Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 48 of 49 1 2 46 47 48 49
#4643186 - 02/28/24 12:26 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Got the Golden Horn achievement as Adal (start as a Somali nation, own all of the horn and have a gold income of 10 ducats a month). Everything I tried came off, all plans worked well. This is not always the case, usually there will be some disaster along the way. But not this time.

Adal starts fairly small, with some coastal provinces on the western side of the Gate of Tears along the Red Sea coast. Ethiopia is my stronger and larger neighbor, and is obviously the early target. We would need to prevent them from getting bigger. Kilwa to the south is another potential rival. The rest of the nations in the region are small. First move was to declare conquest on Weylata, a two province nation. The nation on the other side, Kaffa was a key target as it held a gold mine. I hit Weylata and was sieging them down when Kaffa declared on Weylata. But they couldn't do anything since I had the target occupied. But this was a perfect opening. I vassalized Weylata instead of annexing, which put us at war with Kaffa. Fed their two provinces to new vassal Weylata and now had a four-province vassal with a gold mine. Ethiopia would have gone for these soon, so to snap them up was a blow to them, which is always part of the calculus in this game. It's not always a matter of what you can gain, but also a matter of what you can deny to your rivals.

Then we turned our attention to the Sunni minors in the region. Vassalized Merehan and Ajuuraan, and later integrated all of these vassals, which helps split conquest cost between ADM and DIP points.

Kilwa to the south was threatening, and a little larger. So we hit them, but it was a struggle. Had to hire mercs. My army was in tatters at the end, but we managed to snag four good farmland trade ports in the Zanzibar node. Not a huge haul, but these were valuable provinces, which we had gained and now denied to our rival. With this war we achieved ascendancy over Kilwa and they were never a threat again.

After consolidating the minors in the region, we turned our attention back to Ethiopia. In a series of wars we slowly gobbled them up, while trying to deny any of their lands to Mamluks. Mamluks were my early ally and helped in the first Ethiopia war, which was super helpful, but later broke our alliance.It took four or five wars to eliminate Ethiopia, but that was finally done.

Here you see the state of affairs after the second war with Ethiopia. Rather than take the more valuable southern provinces, I instead took all provinces which would wall off Ethiopia from Mamluks, to prevent them from fouling my run.

[Linked Image]

I needed two more provinces to fully own the horn, both along the Red Sea coast and owned by Mamluks. I fought three wars helping Ottomans, each time occupying the provinces I needed and having set them to vital interest, in the hopes that Ottos would grant them to me in the peace deal. But each time they gave me nothing. So if I am going to do this, I'll have to be the one to declare, so we are war leader. The issue was Mamluks had a strong alliance. They had Morocco on their side. Morocco, you say? Morocco is nothing. What are you talking about DBond?

Behold the Morocco. Mousing over the war screen I noticed Morocco had only a +9 willingness to answer Mamluks' call if I attacked.So I hired a dip rep advisor and allied them, which shifted the opinion of enemies enough that they refused to join and I declared on Mamluks, and that was never going to go well for them. Got the final two provinces and three trade ports on the Arabian coast to really nail down the node. In all a great run, like clockwork.

Look at that Morocco! What the fook, man.

[Linked Image]


Attached Files Adal2.jpgAdal.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4643218 - 02/28/24 10:49 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
Nicely done with Morocco! I had a friend who played the moraccos....no wait, that doesn't sound right...
Anyway, I think Africa would look lovely painted that purple-ish color you seem to be inhabiting...
And Otto seems to be doing his thing in Eurasia as well!
Good stuff as usual, DB! I haven't had much opportunity to respond, but I'm reading it all....and still thinking maybe I'll jump back in the game!
I've got a buddy who's gotten into Elite so I've been going down that rabbit hole for a bit! But I'm thinking I'll maybe take a crack at some EUIV achievements at some point.


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4643223 - 02/29/24 02:28 AM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Thanks JC. Yeah, if you do return to do an ironman run you'd probably get a dozen just by playing, with no particular goal. If you play a nation like Spain, then probably twenty. So many of them will be incidental. Royal marriage, fill to force limits, win a war, conquer a province. Popping like fireworks haha. And if you pick a long term goal achievement it gives you some overarching objective to work toward. Since returning around Christmas I have played the sh!t out of this game, and gotten around 40 more. Now on 153 I think. There are 363 in all. Some of these are super easy, some are very difficult. Some are just insane, like own every grassland province in the world. Wut wut.

