Europa Universalis IV

[Zeriel]

<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).

You seem to be missing the point? Or arguing it for him.

'Casualties mean a victory isn't worth having!'

'Uh, but in Thermopylae, Persians had massive casualties in terms of pure numbers, but the victory was still completely worth it.'

You: 'No, you're wrong! <Proceed to tell him why he's right.>'

 

[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.

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.

Im sure you well know math is wonky when 0 is concerned, and also the difference between 0 and 1 skill general indeed is infinite. My point stands.

 

[baturinsky]

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

I can't say I'm anime "fanatic". I was mostly interested in playing Japan because of Sengoku Rance and Samurai Warriors 2.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

If you are playing Japan and not giving your armies names like:

The Loli Despoilers
Hyperweapon Division
Tentacle Apocalypse
Moe Autism Brigade
Nonstop Fanservice

then you are doing it horribly, horribly wrong, worse than turning the Hapsburg Monarchy into a republic.

 

[Grinolf]

And also that "Aceh" muslim kingdom in Indonesia - I can't annex it, because they are muslim So it's pretty useless vassal.

Only high AE could prevent you from annexing vassal. Choose the same rival as they. If it still not enough, hunt their rebels or declar war on their enemeis. Conquest of their enemy territory and then selling it to your vassal not only make them more happy with you, but also get you free cores after annexing. But I didn't have any island vassals, so I can't tell hoe complicated it is.

 

[baturinsky]

Shouldn't I have Royal Marriage with them? And I think it's imposible for "heathen" religions.

 

[Grinolf]

Shouldn't I have Royal Marriage with them? And I think it's imposible for "heathen" religions.

You need marriage only for diplovassalization, so it is impossible to peacefully vassalize non monarchy or monarchy with different religious group. Bur you don't need it for annexation of vassal. But it help to gain needed opinion for that process faster.

 

[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.

Im sure you well know math is wonky when 0 is concerned, and also the difference between 0 and 1 skill general indeed is infinite. My point stands.

No, your math is incorrect. Math is not "wonky" when 0 is concerned unless you have messed up somewhere. I can explain how it works if you insist on being stupid, but the relevant information is all over the internet and easy to find.

And also that "Aceh" muslim kingdom in Indonesia - I can't annex it, because they are muslim So it's pretty useless vassal.

Only high AE could prevent you from annexing vassal. Choose the same rival as they. If it still not enough, hunt their rebels or declar war on their enemeis. Conquest of their enemy territory and then selling it to your vassal not only make them more happy with you, but also get you free cores after annexing. But I didn't have any island vassals, so I can't tell hoe complicated it is.

It's actually quite hard to annex a different religion vassal now, even if AE is low. Sharing a border with the wrong religion is a huge malus and I think 1.2 took away at least one of the usual positive modifiers you'd have. Ohh, and vassals now suffer an additional-15 because they have a CB against you (independence).

Annexing territory and then releasing it as a vassal is now usually the way to go.

 

[Sranchammer]

Does it still only take one measly ship to blockade an entire province?

 

[Average Manatee]

Yeah, but the AI is pretty damn good about hunting down any lone, scattered ships you have, so you can only do it when you've totally wrecked and blockeded the entire enemy navy.

The bigger problem is that ships block straits, rather than the other way around.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Hmmmm... Maybe it'd be possible to make higher level forts at straits cause increased naval attrition? You know, representing things like the coastal battery at Gibraltar.

 

[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).

You seem to be missing the point? Or arguing it for him.

'Casualties mean a victory isn't worth having!'

'Uh, but in Thermopylae, Persians had massive casualties in terms of pure numbers, but the victory was still completely worth it.'

You: 'No, you're wrong! <Proceed to tell him why he's right.>'

Ah, I see. Yeah, it was late and I was tipsy. The casualties in that battle are widely disputed, was one point I wanted to make but wasn't really clear(only my last sentence pokes at the authenticity of Thermopylae). I think my response was me thinking about a claim to "victory" on Athens' side, not Persia's, because popular myth is that the battle granted Athens time or boosted their morale or whatever, which isn't really the case. Persia's wasn't even "Pyrrhic", because their losses were probably not that high, and in the end merely dented their land forces relative to total strength and didn't stop them at all(hence the reference to the later naval battles). So maybe my main complaint of the referenced battle, though worded quite poorly on my part, is that it doesn't fit my theme. I wouldn't call Thermopylae a "Pyrrhic" victory for Persia, in the true definition of the term. It was just a victory with slightly lopsided loss of force.

Am I still rambling? It feels like it.

