Europa Universalis IV

[Quintillus]

Does anyone know how the Serfdom idea (part of the Aristocracy track) works in 1.5.1? It says it increases manpower by 25%, but if I add up the manpower before the feudal monarchy and Serfdom bonuses, it's exactly one-tenth of the total manpower, and IIRC I get 1/120th of total manpower per month. I'm just curious where exactly I can tell that it is making a difference.

Likewise, I'm curious how you can tell that the +1 leader shock/fire ideas are making a difference. That actually applies to EU3, too. I'd always assumed it just meant they had better stats when you hired them, but I don't know if that's really how it works.

I'm mid-game, so I'm sticking with 1.5.1 to avoid mid-game rule changes. Although I'm curious how 1.6 is in practice (particularly a couple weeks out once people have actually had a chance to play it for a decent length of time). Most of the changes seem to make sense, and power projection sounds interesting.

 

[TheDanish]

Likewise, I'm curious how you can tell that the +1 leader shock/fire ideas are making a difference. That actually applies to EU3, too. I'd always assumed it just meant they had better stats when you hired them, but I don't know if that's really how it works.

When you roll a new general (or admiral, conquistador, etc.) his stats are rolled, with higher army/navy tradition contributing to higher stats. Then the +1 leader stats from ideas are added.

AFAIK every stat can reach 6, but 6 siege is super rare.

 

[Evie]

Open betas for EU IV? Given the kind of people on the Paradox EU IV forums, there is no possible way for that to ever end well for the game, for the designers, or for...well, anyone really.

 

[calad]

When you roll a new general (or admiral, conquistador, etc.) his stats are rolled, with higher army/navy tradition contributing to higher stats. Then the +1 leader stats from ideas are added.

AFAIK every stat can reach 6, but 6 siege is super rare.

Level 3 siege is already OP, even higher simply breaks the game.

 

[salty mud]

Urrghhh. EU4 forums are a war zone. Again. Well actually not so like normal as nearly everyone agrees PDox have really lost the plot.

They need to get some open betas on the go for EU4. Nerfs to ROFTW, changes to rivals and warning that seem good but really punish smaller states, more nerfs to diploexpansion, AE changes that are theoretically ok but really a pile of poo....

I thought anyone with any sense knew not to download a Paradox game on day 1 now? All of their releases are an absolute mess. They get around to patching it eventually but they are so unprofessional in their releases it's not funny.

 

[PhilBowles]

I thought anyone with any sense knew not to download a Paradox game on day 1 now? All of their releases are an absolute mess. They get around to patching it eventually but they are so unprofessional in their releases it's not funny.

What's the state of the game currently? I have it but have put off playing it (I've put off returning to CKII following the Rajahs of India release too, as that supposedly introduced a lot of problems and the game seems only to have had a couple of patches since), but picked up Conquest of Paradise with Steam's 75% off weekend. It sounds from the thread so far that it's still in a rather rough-and-ready state, with key mechanics still undergoing major changes with patches.

 

[GinandTonic]

Just got this on the steam sale. To save me reading 71 pages could anyone recommend a good primer for someone who played a fair bit of hoi?

 

[Antilogic]

Just got this on the steam sale.

Same here, been watching it for awhile now since I played a lot of EU3 but I can't get it to install on my new laptop because of registry stuff.

I picked Saxony and I desperately need pointers on how to allocate my points to tech advances and ideas, what not to do in wars because apparently vassalizing my target and two other attacking powers has left me with tons of infamy "aggressive expansion" points. So far, I'm just using my diplomats to improve relations with the other Germans that might try to steal one of my territories or join my rivals' coalition against me.

The annexation of Anhalt was delayed by 8 years because Saxon noble rebels sacked my capital, and I had to spend all the money I was going to use to bribe Anhalt to pay my troops.

And Austria annexed the Papacy within, like 20 years and now the Pope resides in the Netherlands. I thought the AI was a bit apprehensive about doing that, but I can't tell if there have been any significant consequences for the Hapsburg family.

 

[cybrxkhan]

From what I heard EUIV generally speaking is in a reasonably playable state, but like always every time a major DLC comes out silly stuff happens. It also happens always with CKII too; the recent ROI release was kind of bad, to put it politely, so much so that, for instance, a lot of the issues and bugs in mods are probably due to ROI and not the mods themselves. I imagine EUIV has a similar problem.

 

[scheva007]

From what I heard EUIV generally speaking is in a reasonably playable state, but like always every time a major DLC comes out silly stuff happens. It also happens always with CKII too; the recent ROI release was kind of bad, to put it politely, so much so that, for instance, a lot of the issues and bugs in mods are probably due to ROI and not the mods themselves. I imagine EUIV has a similar problem.