Speaking of Spain.... I've done a few runs in Iberia since i came back. I used to dig Castile's start. It was a little easier to get going. But now I prefer Aragon's start. You can still get the wedding, and don't have Castile's disasters in the early going. As Aragon I had four PUs in the first thirty years, some of these come from the mission tree, and you get a restore union CB over Portugal, which is strong. You still end up as Spain, but the path to it is smoother and I think stronger as Aragon. I'm sure there are reasons players would still prefer Castile, but I'd consider Aragon if you decide to play in that part of the world, and don't just go stronk as France or something. France is another really good nation for a first ironman run. England, Austria, Poland, Mamluks. All of these are top tier at the start as you know. Ottomans are still the strongest, but have become more complicated to play, and have a lot of disasters waiting in the wings. Portugal can be a chill game, but the cozy relationship with Castile is a bit more precarious these days. Many of my recent runs have been in Africa. Air, Kitara, Songhai, Ethiopia, Adal, Kilwa. This region has been improved a lot over recent updates.

France is who I recommend as a first nation. You're not a beginner, but France's start is just set up so perfectly. You start with a number of vassals, which give you force limit, ducats and minion armies. These vassals can all be integrated in short order, which gives a new player some practice at centralization and integration. The French lands are among the richest in the world, better than Spain's. Access to several monuments close by (if you have the right DLC). Excellent troops, the best trade nodes. And your first war is tailor made. A bunch of cores on your border, and an enemy who starts on an island. Cores are free of course, and right culture, right religion. Just everything for France is stacked at the start.

As any nation there are certain dispositions you will want in the nations around you. It is advantageous to have certain nations love you, others rival you, and others indifferent. And the friend/rival status of those nations among themselves can sometimes be a crucial factor in how the run starts, so it's a reasonable thing to re-roll your start to get the right arrangement as you won't be reloading again. Sometimes I don't care, sometimes it is very important to the plans.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643376 - 03/04/24 12:27 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Here's the Aragon run in 1724. I started this one without any real objective in mind, which is rare. Got PUs over Castile, Portugal, Navarra and Naples in the first thirty years or so. The Portugal union was forced through war after getting a restore union CB from the mission tree and Naples is a junior partner at the start. I let Portugal colonize for a century, then integrated, gaining their four colonial nations as a result.

In Europe you can see we went for some of the prime locations, including northern Italy/Genoa, Venice, Alexandria, Cairo and Constantinople.

Check out the economy. Over 700 ducats a month from trade alone! I didn't take Economic or Trade idea groups. And I would describe my efforts to maximize it as half-assed.

I got two achievements anyway. Global Hegemony for reaching full strength as any hegemon (I took naval) and You Get a New Home, And You Get a New Home for expelling five different minorities to colonies. Aragon's start is supercharged. We shot straight to number one great power and held it through the entire run.


[Linked Image]


Attached Files spaintrade.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643503 - 03/06/24 07:44 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
New run. Started as Ajam -- a break-off state of Timurids -- who didn't last long in real life history, but exists in the 1444 bookmark. The goal is to form Persia, and eventually own Egypt, Anatolia and Greece as cores.

Got off to a good start, and was surprised to find I could form Persia about 1480. When you mouse over the decision, all of the required provinces to form the new nation are highlighted, and I didn't have them all. But this is one where you can say own all plus Tabriz, or all plus Samarkand and form it. I captured Tabriz and the decision to form Persia was lit. Did so and swapped idea sets. Persia's are good. Went from a nice purplish map color to army tent green, but what can you do? Ajam can barely be seen shrouded in fog, three screenshots ago under the paused banner, just north of the Persian gulf.

The key to the opening was ensuring Timurids downfall. They are my stronger, larger, hostile neighbor and have a number of large vassals. So I supported independence after Timurids' king died, and shortly after that the war began. It was long and difficult, and sucked up all my money and manpower, but the war was won. I got nothing out of it, but it was a strategic victory nonetheless. Over a series of conflicts Timurids were removed from the map, mostly by other nations taking advantage in the wake of the independence war. But Timurids were gone. First goal accomplished.

In the interim we focused on regional minors, snapping up silk provinces and trade centers, hoping to expand our own borders, including taking on QQ several times. Ottomans were gobbling them up from the other side and soon we shared a border. I had decided to stay Sunni (can flip to Shia, Ibadi and more) since that helped me get an alliance with Ottos, but they broke it when I took the last of QQ.

Twice Ottomans have declared war on me. It's kind of scary, they have so many troops, manpower and money. So I fought defensively, hit and run, isolating smaller armies and hitting them before retreating in to my interior to replenish. It really wore us down, but in the first war I managed to effect a stalemate, taking one province. Second war they managed to peace out all my allies, and I took a white peace. But we survived two wars with Ottomans at their peak, and lost no territory. The AI does not declare war unless it feels assured of victory when it weighs up the strength of alliance, so to not lose these wars was good.

