Europa Universalis IV

No longer be Emperor? If you can't bribe them and/or they already hate you, you don't have many options.

This issue may also be part of the Wars of Religion event chain, where you are forced to lose the throne for at least one ruler, but you can generally regain it afterwards.
 
Expanding by conquest within the HRE gives more aggressive expansion within the HRE, which makes it less likely to be elected, and having unlawful territory also hurts HRE relations, which makes it less likely to be elected. So generally, yes, expanding within the HRE is not a great idea if you want to be Emperor. You can get away with a little bit, but not with a lot. Although I should note that the most recent time I played in the HRE and tried to be Emperor was as Saxony in patch 1.5, so my feel for how much you can expand is likely out-of-date.

There is of course the option of to expand within Germany and not care about not being Emperor. It's still an interesting area to play, with so many small countries and the HRE mechanics in play. I had two good games in the HRE or HRE-area while not trying for Emperor.
 
Also what should I do about all the Protestants within the HRE? Having so many heretic princes is really hurting my imperial authority.

I was able to stay emperor by improving relations with some electors.

Is trying to get provinces to return unlawful territory a good or bad idea?
 
Last edited:
You could try it. At some point, though, the Wars of Religion will kick off and then it gets really interesting. :)
 
Become Protestant.
 
Or (less helpfully) reload and make damn sure you don't lose the war.
 
In the Sikh Delhi game I am playing, every elector and free city was Protestant, alonf with most everyone in the HRE. Unfortunately for them, Russia, Ottomans, Austria, France, Spain and Great Britain were all in the Catholic League.
 
Sounds like an easy way to disband the Empire in future. :)
 
Become Protestant.

I tried that but now Hungary and Bohemia both hate me, and Bohemia is growing. So I can't move troops between my Polish exclave and my main territory. I'm going to have to take one of them on at some point, but they both have allies, so I'm not quite sure what to do.

Or (less helpfully) reload and make damn sure you don't lose the war.

That would be difficult, because the Protestant league had over double the military strength of the Catholic league. I'd probably have to go pretty far back and try to run my diplomacy differently. My annexing Wurttemburg is what seemed to trigger the war, so maybe I could have just not done that and hope to avoid war entirely.



This is what it looked like before the war. I lost some territory to Burgundy, the Ottomans, and Lorraine, and took over more of Commonwealth and most of the Teutonic Order after the war.
 
...well, I shall point out you totally failed at being Austria.

Like...No PUs as Austria, who can get Bohemia and Hungary to basically just be handed to you? No trying to force the Burgundian Succession so you own the Low Countries?

No wonder you were having issues. Literally half the strength you should have is literally not there under your heel.
 
In response to the classic question of, "how is your EU4 game going?", my current answer is, "it's about to get real!"



My Swedish strategy has been largely focused on the Danes, and following that (they are all but conquered), on northern Germany, with the goal of being the dominant power in Lubeck. It has worked quite nicely; I have 44-50% of the power there, and combined with another 40% in the Baltic, has been a boon to the Swedish economy. It's now been about a decade since I took Verden (whose only remaining province is Dithmarschen) and Stade, and a few countries had left the coalition, so I thought I might be in the clear.

Turns out, Friesland disagreed. My insurance-ally of the Ottomans declared war on the Mamluks, and next thing you know Friesland declares on me.

But despite the 17-country coalition, it should be a doozy. The forces are quite evenly matched:



Granted, the Ottomans have two wars, but I still expect a close battle. I have forts in Denmark that should bottleneck the invaders nicely and allow a nice, slow defensive strategy until the Ottomans defeat the Mamluks. Only real question is how much to try to save Mecklenburg and Hesse. Mecklenburg is an old friend, though also my main trade rival in Lubeck; Hesse's main role as an ally was to prevent them from joining the coalition.

But it's been a fun time. From economic uncertainty and relying on help from Novgorod and Lithuania to defeat the Danes and Norwegians, to economic prosperity and now this challenge from the south. Meanwhile to the east, Novgorod and I just humiliated Muscovy, who has major rebel problems and wars with all the hordes, which they are losing, so that front is secure for at least another decade.
 
How are you all feeling about EU4 atm? The insane amount of blobbing that the AI has begun to do (in most of my games, Spain has swallowed France or the reverse) is incredibly immersion-breaking. Like playing Civ sometimes, with the lack of ebb and flow.
 
What immersion?
 
