Europa Universalis IV

[oscar]

France inherited Hungary in my game as well. Lost it to rebs not long after.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

This is so retarded it's fun.

 

[Krash]

1.2 needs some fixes, but once that's done how about a codex free-for-all?

 

[Average Manatee]

And in 1.2 they greatly reduced lucky nations bonuses in favor of better overall AI. Now they mainly serve to ensure that major historical powers will remain major powers.

Where did you hear that? Modifiers are still mostly the same. At least, the combat modifiers are still the same and will make fighting any lucky nation a PITA. I think paradox might have removed the -2% tech cost modifier, which is entirely negligible.

Incidentally I noticed that Lucky nations now provides an additional -25% merc cost, which when stacked with a nation that gets -25% merc costs and the two ideas that provide the same, gives -100% merc cost. Naturally the only historical lucky nation that can do this is... Sweden. Ohh Paradox.

 

[KoolNoodles]

<picture of some bullshit>
This is so retarded it's fun.

Couldn't agree more, battle win/loss mechanics are really screwed up right now. No way in hell does losing 100k men more constitute any sort of "victory" at any point in human history. That battle would have MASSIVE repercussions, and largely be seen as a loss regardless of whatever strategic aim they won. There are plenty of accounts of "phyrric" victories crippling leaders, armies, and entire nations. I'd like to see losses take a much bigger hit to war exhaustion, and also be tied to the morale of the troops. You've lost 500k men over the past few years? Well guess what, your troops don't want to fight anymore because they just go into the meat grinder, -.50 morale, or whatever. "Old Blood and Guts" springs to mind, though at least he made up for it with brilliant tactics.

 

[Sranchammer]

If only there was a way of simulating campaigns rather than individual ping-pong battles

 

[Malakal]

And in 1.2 they greatly reduced lucky nations bonuses in favor of better overall AI. Now they mainly serve to ensure that major historical powers will remain major powers.

Where did you hear that? Modifiers are still mostly the same. At least, the combat modifiers are still the same and will make fighting any lucky nation a PITA. I think paradox might have removed the -2% tech cost modifier, which is entirely negligible.

Incidentally I noticed that Lucky nations now provides an additional -25% merc cost, which when stacked with a nation that gets -25% merc costs and the two ideas that provide the same, gives -100% merc cost. Naturally the only historical lucky nation that can do this is... Sweden. Ohh Paradox.

In the patch notes? You know the thingy devs post to show you what was changed? Also in the forums, I visit them frequently to see byzantine fanboys whining how hard it is now to cheese to victory.

Lucky nations now only gives +1 monarch stats instead of +2, which is huge, other bonuses dont really matter in comparison.

 

[Luzur]

If only there was a way of simulating campaigns rather than individual ping-pong battles

yeah, kinda like a Total War function, either where you can lead your troops around the map yourself or a Auto-Fight option.

 

[Sranchammer]

complaint on new version from forum

I am beginning to get the feeling that the expectation from games like Crusader Kings, where you can start out as a one-county nation and fight your way to world ruler, just doesn't apply to EU.

 

[Jugashvili]

If only there was a way of simulating campaigns rather than individual ping-pong battles

yeah, kinda like a Total War function, either where you can lead your troops around the map yourself or a Auto-Fight option.

Should be do-able nowadays. The Real Warfare series managed to make pretty good TW clone that actually feels more tactically intricate with an obviously low budget, so Pdox should definitely be able to pull it off it they wanted to. They could just make about five or so generic variants for each troop type (Medieval - Renaissance - 17th century - 18th century - Napoleonic inf/cav/arty) with different stats (determined by mil tech/ideas/leadership). The player could be at the top of the chain of command, but the regimental level should be controlled directly by lower ranks according to a pre-set army doctrine (determined by the nation's military tech level) rather than allowing the CinC to micro-manage every single unit as in the TW series.

 

[Average Manatee]

In the patch notes? You know the thingy devs post to show you what was changed? Also in the forums, I visit them frequently to see byzantine fanboys whining how hard it is now to cheese to victory.

Lucky nations now only gives +1 monarch stats instead of +2, which is huge, other bonuses dont really matter in comparison.

Considering that Lucky nations area already Western, the monarch stat bonus doesn't matter much. They are going to be on time with tech.

+1 shock and fire is far more important. That's a huge combat bonus to fight against, ontop of the fact that the major nations tend to have good combat bonuses already (Sweden already does about 2x as much damage with their units as a standard nation does, with the lucky bonus it goes to 2.5x). And -25% Merc cost is really, really huge inasmuch as it means that destroying their army and manpower will have almost no effect on them. And you have to consider that the +Fort Defense modifier that lucky nations get is a lot stronger in 1.2 with everyone taking 1% attrition on sieges (2% as soon as Defensive is picked up).