All the while we kept expanding, first across the Persian gulf (it has our name on it after all) and releasing a vassal there to feed. I also released Timurids since I knew they would have a lot of cores to use reconquest CB. I'll post a screen later, but I released a single province and have fed them twenty. A nice vassal indeed. Now we have continued our path of conquest in to India proper. My westward expansion remains blocked by a growing Ottomans, so I am going east, for now. It is nearly 1600.

At this point Ottomans own everything I need, so we will come to blows many times during the rest of the run. My intention is to keep expanding where I can, especially in to India as the wealth there can fuel my wars against the Turkishmenace. Need to build my power base until I can take them on head to head. 200 years left.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643527 - 03/07/24 12:41 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Here's my Persia in 1615. Not bad. The western front is static, as I cannot take on Ottomans now unless they get embroiled in a difficult war, and no one (except Persia) is putting up much of a fight. Even Russia breaks too easily. Russia was my ally, then broke the alliance like dumbasses, and were immediately crushed by Ottos. Serves them right, frankly. But each capitulation by the AI grows Ottos strength. I need them to have effective alliance webs and put up a fight.

I am keeping two field armies stationed on the western frontier to counter any Ottoman incursions, and the rest have been chaining wars in India. We have swept through in brutal fashion, no quarter. Former allies gobbled up without remorse I need to grow my power and achieve parity with Ottomans if possible. Objectives are Egypt, Anatolia and Greece. Since all are held by Ottos, it simplifies the entire affair, aside from the fact that Ottos rule supreme in the world. My recent experience in runs that come up against the Ottoblob has shown that patience is required. They often suffer internal issues in the 1700s, and we aim to take advantage if that happens.

Allies include Bengal, Ajuuraan, Kilwa. Sharjah is a released and fed vassal. And Timurids too, but I made them a march. Marches are vassals that gain military and defense bonuses but cannot be integrated and pay less tribute. I fed them specifically to act as a breakwater against Russia and threats from the north, and fed them provinces to stretch from the Caspian sea to the Himalayas. I then built forts on their northern border.


[Linked Image]

Attached Files Persia1615.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643570 - 03/08/24 12:40 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
Looking from map to map over your runs, it's amazing how different they are.
I have a question for you - how does the "factionality" of EUIV compare to TWWH? It seems like you play very differently from country to country - is it similar to the Warhammer TW, where you've
praised the faction differences? Or do the country playstyles not vary as much?


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4643572 - 03/08/24 01:35 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
That's a great question. And thanks for popping in here and engaging with this thread. It's gotten a half million views but few comments. Every now and then I'd hope someone will stop by and say, hey that looks cool. Maybe I'll give it a go, or what's your plan to capture the Balkans, or way to give the treacherous English kniggits the good news. I miss having SDE around, he not only played, but posted about it and is a good player. But he got fed up with this place I guess.

About your question.... Factionality is a word I coined in the Warhammer threads, and thanks for remembering. I'd say EU IV exceeds the factionality of WH2. There are additional factors in EU IV. Government types and reforms, event chains, mission trees, tech regions, dynasties and lots more add additional layers to it. And geo location means more in this game than WH. I mean, who your neighbors are has more impact on the course of the run than who your neighbors are in WH. And operationally or strategically, EU IV is in another stratosphere. Plans are more complex, and have more moving parts and conditions. This aspect obviously appeals to me, and makes both of these games highly replayable. As you are pointing out, I mix it up and each run is quite divergent. I conjure plans based on a variety of factors. Sometimes expansionist, sometimes isolationist. Sometimes stomp mode, sometimes I am allying everyone I can. Each game is taken at face value, with of course my long term objectives (usually an achievement) guiding how I approach it. It really gives you a mental challenge. Succeeding in this game is not easy, especially in ironman. And the factionality combined with the geo-political situation at game start means the strength and potential of every nation varies wildly. It's a far different prospect playing France than it is playing Serbia.

And where EU IV really blows Warhammer away is in how variable the runs become. A nation that grows to massive size in power this time, may get wiped out in the next. It's endlessly interesting to spectate, to watch how things evolve around the world. I like this almost as much as charting my own nation's course. It really is a remarkable game. It has its problems, like anything, but for me EU IV is easily the finest grand strat game I've had the pleasure to play. Just crossed 4,100 hours over the past ten years.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643591 - 03/08/24 10:26 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
I'm not sure I've played 4,100 hours all games combined! I do read your posts, even if I don't respond. So you are reaching the masses! I keep inching closer and closer to getting back into it - I've even installed on Steam - so that's a step forward! But lately life has been getting in the way of my gaming (rather irritatingly so!) so finding the time to sit down and keep a run of such a deep game going gets harder and harder. In a way it's good, because I've latched on to a few new bands and have been gigging more regularly. For me, that's way more fun than sitting at the computer. And there's beer!!

