit together later and colonized all the way to the pacific ocean, Sea to shining sea!

 

[Average Manatee]

Here's a good example of an average fight vs China. For the record, they attacked me, this isn't me chasing down an already beaten stack.

Spoiler

I get that china needs to be gimped, otherwise they run wild and destroy everyone. But this is a bit much.

 

[Grinolf]

I get that china needs to be gimped, otherwise they run wild and destroy everyone. But this is a bit much.

As been said, problem isn't with China, but with Ai, who can't rule China.
But since significant improvements in that field are unlikely in near future, giving some Ai only bonuses would be the most optimal solution.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Yeah I went the delhi>Mughal route but think I spent too much time mucking around. Though I think it took me three successive wars with Delhi to claim all the provinces due to war score imbalance. Either way not doing too bad now, have muslim tech and Indian units(which....kinda meh), and a couple provinces that give me better Islamic cavalry. Have a personal union/alliance with the Mamluks and a sizable Iraq that came outta something. Only problem are the Ottomans potentially gobbling everyone up.

Yes the units are kinda meh and you dont have a chart to compare it with other tech groups on the fly ; so its very hard to know before engaging a western enemy stack if you will win or not, lot of things to take into account ,ideas, prestige discipline . However with the massive income you will get from the east you can get the best military advisors and get all the military ideas to compete.
The game is really more fun in iron man mode, you have to be a bit more cautious , no reloading after failing an attack with your massive stack of units.

I *try* to play Ironman, but my own variation. I don't reload unless there's an "oh what the fuck" moment, like three stacks of 40 rebels appearing at the same time in provinces with 9% revolt risk. I guess I could play through it, but it seems arbitrarily tough and annoying, and a waste of my time playing the actual game. And with the way manpower works, those stacks couple easily cripple my entire empire, depending on the type of rebel. If it's three stacks of 20, I'll keep playing.

 

[XenomorphII]

Beginning to think the new battle mechanics are inferior, an obliterated and shattered enemy stack turns completely invulnerable and restores morale faster and reinforces quicker (presumably because they do a retarded sight seeing trip around their own provinces while you hunt them down?)

Shattered armies do not receive reinforcements or gain morale until they stop their retreat, and if you keep up with them that long (without your force dissolving too much) you can usually wipe them once they stop.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Any word on if Assault mechanics are getting fixed? Want to tell me why 16k Infantry, 6k Cav, and 3k Cannons barely takes a lvl 2 fort with 600 comparable fighters inside? Keeping in mind that my morale was full and is .5 higher than theirs(at least during land battles). Are they kidding here? Most of my assaults end in disaster. I should be able to steamroll these peasants!

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Was the wall breached?


Anyway, I shall now review EU4 with a single picture:

 

[Whisky]

Paradox approves!

 

[Zeriel]

Cavalry never counted for assaults. Part of why I don't understand the role of Cavalry in EU games in general--they always seem pretty mediocre, not worth the expense. That said, yeah, assaults are weak in EU4. No reason to ever do them, really, unless it's a pivotal moment. Not a fan of the "blanket the entire country in 2 man stacks sieging everything" style, so this was one of my disappointments with the game.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Cavalry never counted for assaults. Part of why I don't understand the role of Cavalry in EU games in general--they always seem pretty mediocre, not worth the expense. That said, yeah, assaults are weak in EU4. No reason to ever do them, really, unless it's a pivotal moment. Not a fan of the "blanket the entire country in 2 man stacks sieging everything" style, so this was one of my disappointments with the game.

Cavalry deals more damage and has superior flanking ability. Of course, it's not something you want to bank on. Having at least 50% of a stack be infantry is still the key, and you'll want more Artillery than horsies due to their effect on sieges and the fact they don't give a fuck about not being on the front and will fire anyway. Forums say the optimal stack for majority of the game has two cavalry, five artillery, and eight infantry. Generally the rule is to have enough cavalry for flanking, ~70% infantry, and rest as artillery.

EDIT: Personally my standardized army stack is 10 Infantry, 4 Cavalry, and 2 Artillery, with additional Artillery until Infantry and Cavalry receive additional regiments too. Of course, all of it is dependent on the kind of fleet I've got hauling around, since at least one transport fleet is needed to haul them around, and that means certain amount of extra Limit to put aside for them instead of combat vessels.