|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 22, 2016 23:46:48 GMT
Hopefully 1 of those two new mechanics they're talking about next week has to deal with keeping the Europeans at bay in Africa I haven't played much EUIV - do European countries tend to conquer all of available Africa by the end of the game? There tends to be a fear among the community about them conquering into the center. Portugal and Spain used to conquer good bit of West Africa, but when they westernize the Europeans would slowly be pushed back
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 22, 2016 23:59:23 GMT
Hopefully 1 of those two new mechanics they're talking about next week has to deal with keeping the Europeans at bay in Africa I haven't played much EUIV - do European countries tend to conquer all of available Africa by the end of the game? Pretty much yeah. You know how by the 19th century the United States was just beginning to expand across the Mississippi in earnest? In an EUIV game every available province in North America will be settled by that time. Africa just gets chewed up and spat out.
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 23, 2016 0:33:20 GMT
I haven't played much EUIV - do European countries tend to conquer all of available Africa by the end of the game? Pretty much yeah. You know how by the 19th century the United States was just beginning to expand across the Mississippi in earnest? In an EUIV game every available province in North America will be settled by that time. Africa just gets chewed up and spat out. To be fair, all of North America that wasn't claimed by that time was Oregon and British Columbia basically
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 23, 2016 0:52:49 GMT
Pretty much yeah. You know how by the 19th century the United States was just beginning to expand across the Mississippi in earnest? In an EUIV game every available province in North America will be settled by that time. Africa just gets chewed up and spat out. To be fair, all of North America that wasn't claimed by that time was Oregon and British Columbia basically Claimed sure, but not really settled yet.
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 23, 2016 1:35:51 GMT
To be fair, all of North America that wasn't claimed by that time was Oregon and British Columbia basically Claimed sure, but not really settled yet. You know, in a future expansion of the game, I want there to be a feature that you can claim certain lands in the new world without actually settling there. It won't do anything except give you a casus belli on anyone who settles that land, kind of like a treaty of Tordesillas lite that's not chained to religion
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 23, 2016 2:16:00 GMT
Claimed sure, but not really settled yet. You know, in a future expansion of the game, I want there to be a feature that you can claim certain lands in the new world without actually settling there. It won't do anything except give you a casus belli on anyone who settles that land, kind of like a treaty of Tordesillas lite that's not chained to religion That sounds like it would be quite neat, like sending your agents into provinces and getting a claim on them, but I don't know if you could do something on a Tordesillas scale. Maybe some sort of event where you and your rival have to agree on how to carve up the map?
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Feb 23, 2016 3:47:44 GMT
You know, in a future expansion of the game, I want there to be a feature that you can claim certain lands in the new world without actually settling there. It won't do anything except give you a casus belli on anyone who settles that land, kind of like a treaty of Tordesillas lite that's not chained to religion That'd be neat. Maybe they could balance it by making claiming land cost a certain amount of Diplomatic Power and/or give you Aggressive Expansion points, so you can't just claim everything. Or they could have it work like having uncontrolled core provinces - a small prestige penalty for every one you claim but don't control, maybe a much larger prestige penalty for provinces you claim and someone else controls.
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on Feb 24, 2016 18:37:15 GMT
I wish there were ways for Asian empires to create their own trade networks. EU4 is too Eurocentric
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Feb 24, 2016 19:59:29 GMT
I wish there were ways for Asian empires to create their own trade networks. EU4 is too Eurocentric You mean with the trade nodes? Yeah, the way it works is a little odd - it'd be more interesting if trade between two nodes benefited both of them, or if you could switch the direction of trade flow if you had enough trade power in two adjacent nodes.
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Feb 24, 2016 20:35:59 GMT
I wish there were ways for Asian empires to create their own trade networks. EU4 is too Eurocentric You mean with the trade nodes? Yeah, the way it works is a little odd - it'd be more interesting if trade between two nodes benefited both of them, or if you could switch the direction of trade flow if you had enough trade power in two adjacent nodes. I've still got no idea how to use trade in that thing outside of just outright conquering trade nodes.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Feb 24, 2016 21:31:00 GMT
I've still got no idea how to use trade in that thing outside of just outright conquering trade nodes. As far as I understand it, it's like this: Each node corresponds to a region, and its total value is determined by the prosperity of those provinces. Different countries have influence/control in these nodes called "Trade Power" - they control a portion of the wealth in the node equivalent to how much of the total Trade Power in the node is theirs (e.g. if there's a node where Morocco, Portugal, and Castille all have trade power and Portugal and Morocco have 10 trade power in the node each whilst Castille has 20, then 50% of the Trade Power in the node is Castille's, so Castille controls 50% of the wealth in that node). Merchants can be used to collect money from a node or divert it upstream - they can divert more than they can collect, so if the node upstream is heavily controlled by you then you may get more money by transferring money upstream to your node than by collecting in a node you have little power in. You can increase your Trade Power in a node by acquiring more province's in that trade node's region, acquiring provinces which are "centers of trade" within that trade node's region, sending a merchant to the node, and setting light ships (barques at the start of the game) to protect your trade in that node. You can also get bonuses from ideas, advisors, events, etc. It is a bit complicated, and I'm still not sure how to make much money off of it, but I hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on Mar 1, 2016 1:54:20 GMT
I wish there were ways for Asian empires to create their own trade networks. EU4 is too Eurocentric You mean with the trade nodes? Yeah, the way it works is a little odd - it'd be more interesting if trade between two nodes benefited both of them, or if you could switch the direction of trade flow if you had enough trade power in two adjacent nodes. Yeah, that's what I meant. It would also be cool if you could arrange your own trade routes, and there was no standardized node network. Of course, nations would be able to fight each other over trade power in predetermined regions, but a nation would be able to make a trade route for itself. It would be complicated to implement, though.