The only change on Byzantium is that the AI will ask for military access to get to Europe if you block it. It's simple to raise relations and prevent this. Byzatine fanboys always whine.

 

[Raghar]

I thought there is limited number of mercenaries. And is this bonus applied to recruitment, or to upkeep as well?

 

[Kane]

there is an upper limit of mercenaries you can recruit at a given point in time. but they regenerate pretty quickly.

 

[Raghar]

The world in 1595:

Burgundy nearly doesn't exist, and Yemen is no superpower anymore. England is hit by rebels. Lithuania is freaking huge.

Spain is overpowered and is everywhere.

Aztecs are in disagreement with Hausa. About releasing Mayas and Zapotecs. Some Maya and Zapotec rebels seen the chance and liberated themselves. Lately they were hit by Aztecs again.

Japan, it's under AI and managed this. Situation in Asia would be extremely interesting to see under replay. Ming, Zhou, Shan, in single play in this year? We have even Shun here. Punjab and Kangra are superpowers as always.

The trouble is Spain, the world superpower, declared war against me and when I tried it it stuck at 99 wargoal, and refused to do peace treaty and reduced war weariness by diplomacy points thus it was at low for a long time.

Of course I have tech 7, they 15. Thus it's longbowmen vs tercio, or something. With theirs shock and fire bonuses as lucky nation.

 

[Malakal]

I thought there is limited number of mercenaries. And is this bonus applied to recruitment, or to upkeep as well?

Upkeep is based on recruitment cost there is even a tip about it in loading screen. So cheaper units = cheaper maintenance.

Basic mercenary pool is 8 units IIRC which quickly isnt nearly enough. It replenishes with 1% daily chance for a new unit, cant really raise a 100k mercenary army when you need one. Early game is fine. With national ideas geared for mercenaries its fine too.

In the patch notes? You know the thingy devs post to show you what was changed? Also in the forums, I visit them frequently to see byzantine fanboys whining how hard it is now to cheese to victory.

Lucky nations now only gives +1 monarch stats instead of +2, which is huge, other bonuses dont really matter in comparison.

Considering that Lucky nations area already Western, the monarch stat bonus doesn't matter much. They are going to be on time with tech.

+1 shock and fire is far more important. That's a huge combat bonus to fight against, ontop of the fact that the major nations tend to have good combat bonuses already (Sweden already does about 2x as much damage with their units as a standard nation does, with the lucky bonus it goes to 2.5x). And -25% Merc cost is really, really huge inasmuch as it means that destroying their army and manpower will have almost no effect on them. And you have to consider that the +Fort Defense modifier that lucky nations get is a lot stronger in 1.2 with everyone taking 1% attrition on sieges (2% as soon as Defensive is picked up).

The only change on Byzantium is that the AI will ask for military access to get to Europe if you block it. It's simple to raise relations and prevent this. Byzatine fanboys always whine.

+1 shock and fire quickly stops being important because you can easily max out there with ideas and tradition (and build forts mission help you get 100 tradition). Lucky nations dont get any combat bonuses its their ideas. Possibly a discipline bonus tho, not sure. Fort defense is huge, indeed thats true.

But +1 stat mattered a lot when you consider how many relations you can upkeep with extra points and how many techs ahead of time you can get. Now its more reasonable.

 

[Borelli]

Just turn off lucky nations, it is a disgusting piece of determinism that doesn't deserve to exist in EU.

 

[Malakal]

I like challenge thank you.

I also love looking at the map and having this "oh fuck" moment seeing huge empires threatening me, having to plot their downfall. I mean I could play on easy but whats the point.

 

[Average Manatee]

+1 shock and fire quickly stops being important because you can easily max out there with ideas and tradition (and build forts mission help you get 100 tradition). Lucky nations dont get any combat bonuses its their ideas. Possibly a discipline bonus tho, not sure. Fort defense is huge, indeed thats true.

But +1 stat mattered a lot when you consider how many relations you can upkeep with extra points and how many techs ahead of time you can get. Now its more reasonable.

+1 shock and fire is always relevant. Even at maxed tradition you'll generally have about 4 stat shock/fire max. If you haven't seen the absolute carnage that a 6/6 general can deal out, then you should.

Obviously I meant the ideas that the nations get. Most of them tend to be overpowering to start with (France/Ottomans/Sweden especially).

