EUIV: Tactics, Tips, Strategies, Questions....

[tgb]

One man's micro is another man's interesting decisions  :).

I woke up this morning to discover a nasty bug.  Playing as Castille I had one of my diplomats in Navarre improving relations. After forming Spain, I can no longer recall him.  The status bar shows he's still there, but the diplomatic menu for Navarre says "Improve Relations" instead of "Cancel Improvement".  I can send in the other diplomat and recall him normally, but this effectively leaves me with only 1 that can do anything.

[Nefaro]

One man's micro is another man's interesting decisions  :).

I woke up this morning to discover a nasty bug.  Playing as Castille I had one of my diplomats in Navarre improving relations. After forming Spain, I can no longer recall him.  The status bar shows he's still there, but the diplomatic menu for Navarre says "Improve Relations" instead of "Cancel Improvement".  I can send in the other diplomat and recall him normally, but this effectively leaves me with only 1 that can do anything.

Believe I read that a few people were having issues with being permanently stuck at war with a nation that was eliminated in a different one, and they can't sue for peace. 

Fortunately, I don't think you just automatically get War Weariness built up any more.  It is a result added to your total after each battle, depending on the outcome (a small bit for a win, more for a loss in a big battle).  The problem is that a few diplomatic actions require the nation, or target nation, to be at peace.  There may also be other specific circumstances that makes it 'stick', since it may not happen all the time in such cases.  I'm sure this has been reported as a bug so hopefully it gets squashed very soon.  :o

In the meantime, be careful of getting entangled with a small (<3 province) opposing nation, all by itself, that is also in other wars.  The small HRE nations are prime candidates.

[Kushan]

In the meantime, be careful of getting entangled with a small (<3 province) opposing nation, all by itself, that is also in other wars.  The small HRE nations are prime candidates.

Now you tell me.  :o I mistakenly vassalized one of the HRE vassals, Loraine I think, and now I can't let them go without losing 2-3 stability. One of feudal monarchy's bonuses is +10% income from vassals. Unfortunately I didn't think it all the way through and the only way to really have it make any sort of a difference would be if I had 4-5 vassals.

My first war with the Aztecs went really well. I got the Yucatan and Benzai provinces. I had two regiments, 1 infantry and 1 cannon, get attacked by a 10 regiment Aztec army. They won the first two engagements but I was to slow on moving them and during the third attack they broke. Luckily they fled to a captured province and I didn't lose them completely.

I did a technology check of all the main power. I'm starting to get behind in both admin and diplomacy techs. No suprise since the first portion of my game was me taking out Aragon and Grenada and having to core all those provinces. Taking two diplomatic idea's didn't help the diplomatic tech at all either. Was a mistake taking expansion idea's early. I should have taken trade or economic or a military idea until I had secured Aragon and until I had the colonial range to make good on it.

[mikeck]

A little off topic but I had to laugh. It always amazes me that people complain that wargames where you take control of a nation (total war, EU, etc) are unhistorical. For example, there is a thread over at the EU4 paradox forums where someone is complaining that there is war going on everywhere in his game and that isn't historical. Well, anyone with a passing knowledge of the 16th-18th centuries can tell you that- yes- that was actually the case.

The best part though, is that others join in to complain that France conquered Italy, or the HRE is blobbing because it took France or whatever. I'm not sure...did they expect the outcome of the game  to unfold identically to history? What would be the point of the game? Isn't possible that given different choices, France could have defeated Austria in one of their many 16th century wars and won control over a large portion of its holdings in Italy and the Low Countries ?

No real point...just amazes what people find to complain about. No game is perfect but this is a highly complex but very polished game. To bitch about constant warfare in an era where constant warfare was the norm is almost as laughable as complaining that events are unfolding unhistorically. I posted my thoughts on this in a similar thread for EU3 and was simply referred to as a Paradox fanboy.

[jomni]

They better be not caught changing history with their chosen country.   >:(

[Nefaro]

A little off topic but I had to laugh. It always amazes me that people complain that wargames where you take control of a nation (total war, EU, etc) are unhistorical. For example, there is a thread over at the EU4 paradox forums where someone is complaining that there is war going on everywhere in his game and that isn't historical. Well, anyone with a passing knowledge of the 16th-18th centuries can tell you that- yes- that was actually the case.

The best part though, is that others join in to complain that France conquered Italy, or the HRE is blobbing because it took France or whatever. I'm not sure...did they expect the outcome of the game  to unfold identically to history? What would be the point of the game? Isn't possible that given different choices, France could have defeated Austria in one of their many 16th century wars and won control over a large portion of its holdings in Italy and the Low Countries ?

No real point...just amazes what people find to complain about. No game is perfect but this is a highly complex but very polished game. To bitch about constant warfare in an era where constant warfare was the norm is almost as laughable as complaining that events are unfolding unhistorically. I posted my thoughts on this in a similar thread for EU3 and was simply referred to as a Paradox fanboy.

