Europa Universalis IV

[Malakal]

Ping pong is mostly gone isnt it? Battles are super bloody now.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Yea, you can't take that many defeats before your manpower depletes, after which you might as well surrender even if your stacks aren't all dead.

 

[Luzur]

Yea, you can't take that many defeats before your manpower depletes, after which you might as well surrender even if your stacks aren't all dead.

can that annoying "defeated unit retreats from Brandenburg all the way to Shanghai" thing be like, modded away, or fixed by editing some txt file?

 

[Serus]

but this isnt History Thread.

Isn't it purpose of all threads about EU IV to change into talks about history at page 20 and onward? Throwing rants about bugs at Paradox is useless.

true that.

Luzur, you are not making a lot of sense in your last few "history themed" posts. As a guy with generally good taste in games (or more precisely, a taste i share to some extent :D) you shoud stick to writing about games - not history, especially in a topic about a game outside GD as this one. Which was sort of my initial point.

what can i say, most of you instantly read "POLAND IS SHIT" or something because i missed to add "after 1650" to my initial post.

"Most of you" ? Why do you answer to my post in plural ? Last i checked i am a single person and a whole one at at that. You really weird but you can talk in any grammatical form you want, even in third person plural if you wish, it is the Codex after all. Just try not to mistake your preconceptions with the reality itself.

It all was probably a misunderstanding on my part and you being vague in the post i answered first. I can of course agree with you that Poland was invaded a lot - but that statement is so vague that you could substitute "Poland" with very many (most ?) euroepan or asian countries (with possible exceptions of island nations like England or Japan, some lucky ones, some unimportant minors).
Other point is that your list of wars in which PLC was supposedly "invaded" was flawed, i spotted at least two positions that don't belong to that list, im pretty sure (hope) they were just oversights on your part:
- PLC vs Muscovy in the very early 1600s is the other way around when it comes to invading
- 30 Years War, how was exactly the Commonwealth invaded as part of this conflict ?
- Some others. Tatars and cossacks in the 60s, really ? Crimean Tatars, "invaded" Ukraine every few years, sometimes yearly in the 17th century (so did the Zaporhozian Cossacks in the 1630s and 1640s against Ottomans, does it mean Ottoman Empire was invaded "a lot" ?) Those were arguably fought on the borders or far away provinces and if you call them "invasions" then well, someone was "invaded" in early modern europe almost every year, even the greatest land power of the era - France had to do some fights on its own territory.

All this is harmless (and useless, i know) nitpicking on my part. Really no need to assume anything like you did and to start calling people in plural and putting someone in the same bag (a bag that doesn't even exist in this thread outside your imagination).

To Raghar: Good point on threads about Paradox games but on the other hand discussion about the gameplay maybe lost in the process. Im not sure myself... :D

I need to play some EU4 for real, i tried it but on my old pc it worked painfully slow, now i have a better config i can play it more properly. As i understand, the uber-rebellions are still in ?

 

[Luzur]

but this isnt History Thread.

Isn't it purpose of all threads about EU IV to change into talks about history at page 20 and onward? Throwing rants about bugs at Paradox is useless.

true that.

Luzur, you are not making a lot of sense in your last few "history themed" posts. As a guy with generally good taste in games (or more precisely, a taste i share to some extent :D) you shoud stick to writing about games - not history, especially in a topic about a game outside GD as this one. Which was sort of my initial point.

what can i say, most of you instantly read "POLAND IS SHIT" or something because i missed to add "after 1650" to my initial post.

"Most of you" ? Why do you answer to my post in plural ? Last i checked i am a single person and a whole one at at that. You really weird but you can talk in any grammatical form you want, even in third person plural if you wish, it is the Codex after all. Just try not to mistake your preconceptions with the reality itself.