You being snide? Really no reason to, Johanna. It's actually quite weird for me to read such a post from you.

In opposition to games like Civ, EU has had more or less a somewhat clear threat of countries imploding when strained long enough. While using an abstracted economy, its interface, time flow, political mechanics, all that has a base in trying to approach its era in some semblance of simulation. Is it a good one? No, but it's the best we have. Civ plays completely different due to its time span lasting thousands of years longer than EU4, meaning that the distance from the individual pieces to the whole picture is much more abstracted. The thing is, the behavior of the AI and its expansion pace used to match the geopolitics of the time period, with ebb and flow and countries sometimes imploding. With the latest AI updates, the game has started making completely absurd peace deals that just don't fit the time period.

Now, did the player after a certain level of play manage to do things that were completely impossible? Yes. But instead of fixing this somehow they doubled down on it and ruined the flow of the game. There were some checks that made massive empires feel real; at least more real than Paradox's competition.

Now there's really no reason to play EU4 anymore over, well, Civilization.

I don't want to play RISK. I want to play EU. And it's going in the wrong direction.
 
I haven't noticed a significant difference yet. I should note this is my first 1.24 game (or at least, first that I've played more than 25 years... I imploded as Taungu and ran into a wall of Ming as Jiangzhou). The last one was on 1.20 as France, and in that one I was the one who was expanding more than what was realistic.

What I have seen is far better than EU3, where Austria and Bohemia were infamous for expanding like crazy, without consolidating their gains. And, sure, expansion is easier than in 1.5.1, when the aggressive expansion limit was 30, it was really easy to hit that, and coalitions were a dime a dozen, but on the whole I feel the limits to expansion in this game seem right. It's not like the 1.6 patch when they completely overcorrected for 1.5 and it was almost impossible to trigger a coalition. And manpower and money are still quite real limits. I have bankruptcy notifications enabled, and quite a few nations have gone broke in this game, including Portugal, Crimea, and Muscovy (and I didn't have any involvement in the Portuguese or Crimean cases). There may have been slightly more consolidation in the HRE and Italy than usual this game, but it hasn't raised alarm bells, as the Emperor is weak and Naples has done a very good job with diplomacy, almost always having clear advantages when at war. I do fear the French-Castilian PU, but that's due to good fortune on France's part.

As for my game, the coalition war is over, and victory has been achieved! I played moderately defensively, keeping all my troops nearby, mostly in around southern Denmark, with occasional forays into northern Germany. My forts in Lubeck, Hamburg, and Schleswig were never taken, though Stade was. Concentration of force allowed me to win most battles - except when Bohemia and a couple of their smaller allies similarly combined force - and gradually whittle down their forces, with Hesse and Mecklenburg doing a good job of supporting my troops despite partial occupation of their lands. The Ottomans kept them distracted by invading Salzburg (who has most of Bavaria) with large numbers, Novgorod reinforced my main lines, and Lithuania was kind of pitiful and distracted by rebels, but didn't majorly mess anything up. And somehow, Holland did not get crushed - I guess my enemies preferred to invade my lands to theirs. They occupied Utrecht, and I eventually linked up with them by occupying Friesland itself. In the end, I took a bit of gold and gave Utrecht to Holland in the peace deal.

In the meantime, Muscovy has collapsed, perhaps Permanently, and a Cossack horde has formed in southern Russia as well. Aggravatingly, though, Nogai forced Muscovy to give 8 provinces back to Novgorod (which had been occupied since the 1440s), but Novgorod subsequently gave half of them back to Muscovy :mad:. At around the same time, they released Estonia and Livonia as vassals, and sold two arctic provinces to me. I eventually realized this was to avoid Merchant Republic penalties for having more than 20 provinces. It throws a monkey wrench in my hopes for them eventually forming a friendly Mother Russia to my east, though. I still plan to stick with my longest and most trustworthy ally, but am not sure what it bodes for the east.
 
Oh, I don't want to return to EU3. That was absurd.

It's just that with the AI forcing so aggressive peace treaties, there's little to counter rapid expansion all over the world, stuff like a super Ming is to be expected instead of it breaking down, France usually conquers Spain, all that jazz. Infact, I very much welcome increased aggression and greed for the AI. I just want to see them imploding afterwards.That would be somewhat remniscent of a lot of historical map changes.
 
Even accounting for how politicised Steam reviews can get if TehGamerZ are angered, 23,000 people disagree with you.
 
Top Bottom