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Mar 1, 2016 9:59:33 GMT
You mean with the trade nodes? Yeah, the way it works is a little odd - it'd be more interesting if trade between two nodes benefited both of them, or if you could switch the direction of trade flow if you had enough trade power in two adjacent nodes. Yeah, that's what I meant. It would also be cool if you could arrange your own trade routes, and there was no standardized node network. Of course, nations would be able to fight each other over trade power in predetermined regions, but a nation would be able to make a trade route for itself. It would be complicated to implement, though. That's a pretty cool idea, but I think there are trade specific games which focus on that slightly better than EU4.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshore on Mar 1, 2016 12:31:56 GMT
I came up with an idea for a playthrough that you guys should like. It does however require the Ruler Designer. Adolf in a Sea of TimeYou create your Hitler. Anywhere between 35 and 45 is a good start. Ramp his martial and stewardship way the hell down, average diplomacy, good intrigue and learning. Good starting traits include paranoid, mystic, cruel, proud, chaste/celibate, and maybe The Pox if you want a syphilitic Hitler. A good plan is to also take the time to make a decent heir for him. When I first tried this my Hitler died childless twice, unsurprising really. Finally start your Hitler as a count somewhere in Germany. I tried to get him in Innsbruck, but that was a theocracy, so I picked Nuremberg instead. Da Rules
Imprison and execute all Jews. It doesn't matter how good their stats are, you're Hitler now. No non-Germanics. None on council and no marriages to them for any of your family. Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Franks, Lombards, Norse, and Dutch are all acceptable substitutes. Celts and Magyars will also do if you're in a tight spot, but generally try to keep them out. Drang nach Osten. You can expand to the other Germanic realms and bring them under your control, but you cannot completely annex any of the Romance nations. So France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. They can be put under good German kings, but they must not be annexed. You focus must always be on the east. North Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East and India are all fair game. Paganism. Preferably convert and or/reform Germanic Paganism. Christianity is too Jewish for a true Hitler. However tolerance for other Pagans, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zunism, and the branches of Islam should be encouraged. Wiping out Judaism, Tengrism, Romavu, and other pagan faiths from the east should be as paramount as destroying their cultures. Now go out there and have a wonderful Hitler everybody! You should also do a version for Uncle Joe as well.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 1, 2016 14:33:27 GMT
Yeah, that's what I meant. It would also be cool if you could arrange your own trade routes, and there was no standardized node network. Of course, nations would be able to fight each other over trade power in predetermined regions, but a nation would be able to make a trade route for itself. It would be complicated to implement, though. Yeah, mainly it'd be hard to get the AI to use it in a sensible manner. My Morocco EU4 game is going surprisingly well - I've westernised and am close behind most of Europe in tech (I'm generally even with the Ottomans and Russia), my colonial efforts have started paying off big time (lots of money from tariffs and from controlling American trade nodes), and I've just finished the Quantity idea group so I have a Land Force Limit of over 60 regiments, which should help me win the inevitable showdown between me and the Portuguese-Castilan alliance. I've got two colonial nations at the moment - Granada al-Jadida at the "tip" of Brazil, and Magrib al-Baid in Colombia/Panama. I'm hoping to make a third in what is the US southeast in OTL (the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida), since Castile's colonisation efforts seem to have skipped that area entirely, instead setting up Hispaniola in the Carribean, Florida in New England, and Castilan Louisiana along the Mississippi. I'm hoping to beat up Mali and Aragon (who are inexplicably allied with each other) in order to take the West African coast for myself and Aragonese Brazil for Granada al-Jadida too.
|
|
|
Post by targaryen on Mar 1, 2016 20:36:16 GMT
I picked up EUIV sometime last May I believe. It was a steep learning curve for me, but once I got the gist of it it's become scarily addictive. The furthest I got into the campaign was, I believe, c. 1780 with the Ottomans. My current game is with a custom nation; I've put Japan in England and vice versa for the lulz. Currently colonising Brazil and seized a couple of African minors, but having a bit of a debt problem. Easily poured 100+ hours into it. Picked up CK2 yesterday as well. Tried it earlier and it, uh...it's certainly different and it'll take a while to get used to.
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Mar 1, 2016 20:51:10 GMT
Easily poured 100+ hours into it. Pfft, what a pleb. It's like you have a life or something, what a loser!
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Mar 1, 2016 21:36:20 GMT
Easily poured 100+ hours into it. Pfft, what a pleb. It's like you have a life or something, what a loser! I'm currently aiming to get 869 hours out of CK2, but I only really got this far to begin with because I had a habit of leaving the game running with my laptop closed. It was all registered as playtime, just that it had been paused for a real long time.
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Mar 2, 2016 0:13:17 GMT
Heh, I've sunk hundreds of hours into a bunch of Paradox games but somehow I've only ever managed to finish one game as Afghanistan in Victoria 2!
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on Mar 13, 2016 3:15:52 GMT
I tried playing as Persia, but I gave up after getting drowned in Reactionaries. I think Egypt, Imperial Japan, and Sikh Empire are the only fun UnCivs, although HPM makes India unformable, so that's a problem I generally play gsg, I like the idea of a more freeform game. --------------------------------- And has anyone tried CK2 after Conclave? I'm a bit scared to get back into the game. The Council stuff sounds interesting, but new War and Coalition mechanics are off-putting. Also, how is game performance?
|
|