It all was probably a misunderstanding on my part and you being vague in the post i answered first. I can of course agree with you that Poland was invaded a lot - but that statement is so vague that you could substitute "Poland" with very many (most ?) euroepan or asian countries (with possible exceptions of island nations like England or Japan, some lucky ones, some unimportant minors).
Other point is that your list of wars in which PLC was supposedly "invaded" was flawed, i spotted at least two positions that don't belong to that list, im pretty sure (hope) they were just oversights on your part:
- PLC vs Muscovy in the very early 1600s is the other way around when it comes to invading
- 30 Years War, how was exactly the Commonwealth invaded as part of this conflict ?
- Some others. Tatars and cossacks in the 60s, really ? Crimean Tatars, "invaded" Ukraine every few years, sometimes yearly in the 17th century (so did the Zaporhozian Cossacks in the 1630s and 1640s against Ottomans, does it mean Ottoman Empire was invaded "a lot" ?) Those were arguably fought on the borders or far away provinces and if you call them "invasions" then well, someone was "invaded" in early modern europe almost every year, even the greatest land power of the era - France had to do some fights on its own territory.

All this is harmless (and useless, i know) nitpicking on my part. Really no need to assume anything like you did and to start calling people in plural and putting someone in the same bag (a bag that doesn't even exist in this thread outside your imagination).

To Raghar: Good point on threads about Paradox games but on the other hand discussion about the gameplay maybe lost in the process. Im not sure myself... :D

I need to play some EU4 for real, i tried it but on my old pc it worked painfully slow, now i have a better config i can play it more properly. As i understand, the uber-rebellions are still in ?

well, Malakal, Grinolf and you makes 3 persons commenting on my initial post, or are those alts of Drog? (you never know with the Codex, but sup Drog), also invasion for me is whan you cross a neighbours borders with hostile troops.

and of course i am not well rehearsed on Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth history, i can debate the periods when Swedes ravaged around there, but internal political and geographical situations i got to prob read up on if you want a match, but in this case i count Livonia and Ukraine as part of the Commonwealth back in those days, or is that wrong of me?

and last time i checked/read the Swedish-Polish wars between 1600-1629 is (maybe not in all hsitory books, but some) counted as a part of the larger trans-European 30 Years War.

 

[Grinolf]

well, Malakal, Grinolf and you makes 3 persons commenting on my initial post

I am forgetting something? I remember only commenting on obviously retarded subjects like "Poland could prevent WW2 by given up Danzig". And why I even should been butthurt over some Poland related stuff, when I am not from Poland myself?

 

[Luzur]

well, Malakal, Grinolf and you makes 3 persons commenting on my initial post

I am forgetting something? I remember only commenting on obviously retarded subjects like "Poland could prevent WW2 by given up Danzig". And why I even should be butthurt over some Poland related stuff, when I am not from Poland myself?

huh? LOL my mistake bro, i had a hazy memory that you quoted me earlier, but then again i been hung-over all day (bros birthday yesterday)

and im not calling anyone butthurt bro.

 

[Serus]

well, Malakal, Grinolf and you makes 3 persons commenting on my initial post, or are those alts of Drog? (you never know with the Codex, but sup Drog)

Well, i am sure you can count to three but i can only count to one - and i am still one person to whom you responded "most of you". Even ignoring the suggestion: "you are a Pole so you certainly can't have any other motives than defending Poland in a random internet thread" it was still rather unpolite in my opinion. Note that i wasn't exactly polite either, sorry for that.

also invasion for me is whan you cross a neighbours borders with hostile troops.