There are still issues in now modded games in CK2, and paradox is very quiet about it....

Edit: non-modded games offcours

 

[GAGA Extrem]

What annoys me the most about 1.6 is that the Paradox forum looks like the WOW forums back in early Cataclysm. For those who do not know what that means a short explanation:

At the end of Wrath of the Lich king (the expansion prior to Cataclysm) powercreep had resulted in a powerlevel where players could clear 5 man dungeons without a full party, in some cases even without tanks or healers.

Once Cataclysm came along, however, everyone was naturally undergeared and so the 5 man dungeons from that expansion were (again) hard. But instead of adapting to the new situation by using crowd control effects or watch for positioning, players just kept whining "too hard! NERF! NERF!" until Blizzard gave in and nerfed the content.

The talk in the Pdox forums feels exactly like that. People whining how the game has become unplayable, but refusing to use tools that have been there from the very first day when the game was released. People demanding that you must be able to conquer half of the Ottomans in one war and no AI should care (and no, I am not exaggerating in this case). Instead of playing around a bit and trying to find a solution, the vocal minority cries "NERF! NERF!" in the forums and demands the QA/bet tester's heads on a pike.

A hotfix was released today, nerfing a lot of stuff - some things deserved, some (imho) not. Apart from that annoyance, 1.6 seems to work out nice, though. I enjoy the somewhat slower pace that requires a constant balance between expansion and integration. DIP cost for diplo annexing finally balances out that potential loophole and the overall changes (like the new build UI) are great.

 

[salty mud]

What's the state of the game currently? I have it but have put off playing it (I've put off returning to CKII following the Rajahs of India release too, as that supposedly introduced a lot of problems and the game seems only to have had a couple of patches since), but picked up Conquest of Paradise with Steam's 75% off weekend. It sounds from the thread so far that it's still in a rather rough-and-ready state, with key mechanics still undergoing major changes with patches.

I don't have the latest expansion so I can't speak for that, but prior to the latest patch the game was actually working fairly well. Rarely came across anything wrong. They keep dabbling and changing things related to Monarch Points but overall it was working quite well. Sounds like the latest patch though has really caused chaos.

 

[Quintillus]

I would consider EU4 to be in a pretty good state. I can't talk to 1.6+ in particular, but 1.5.1 was pretty good, and actually even the initial release was in pretty good shape and fun. I patched EU3 to 5.2 from 5.1 last night, and played a bit of it, and it was hard to go back. EU3 5.2 also crashed, which I don't think I've had EU4 do one time. I recommend EU4 over EU3, and that's with no expansions for 4 and with all of them for 3.

Having played Saxony, you are going to get aggressive expansion by expanding aggressively. Vassalizing three countries in a war will likely get a coalition against you, although not necessarily with all your neighbors in it. Look for the diplomatic advisor who makes relations improve more quickly, and consider hiring him. I've about 80 years in and have 9 provinces, plus 9 more that are controlled by vassals or personal union partners. I generally expand by either one province or one vassal per war (and one vassal was added to the realm peacefully). There have been a few times a coalition has formed against me nonetheless. Although I went to war with the last coalition on purpose because it was three puny one province countries.

It can help to get alliances/vassals with your neighbors on one or more sides. Many of my neighbors are vassals/in a union, and another is an ally, so as long as I don't get both Bohemia and Austria in the coalition against me at the same time, they aren't very threatening.

For tech pointers/ideas, I guess it depends on what your goal is. The Diplomatic path is strong (though not necessary) if you want to pursue emperorship.

When you roll a new general (or admiral, conquistador, etc.) his stats are rolled, with higher army/navy tradition contributing to higher stats. Then the +1 leader stats from ideas are added.

AFAIK every stat can reach 6, but 6 siege is super rare.

Cool. I know in EU3, 2 siege was the max, but I think I saw some AI generals with more in my EU4 RTM game. Haven't looked carefully for that in my current one.

Any answers to how Serfdom in the Aristocracy track works, and how I can verify I actually am getting more manpower?

What annoys me the most about 1.6 is that the Paradox forum looks like the WOW forums back in early Cataclysm. For those who do not know what that means a short explanation:

At the end of Wrath of the Lich king (the expansion prior to Cataclysm) powercreep had resulted in a powerlevel where players could clear 5 man dungeons without a full party, in some cases even without tanks or healers.