If you check tech levels even the non-lucky nations have enough military power to rush military tech. Rushing other tech is basically worthless.

Basic mercenary pool is 8 units IIRC which quickly isnt nearly enough. It replenishes with 1% daily chance for a new unit, cant really raise a 100k mercenary army when you need one. Early game is fine. With national ideas geared for mercenaries its fine too.

1% chance a day? I've seen a lot more than that. Seems to go up the bigger your country is. And the thing about the AI is that they are just about perfect at hiring mercs the instant they come available.

 

[Malakal]

My point is between 1 and 2 shock its 100% general difference but between 4 and 5 there is merely 25% difference in combat performance. Way less when you count terrain modifiers. Do the math, stacking bonuses isnt as good as it may seem.

And I had the pleasure of using shock 6 generals early game, they indeed rape. Later its less and less important.

 

[Average Manatee]

My point is between 1 and 2 shock its 100% general difference but between 4 and 5 there is merely 25% difference in combat performance. Way less when you count terrain modifiers. Do the math, stacking bonuses isnt as good as it may seem.

You don't seem to understand how the math works yourself. According to your formula then the difference between no general and a +1 general would be infinity, with the no general army being wiped instantly? Doesn't quite turn out that way.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

<picture of some bullshit>
This is so retarded it's fun.

Couldn't agree more, battle win/loss mechanics are really screwed up right now. No way in hell does losing 100k men more constitute any sort of "victory" at any point in human history. That battle would have MASSIVE repercussions, and largely be seen as a loss regardless of whatever strategic aim they won. There are plenty of accounts of "phyrric" victories crippling leaders, armies, and entire nations. I'd like to see losses take a much bigger hit to war exhaustion, and also be tied to the morale of the troops. You've lost 500k men over the past few years? Well guess what, your troops don't want to fight anymore because they just go into the meat grinder, -.50 morale, or whatever. "Old Blood and Guts" springs to mind, though at least he made up for it with brilliant tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

[Sranchammer]

You realize our sources from that battle are practically propagandists, correct?

 

[baturinsky]

Here is my Japan née Takeda.

Why not just play Japan? Because Takeda sounds better than Ashikaga, mostly.
I went straight to Exploration, and then were colonising everything in reach at a rate of 4-6 colonies at once. Too bad that Aleuts, and therefore America is just a little too far-even now. That reminds me, I should colonise Bahams next...
I limited conqest as much as possible. Just got Korea (vassalisation + annex). And also that "Aceh" muslim kingdom in Indonesia - I can't annex it, because they are muslim So it's pretty useless vassal.
Btw, good thing to ask after first war with someone (if applicable) - convert religion and release nations. It's relatively cheap in victory points and pretty much destroys them as a military power.

Now it's nearly a time for Westernization. I'm building a colony next to France in south Africa. I plan to conquer entire compatible-culture Asia after westernization, while colonising Africa and America.

I'm second in income and third in manpower. Note Swahili's treasury and inflation. Typical Actual reason is a Gold province they have. It gives huge profit, but also huge inflation, unles it's less than 10% of your income. Takeda starts with one province with gold, which was the reason why I could unify Japan so fast.

 

[suejak]

Another anime fanatic playing Japan in EU4... I love it.

 

[KoolNoodles]

<picture of some bullshit>
This is so retarded it's fun.

Couldn't agree more, battle win/loss mechanics are really screwed up right now. No way in hell does losing 100k men more constitute any sort of "victory" at any point in human history. That battle would have MASSIVE repercussions, and largely be seen as a loss regardless of whatever strategic aim they won. There are plenty of accounts of "phyrric" victories crippling leaders, armies, and entire nations. I'd like to see losses take a much bigger hit to war exhaustion, and also be tied to the morale of the troops. You've lost 500k men over the past few years? Well guess what, your troops don't want to fight anymore because they just go into the meat grinder, -.50 morale, or whatever. "Old Blood and Guts" springs to mind, though at least he made up for it with brilliant tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Forgive me if I don't entirely understand the point of your link. The Greeks lost that battle, and several others after that, including the abandonment of Athens, their greatest city. They even saw the battle as a loss, rightly so, and grew fearful of Persia's military strength until they could fight them at sea, where Athens was always best. Regardless, it's besides the point. Thermopylae gets a lot of popular attention, but for historians of antiquity, there are dozens of battles in the Peloponesian wars that are better documented and shine a brighter light on warfare of the times(we mostly have the brilliant Thucydides to thank for that).