Yeah, it wouldn't be a game if it completely followed history. 

However, I am about plausibility.  Fortunately EU4 looks to be doing very well regarding that, in my game which has advanced to around 1618.  The only thing that really stands out as a bit unusual is the Ottomans having gobled up a swath of Eastern Europe from Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, etc.  Certainly plausible, though, and it has taken them a lot of time & toil to achieve.

Some of the early game hijinks that used to grate on me in EU3:DW were the runaway Golden Horde taking half of Europe, despite quickly falling behind in technology.  It would pretty much eradicate all the larger Eastern nations from the game, for quite some time.  I suppose they've toned down the ridiculous special rules that the hordes played by, in the new game, because the AI situation has been quite good over there.  Hell, Russia was even formed in the 16th century and that almost never happened in EU3.  ::)

Lots of people complained about the France blob before, too.  Austria also had the potential IIRC.  When I say "blob", I'm talking about very fast expansion across large swaths of territory.  This looks to have been slowed a good deal now too.  I don't know if it's AI behavior that's been fixed, the penalties for taking large amounts of territory by force, or both.  Probably both since I'm seeing the AI calculate it's decision to DOW more efficiently. 

Lovin' all the changes. 

[tgb]

OK, now I'm really cheesed.  I took the Quest for the New World idea, but can't create Explorers, or even Admirals any more. I can create Conquistadors and Generals.  I'm going to come back in the morning to an earlier save and try again, and see if the bug repeats itself.

[jomni]

Having played the Aztecs. I believe EU4 is pretty brutal to less developed nations as compared to before. So it may mean more plausible results.

[Nefaro]

Having played the Aztecs. I believe EU4 is pretty brutal to less developed nations as compared to before. So it may mean more plausible results.

Probably against the more archaic ones.  But I'm still seeing the Eastern and Muslim nations' AI keeping right up in Military Tech Levels in the 1600s.  Their other stuff has begun lagging behind, but not Mil for some reason.  I suppose it's really hording those Mil MPs for just teching up, but that could cause a shortfall in Military Idea spending so maybe that's where theyr'e taking the hit.

[tgb]

I'm an idiot.  I completely forgot that naval leaders take diplomatic points, not military.

[tgb]

One way to increase colonial range early on, I discovered, is to make friends with the right country (Hello, Portugal!) and then get fleet basing rights, since it's measured from the nearest port to which you have access.

[Nefaro]

One way to increase colonial range early on, I discovered, is to make friends with the right country (Hello, Portugal!) and then get fleet basing rights, since it's measured from the nearest port to which you have access.

Hell yeah!  Excellent new diplo option!

Although it costs monthly ducats to maintain.  So can be painful if you do it before having your economy kickin ass.

In my Denmark->Scandoland game I've mostly been colonizing the New England/Eastern Canada area, and a bit of South America around modern-day Columbia, I had attempted to establish one small colony on the western African coast so I could push my basing range out towards the Indian Ocean and the gold-tastic spice trade and east asia further down the road.  The amount of available colonization in the Americas is quickly dwindling.  But I've ended up right next to a monstrously powerful Portugal (they have a PU over Castile  :o ) and they're definitely targeting targeting my new West African naval base (Gabon) as one of their first targets in any war.

If those Portuguese bastards manage to pry Gabon from me, I may be forced to use this option to rent basing rights with someone in Africa, later on.  Although at this point, I'm not really sure how many available Traders I'll have late in the game and it'll be awhile until I need to start expanding into another trade node.  I'm raking in so much right now, I have a huge surplus of income that I've not been able to spend fast enough.  Probably no need to worry about it, although further expansion will allow me to hire higher-ranked Advisors and therefore get more Monarch Points every month.  :D

[OJsDad]

In EUIII, each city improvement you made, made the next one more expensive.  Is that still the case in EUIV.

[Nefaro]

In EUIII, each city improvement you made, made the next one more expensive.  Is that still the case in EUIV.

You mean the buildings?  Yeah, the line of buildings is still very similar.  You must purchase the cheapest one of a specific sort, and then you can spend more on the next, and so on.  The buildings themselves are pretty much the same, only they cost additionally cost some extra Monarch Points, depending on the type.  For instance, the land recruitment bonus buildings also cost 10 Military MPs, Naval ones and Diplo ones cost Diplo, etc.  So if you go on huge building sprees, it can hit your Monarch Points which are also spent on many other things. 

The largest MP expenditures come from Tech upgrades and unlocking Idea lines.  But you also spend some for certain diplo options (claims in war, annexing, etc), placing a temporary beatdown on revolt risk in a province, burning or claiming enemy un-finished colonies.  All kinds of stuff.  So the expenditure of MPs can make for difficult decisions and it can probably help keep runaway wealth & expansion somewhat in check regarding advancement.

[Kushan]

Do not, doesn't matter how tempting it is, take out the Aztecs in one war. The 188% over extension will kill you......