Once Cataclysm came along, however, everyone was naturally undergeared and so the 5 man dungeons from that expansion were (again) hard. But instead of adapting to the new situation by using crowd control effects or watch for positioning, players just kept whining "too hard! NERF! NERF!" until Blizzard gave in and nerfed the content.

The talk in the Pdox forums feels exactly like that. People whining how the game has become unplayable, but refusing to use tools that have been there from the very first day when the game was released. People demanding that you must be able to conquer half of the Ottomans in one war and no AI should care (and no, I am not exaggerating in this case). Instead of playing around a bit and trying to find a solution, the vocal minority cries "NERF! NERF!" in the forums and demands the QA/bet tester's heads on a pike.

A hotfix was released today, nerfing a lot of stuff - some things deserved, some (imho) not. Apart from that annoyance, 1.6 seems to work out nice, though. I enjoy the somewhat slower pace that requires a constant balance between expansion and integration. DIP cost for diplo annexing finally balances out that potential loophole and the overall changes (like the new build UI) are great.

The 100% increase in aggressive expansion meltaway in the patch did seem surprising, and quite large. Did they increase it in 1.6, or was that a major nerf? I thought the rate in 1.5.1 was pretty good. Although I was still a mid-sized country. Minimum revolt risk from nationalism being 20% of what nationalism add also seems a bit weaksauce, at least compared to EU3. I didn't play 1.6.0, and in 1.5.1 and earlier, nationalism was really easy to get rid of (make the province a core), so I can't really compare against earlier versions of EU4.

 

[grandad1982]

What annoys me the most about 1.6 is that the Paradox forum looks like the WOW forums back in early Cataclysm. For those who do not know what that means a short explanation:

At the end of Wrath of the Lich king (the expansion prior to Cataclysm) powercreep had resulted in a powerlevel where players could clear 5 man dungeons without a full party, in some cases even without tanks or healers.

Once Cataclysm came along, however, everyone was naturally undergeared and so the 5 man dungeons from that expansion were (again) hard. But instead of adapting to the new situation by using crowd control effects or watch for positioning, players just kept whining "too hard! NERF! NERF!" until Blizzard gave in and nerfed the content.

The talk in the Pdox forums feels exactly like that. People whining how the game has become unplayable, but refusing to use tools that have been there from the very first day when the game was released. People demanding that you must be able to conquer half of the Ottomans in one war and no AI should care (and no, I am not exaggerating in this case). Instead of playing around a bit and trying to find a solution, the vocal minority cries "NERF! NERF!" in the forums and demands the QA/bet tester's heads on a pike.

A hotfix was released today, nerfing a lot of stuff - some things deserved, some (imho) not. Apart from that annoyance, 1.6 seems to work out nice, though. I enjoy the somewhat slower pace that requires a constant balance between expansion and integration. DIP cost for diplo annexing finally balances out that potential loophole and the overall changes (like the new build UI) are great.

The problem isn't that the game is hard or not its that the constant hits to expanding in a game that basically only has expansion is a bit wearing. I fell that the vassal feeding in 1.5.1 was fine as was and it just needed warscore and coalitions to be reworked to make a decent balance of expansion. The nerfing of an option so that you are more railroaded and the increased demands on your random monarch points seems like the opposite to what I think a game should have, I.E. more player choice.

Also hits to the ROFTW by reducing production income and reducing the neighbour bonus to tech cost are poor choices IMO as most of ROTW are ahistorically weak (especially in AI hands) already.

The general lack of stuff to do when not at war also chaffes a little.

That all said I think that EU4 is a great game and most of the additions in WoN seem pretty sweet.

 

[Angst]

Every time I play the game, I fill out the Quantity tree out of necessity. I might play it wrong. Do you guys think I make a good decision here?

 

[Quintillus]

Playing some 1.6.1, they really nerfed aggressive expansion from 1.5.1. In 1.5.1, you'd get 2-3 less aggressive expansion per year with your neighbors. Now it's 5 less. You also get less aggressive expansion from conquering in the first place. I'm concerned that this will greatly lessen the amount of coalitions, which would be unfortunate. IMO coalitions are one of the best new features in EU4 over EU3.

I haven't tried the Quantity tree yet. I tend to hire a lot of mercenaries, though. And go a few dozen loans in debt from time to time as a result. Quantity may be a good alternative to hiring lots of mercenaries.

 

[calad]

Playing some 1.6.1, they really nerfed aggressive expansion from 1.5.1. In 1.5.1, you'd get 2-3 less aggressive expansion per year with your neighbors. Now it's 5 less. You also get less aggressive expansion from conquering in the first place. I'm concerned that this will greatly lessen the amount of coalitions, which would be unfortunate. IMO coalitions are one of the best new features in EU4 over EU3.

