Europa Universalis IV - 13 August 2013
- Thread starter Bytewave
- Start date
What happend?
Btw I wanted to apologize to you for me being such a douche back in the NG forum...
HellHound01
Banned
People who said they would play didn't show up, then when everyone got together finally it crashed.
And I don't care, its an internet forum, bygones are bygones and all that.
I'm free for most of the weekend so if anybody is up for a multi-player game I'm up for it.
Angel Heart
Banned
I'm currently playing the mod MEIOU and Taxes as the Byzantine Empire trying to take over za warudo. 
Is someone actually familiar with advanced music modding in EUIV? I find the whole factors and modifiers a bit confusing if you want to set a bit more complex conditions. :|
Is someone actually familiar with advanced music modding in EUIV? I find the whole factors and modifiers a bit confusing if you want to set a bit more complex conditions. :|
Deleted member 67076
How the hell do you win with the Timurids? My manpower somehow instantly depletes itself from 35K to 400 in less than a year.
Manpower early in the game depletes fast for pretty much all nations in my experience.
Never played a horde tho.
So I've been palying it for past few days. Here are few thoughts, some compared to EU III)
-Like the idea of actual dynasty, rather than having successor with certain characteristics because reasons. Also royal marriages seem to actually work, even though maybe having them limited would be a good idea. say, have a family tree and you can get only as many marriages as you have children, siblings and cousins.
-Not sure what to think about technology tree. Various points spent to do it is interesting change from money used for developing technology. The problem is that I'm spending administrative and diplomatic points to reform country much faster than military ones, meaning my military tech is pulling ahead.
-Like the idea of ability to convert culture. and religious conversion being a sure thing rather than chance. Ditto for colonies.
-Dafuq is with sieges? One thing I absolutly hated in EU III was that AI was able to do it much faster than me and here it happened again. Example: I invaded enemy province with 20 regiments, smashed enemy army of 4 regiments, which then withdrew to my territory, laying siege there. My fortress surrendered faster than his despite him being 5 times weaker, having only 3 regs on infantry while my was 19 infantry + 1 canon. Whole concept of siege takes some getting used to, but even when facturing in chance (OK, I can accept he was luckier than me) I should be able to take his province faster.
-Why does stroming the fortress cost military points? Shouldn't you increase them, seeing how you showed your military prowess? There should be an option "if you storm it you get 5 points, if you fail you lose 5 points"
-Whole trade power, steering trade and whatnot will take some time to figure out and master. And oh yeah, why can't centre of trade be named after province instead of capital of said province so you don't spend time searching for Seville when you should look for Andalucia.
-Not yet sure where can I check my agression points. Don't want to find myself on the wrong end of containment allience but need to smack those uppity statelets around a bit.
-Missions are nice addition, you just need to figure out which ones are your actual mid term goals before choosing them.
-Battles seem to end fairly quickly. I swear, In EU III I had battles that lasted for two months.
-Limits to your army size. Makes sense though it hinders gameplay.
I'll add some more thoughts when I think of them.
-Like the idea of actual dynasty, rather than having successor with certain characteristics because reasons. Also royal marriages seem to actually work, even though maybe having them limited would be a good idea. say, have a family tree and you can get only as many marriages as you have children, siblings and cousins.
-Not sure what to think about technology tree. Various points spent to do it is interesting change from money used for developing technology. The problem is that I'm spending administrative and diplomatic points to reform country much faster than military ones, meaning my military tech is pulling ahead.
-Like the idea of ability to convert culture. and religious conversion being a sure thing rather than chance. Ditto for colonies.
-Dafuq is with sieges? One thing I absolutly hated in EU III was that AI was able to do it much faster than me and here it happened again. Example: I invaded enemy province with 20 regiments, smashed enemy army of 4 regiments, which then withdrew to my territory, laying siege there. My fortress surrendered faster than his despite him being 5 times weaker, having only 3 regs on infantry while my was 19 infantry + 1 canon. Whole concept of siege takes some getting used to, but even when facturing in chance (OK, I can accept he was luckier than me) I should be able to take his province faster.
-Why does stroming the fortress cost military points? Shouldn't you increase them, seeing how you showed your military prowess? There should be an option "if you storm it you get 5 points, if you fail you lose 5 points"
-Whole trade power, steering trade and whatnot will take some time to figure out and master. And oh yeah, why can't centre of trade be named after province instead of capital of said province so you don't spend time searching for Seville when you should look for Andalucia.
-Not yet sure where can I check my agression points. Don't want to find myself on the wrong end of containment allience but need to smack those uppity statelets around a bit.
-Missions are nice addition, you just need to figure out which ones are your actual mid term goals before choosing them.
-Battles seem to end fairly quickly. I swear, In EU III I had battles that lasted for two months.
-Limits to your army size. Makes sense though it hinders gameplay.
I'll add some more thoughts when I think of them.
Louyan
Banned
I've played the game a little and if I understund well, there is not a unitary agression level. If you brutally mistreat/ rightfully impose punishment upon a country their allies/friends/co-religionists are going to hate you more depending of the level of friendliness to that country. Their enemies are actually going to like you more. All the others... more or less, meh. It makes much more sence than, for example, be victorius in a crussade and have your fellow catholic countries hate you for that. Or the countries on the other side of the world.