You see, this is the core of the problem. According to your definition many European countries were invaded countless times during their history. For exemple Italy (and the territories of various political entities existing there at the time) was a battleground for, Italians but mostly other powers for centuries, invaded quite a few times in the process. The same can be said about the territory of Germany, Balkan Peninsula, of Muscovy/Russia, etc... and of curse Poland. It is rather hard to make a statistic and say "X was invaded more than Y" in my opinion. Sure one can try to make lists but personally i don't see the point. Some regions and countries were - relatively speaking - perhaps "safer" (possibly including Scandinavia and Sweden, England, maybe iberian peninsula) but thats geography and geopolitics in action for you. What made Poland "special" - and not in a good way was its disappearance from the map of Europe in late 18th century. Not the end of the state itself (many small countries shared its fate) but the fact that it was very large only 2 decades before that and still relatively strong less than a century earlier and yet let itself to annihilation. Just my 2 cents.

and last time i checked/read the Swedish-Polish wars between 1600-1629 is (maybe not in all hsitory books, but some) counted as a part of the larger trans-European 30 Years War.

Well, it would be really hard to prove for the first part of the conflict that started almost 2 decades before 30YW was part of it... :D However if you meant the 1621(26)-1629 part of Pol/Lit - Swedish conflict then yes, why not, polish historians also see it as a peripheral part of 30YW.
The thing is, you listed the 30YW and the Commonwealth-Swedish wars in the early 1600s as two separate points, ergo you counted the same war twice - it certainly made your list look longer but i doubt that is the point.
Nota Bene - i could add a few wars in that period where the Commonwealth was invaded not mentioned by You. (against Ottomans in 1620-21 and Muscovy in 1632-34). Both of those wars were fought mostly on peripheral lands (Smoleńsk, Podolia) and won or drawn and one was started with invasion of Moldavia by PLC forces but they fit your definition.

and of course i am not well rehearsed on Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth history, i can debate the periods when Swedes ravaged around there, but internal political and geographical situations i got to prob read up on if you want a match, but in this case i count Livonia and Ukraine as part of the Commonwealth back in those days, or is that wrong of me?

No need, i don't want any matches - and by the mere fact that you are able to admit that your knoweldge is imperfect (and so is mine) is telling good things about you sir.

 

[Luzur]

Well, i am sure you can count to three but i can only count to one - and i am still one person to whom you responded "most of you". Even ignoring the suggestion: "you are a Pole so you certainly can't have any other motives than defending Poland in a random internet thread" it was still rather unpolite in my opinion. Note that i wasn't exactly polite either, sorry for that.

well it was just you and Malakal quoting me, somehow i read Grinolfs post as a quote on our discussion too, but as i said ive had a hung-over most of the day here.
but yeah you kinda "blew up" on my initial one-liner i did there, and i assure you good sir, actually had no hidden suggestion/aggressive remark/decline pointing and/or gay romance option at all in it other then being a quick historical one-liner.

You see, this is the core of the problem. According to your definition many European countries were invaded countless times during their history. For exemple Italy (and the territories of various political entities existing there at the time) was a battleground for, Italians but mostly other powers for centuries, invaded quite a few times in the process. The same can be said about the territory of Germany, Balkan Peninsula, of Muscovy/Russia, etc... and of curse Poland. It is rather hard to make a statistic and say "X was invaded more than Y" in my opinion. Sure one can try to make lists but personally i don't see the point. Some regions and countries were - relatively speaking - perhaps "safer" (possibly including Scandinavia and Sweden, England, maybe iberian peninsula) but thats geography and geopolitics in action for you. What made Poland "special" - and not in a good way was its disappearance from the map of Europe in late 18th century. Not the end of the state itself (many small countries shared its fate) but the fact that it was very large only 2 decades before that and still relatively strong less than a century earlier and yet let itself to annihilation. Just my 2 cents.

could be language difference i guess, "invasion" and "invaded" is used alot in Swedish history books, and well on the other point, safer i wouldnt call it, Russians reached as far into Sweden as Umeå (Battle of Ratan 1809).