I haven't tried the Quantity tree yet. I tend to hire a lot of mercenaries, though. And go a few dozen loans in debt from time to time as a result. Quantity may be a good alternative to hiring lots of mercenaries.

Coalitions happend because of bad relations. As starting England I rivaled France, Burgundy and Scotland. After I lost 100 year war I downed Irish minors and annexed them. All three nation plus one Irish minor joined coalition against me.

I think 1.6 has made EU4 finaly playable and reasonable. Rivaly system is great and makes sense, ai also knows how to use troops, keep reserve and so on. Warscore is still annoying but setting a rival now lowers demand on peace. So much rage over patch that made me feel EU4 was finaly worth of my money.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The problem isn't that the game is hard or not its that the constant hits to expanding in a game that basically only has expansion is a bit wearing. I fell that the vassal feeding in 1.5.1 was fine as was and it just needed warscore and coalitions to be reworked to make a decent balance of expansion. The nerfing of an option so that you are more railroaded and the increased demands on your random monarch points seems like the opposite to what I think a game should have, I.E. more player choice.

See, that's where we seem to have a completely different perception of the game. For me 1.6 increased the amount of choise by making existing choises more meaningful. I played a short ENG game (with the old 1.6 beta build before the hotfix) - and ended up vassalizing SCO for the very first time in my EU4 career.

Before this patch, my procedure was always the same: Concede in the HYW, fabricate claims on all Irish minors, wait for War of the Roses and ADM points, conquer Scotland, grab Iceland, colonize the New World.

In that last game I was only able to grab two of the Irish minors, because afterwards I faced a coalition of Munter (who ate Connacht), Scotland and France. The War of the Roses was a brutal affair, mostly because the coalition attacked me to free the Irish minors. After 8 years of desperate defence I was finally able to invade Scotland. Considering that conquering more provinces was not really feesible in my situation, I force-vassalized them instead. I waited until the two Irish provinces were pacified and the coalition dissolved, took the rest of Ireland and started to diploannex Scotland.

And I like that the game has moved away from the silly overextension mechanic to a more reasonable localized revolt risk. I like that you now have to decide which vassals are worth diplo annexing. I like that each declaration of war and territory aquisition can have significant diplomatic repercussions. To me that adds choise by making choises more meaningful.

I haven't tried the Quantity tree yet. I tend to hire a lot of mercenaries, though. And go a few dozen loans in debt from time to time as a result. Quantity may be a good alternative to hiring lots of mercenaries.

Every since they move Levée en masse to the first NI slot, Quantity is a valid option for bigger nations. The catch is that quantity is an NI category with strategic impact instead of tactical benefits, so many players dismiss it easily. Quantity doesn't win you the war by tipping a battle, it wins you the war by giving you more soldiers, more troops and less war exhaustion. Sadly it has almost no impact on the navy of your nation. If the finisher would also add 33% NF limit it would be a great choise for many seafaring / trading nations.

 

[warpus]

Wow, that update was unexpected. I wasn't sober and wasn't sure what the hell was going on.

No matter, I managed to westernize Poland just after 1500 and integrate Lithuania by 1550. It's 1600 now, I've been a part of the HRE the whole game, and I've been slowly taking over all territory close to Muscovy, which is getting to be pretty large.. I own all the land just south of moscow and am slowly nibbling away at the small states there, crimea, etc. I have not fought Muscovy yet, but I think I've prevented them from forming Russia. My ally throughout the whole game has been Austria, the HRE emperor. They really liked it when I joined the empire. Sweden has been usually my ally too, plus Bulgaria. Nobody's ever declared war on me, so I guess I must probably be doing something right in terms of diplomacy. (Diplomacy seems to be my weak point in this game and I've been trying to improve)

My tech is good, and my country's stable because the update forced me to play much closer attention to stability issues.. So things are looking great, but I want to be in a state to dismantle Muscovy. The Ottomans are not an issue in this game. Other potential rivals to worry about are France, Spain, and Great Britain, but GB and Spain like me and France is neutral and has her own issues. Normal difficulty, random lucky countries enabled.

/rave, back to game

 

[PhilBowles]

The general lack of stuff to do when not at war also chaffes a little.

This is another thing that's made me hesitant - CKII was the only Paradox game I really got into, as it deviates from this somewhat (although not a great deal, as gameplay still fundamentally resolves around using peacetime mainly to obtain cassus belli in order to go to war again). Anyone know if the Wealth of Nations expansion changes this at all?