 

[Sranchammer]

Thermopylae always struck me as more of a logistics fuck-up than anything else.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I'm going to come up with more ethnically neutral names for colonial states. Obvious cases that need work are countries like La Plata (Platinea or something? Halp bros)

Also, USA will be called Vinland and will get a new flag. If anyone has a save conversion from CK2 where he thinks he's found an awesome flag for it, be my guest to suggest.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Arright, new version is almost ready. Some changes:

- Tech groups have been reworked. No tech group has penalties to monarch power now, Indian and Chinese tech groups now have penalty at 30% and start at tech level 3 (equal to muslims), Sub-Saharan and New World groups have penalty at 75% (equal to Nomads), Sub-Saharan group starts at tech level 2, and New World group starts at tech level 1.
- Fatimids and Iraq are now Shiites, territory and core claims have been shuffled around a little.
- Dagestan is now part of Cumania.
- Persia has a new namefile.
- USA is now called Vinland and has a new flag, Canada has a new flag, La Plata is now called Argentina.
- New ideas have been assigned.
- Tartaria now has more serious ethnic and religious division within.
- Yedisan is now part of Kievan Rus.
- Fatimids and Iraq are now bros4lyfe.
- Marches is now part of Anglia.

I'll post map screenshot and download link in a jiffy.

EDIT:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/70dixwt7hhs4t1z/Europa_Uralica_v2.rar

 

[Tigranes]

Anyone tried any substantial mods for EU4 yet? I'm enjoying my long-running MP game but for SP I'm a bit tired of vanilla. I can make wacky setups with CK2 but I was wondering if mods like Bellum Iustum or From Darkness to Light were overhauling gameplay decently.

 

[Sranchammer]

Nope. I've said it before but we won't see anything substantial until next year.

 

[Malakal]

Anyone tried any substantial mods for EU4 yet? I'm enjoying my long-running MP game but for SP I'm a bit tired of vanilla. I can make wacky setups with CK2 but I was wondering if mods like Bellum Iustum or From Darkness to Light were overhauling gameplay decently.

I'm waiting for MEIOU and Taxes, its supposed to come out this month. It should include the new Dei Gratia (religion overhaul mod), a completely new map and remake of all systems, including new trade goods and trade nodes.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Anyone tried any substantial mods for EU4 yet? I'm enjoying my long-running MP game but for SP I'm a bit tired of vanilla. I can make wacky setups with CK2 but I was wondering if mods like Bellum Iustum or From Darkness to Light were overhauling gameplay decently.

I'm waiting for MEIOU and Taxes, its supposed to come out this month. It should include the new Dei Gratia (religion overhaul mod), a completely new map and remake of all systems, including new trade goods and trade nodes.

I could look it up, but....any changes to how monarchs affect tech/ideas? For me it's too reliant on them right now, and would welcome a change. Cheaper advisers with more impact or something. Let the player have a little more influence.

 

[Raghar]

Normally advisers didn't have much impact. And these monarch skills basically represent how state operated under said monarch.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Normally advisers didn't have much impact. And these monarch skills basically represent how state operated under said monarch.

I buy that, somewhat, with absolute monarchies, but not with Empires/Con-Monarchies/Confederacies, etc. They could stand to make governments more interesting, so maybe that could be a starting point? I always thought of "advisers" as the rest of the top-tier of government, like Secretary of State or Senate leader in modern Republics. It's just so debilitating to get a 1/1/1 Monarch randomly, when your empire is doing great, and suddenly in five years you're a backwards dumbshit nation. Even with shitty Monarchs, most of the time the powerful countries progressed quite well, or at least "on pace". Look at when George the III went "mad", Britain still was doing fine, and missteps were mostly made by Parliament. It would also be interesting if Monarchs could "change", again like George the III. I guess that's entering CK2 territory. I just want a little more fluidity and dynamism to Monarch power.

 

[XenomorphII]

They definitely need to look at making changing/upgrading your government an actual important thing within the game. All they do now is change your bonuses and give you a (not very useful) causus belli later in the game.

 

[baturinsky]

I think monarch should not affect "monarch point" directly at all. It should have a set of traits, giving bonuses/maluses to things.

 

[Sranchammer]

DOWN WITH MONARCH POINTS!

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I'll agree re: governments and the over-importance of monarchs on monarch points. I have no problem with the mechanic in of itself, but it could certainly use some tweaking. Also, do something with advisers to give them more effects on how the government is run... maybe successive masters of mint could give like a mini-idea regarding inflation reduction or some shit like that.