Well, it would be really hard to prove for the first part of the conflict that started almost 2 decades before 30YW was part of it... :D However if you meant the 1621(26)-1629 part of Pol/Lit - Swedish conflict then yes, why not, polish historians also see it as a peripheral part of 30YW.
The thing is, you listed the 30YW and the Commonwealth-Swedish wars in the early 1600s as two separate points, ergo you counted the same war twice - it certainly made your list look longer but i doubt that is the point.
Nota Bene - i could add a few wars in that period where the Commonwealth was invaded not mentioned by You. (against Ottomans in 1620-21 and Muscovy in 1632-34). Both of those wars were fought mostly on peripheral lands (Smoleńsk, Podolia) and won or drawn and one was started with invasion of Moldavia by PLC forces but they fit your definition.

its even said on Wikipedia:

The war of 1600–1629 (sometimes considered a part of the larger trans-European Thirty Years' War) which was twice interrupted by periods of truce and can be divided into:

• • the war of 1600–1611
  • the war of 1617–1618
  • the war of 1621–1625
  • the war of 1626–1629

2 books i have on the 30 Years War says the same.

No need, i don't want any matches - and by the mere fact that you are able to admit that your knoweldge is imperfect (and so is mine) is telling good things about you sir.

well, ive read Polish history from Sigismund and the different wars we had, and about the several times our Kings tried to cash in that claim on the Polish throne we had (i believe those died with Carolus XII) from him, after that im not really been interested.

and yes, ûber rebellions are still in.

 

[Kem0sabe]

 

[Luzur]

i dun' get id

 

[Sranchammer]

I played some more Serbia last night. I finally mustered up the force to hit Hungary after she was attacked by Venice, Poland, and Lithuania in a nasty war. I feel confident I can take a province before she can turn her eye on me.

But wait! Coming over the Carpathians are...30k Burgundians?

 

[oscar]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?728286-MOD-Glory-of-Byzantium

This mod is easily the best alt history scenario I've played for EUIV. Lots of unique events, ideas, modifiers and decisions. I'm playing as the Pala Empire, a sprawling Buddhist realm of Bengal, northern India and eastern Afghanistan.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

+1

Really good mod. When you consider how MEIOU and Taxes craps itself in the speed section, it's probably the best EU4 mod yet.

 

[Malakal]

Seems underwhelming as far as western/central Europe is concerned, not much changes there from what I saw on the map.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

He's working on it.

Lots of decision and events for west yurop though.

 

[Sranchammer]

I dont see the allure of MEIOU/Death & Taxes

 

[Malakal]

I dont see the allure of MEIOU/Death & Taxes

Amazingly accurate map and UI (at least in the MEIOU version in eu3). New events and nations. Lack of any semblance of balance.

 

[Sranchammer]

I dont see the allure of MEIOU/Death & Taxes

Amazingly accurate map and UI (at least in the MEIOU version in eu3). New events and nations. Lack of any semblance of balance.

The events, at the moment, remind me far too much of the PDM from Vicky 2. Those 'Fellow Christians massacred! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!' messages get annoying after the 2nd instance.

The new nations are great but at the cost of performance I'd rather use a little imagination to make up for the gazillion nations strangling the processor.

 

[Luzur]

so, should i get this new New World add-on they just announced?

 

[Malakal]

Doesnt look like it adds anything worthwhile right now but they havent revealed yet how new colonization system will work and it looks promising. Too early to say yet.

 

[Luzur]

Doesnt look like it adds anything worthwhile right now but they havent revealed yet how new colonization system will work and it looks promising. Too early to say yet.

ok, any good mods i should try out? atm i play unmodded.

 

[Sranchammer]

Not really

 

[Malakal]

Doesnt look like it adds anything worthwhile right now but they havent revealed yet how new colonization system will work and it looks promising. Too early to say yet.

ok, any good mods i should try out? atm i play unmodded.

Meiou and Taxes offers a lot of new provinces nations and stuff like that but is horribly unbalanced and your game will take a huge performance hit. Other than that there are many mods mainly focusing on certain areas of the game you can try depending on what do you want to play.

 

[Sranchammer]

Its surprising the lack of overhaul mods in paradox games considering the much larger fanbase these days