I find your analysis of EUIV vs WH to be quite interesting. I hadn't considered the wider levels of strat in EUIV, it's certainly in a different league. It is amazing that the game can produce such a varied set of conditions While TW has the tactical side of things hands down over EUIV (not a fair comparison, EUIV doesn't try to do any tactically), it's strategic layer is rudimentary in comparison to EUIV. But still I've played games that no matter what your starting faction/team/race/etc the game still boils down to a few tried and true basic tactics. Maybe the achievement hunting varies that a bit more, as you have to follow certain paths to reach the goal you set. Or maybe your playstyle is adaptable in that you take what you are given and work with those strengths vs your adversary's weaknesses, whereas others may play "the meta" and lose out on some of the richness of the game. Either way, it seems like it's quite a different game for you each time you play it. Talk about getting your money's worth!

Last edited by JohnnyChemo; 03/08/24 10:33 PM.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4643599 - 03/09/24 01:38 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Yeah, really. I estimate I've dropped nearly 300 on this game down the years. All that DLC adds up. But with how much time i have sunk, it works out to be about 7 cents an hour. Not bad when you look at it that way. But then, you might wonder about my mental state to play a game for 4000 hours. And surely 10 or 20 percent of that time is idle, not playing, just having it loaded or the launcher active. It's still a lot.

I like your analysis. I don't consider myself an expert player, maybe advanced would be the right spot. Some players take a horde and conquer the entire world. I'm not that level, and honestly every run I learn something new. It's amazing both how complex this game is and how simple it is to play. I don't mean play well, necessarily, you need the knowledge and skills, but it's all rather simple to just get on with it. Click this, attack that, core the other thing, ya know? But when you start having long term objectives then a plan is needed, you can longer just wing it. If your goal is to restore the Roman Empire then you had better have a solid plan from the start. But it is still a game where you can just go with the flow, take it as it comes. All depends on what you are looking to accomplish.

In this Persia run my objectives from the start have been to own Egypt, Anatolia and Greece, so everything is done with those in mind. I've now played this run for 200+ years and hold none of those objectives. Playing the long game. Since it is ironman, you cannot make the mistake of biting off more than you can chew. Losing wars sets you back, grows your enemy and reduces your power. So you have to be more measured, more opportunistic and more thorough in how you approach the game so that when you do act it is with a high degree of probability of success. It's funny how I get anxious because I feel like I need to get on with it, but at the same time I don't feel ready, that there are holes in my game that the enemy will take advantage of and it will all come crashing down. Overcaution is as bad as too aggressive in the balance. Finding that balance is a skill that takes a long time to acquire. Lord knows I've bungled my way in to a lot of losses. But that's part of ironman's appeal. You really do need some crushing defeats in order to make victory sweet. Reloads kill the pain.

If you do give this game another go JC, and post about it, I'd offer advice and some strategy if you would want it. Chances are whichever nation you choose, I've done a run.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643604 - 03/09/24 07:12 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
Your playstyle seems somewhat exploratory - as in you are trying new tactics and exploring new mechanics etc. Some of that is probably dictated by the goal you have, some by the nation, but it seems to me like you don't approach every game the same way. The end result is that you wind up with a pretty wide range of knowledge and experience in the various systems/effects/mechanics of the game. A much richer experience no doubt!
I get what you say about being a little more careful in your planning when doing an Ironman run. It would seem more...realistic?...to approach it that way. No reloads in real life!

If I do give it another run, I may take a crack at France. I've never played them before, and you said it was a pretty strong start. Maybe sooner than later....


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4643649 - 03/11/24 11:44 AM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
France is a perfect choice, as I talked about. But there are hundreds of nations to choose. So. Many. Nations. Check out what AI France did in my run below. They essentially ate the HRE for lunch.

Wrapped up my Persia run in 1744, completing the requirements for the This is Persia achievement. Form Persia and own all of Egypt, Anatolia and Greece. Started as Ajam, formed Persia quickly, and then mostly conquered east toward India. This gave me the base needed to reach parity with Ottomans. I forced or released a number of vassals which were integrated eventually, aside from Timurids who I kept feeding, and made a march. By the end they had a force limit of about 120k and that was a nice attack dog to have on hand.

In all, we fought seven wars with Ottos.

First and second wars they declared on me, but we were able to effect a stalemate, not much gained by either side.

Third war was my offensive war in the 1640s. This was the pivotal moment in the game, as Ottos were stronger, but winning this one gave Persia ascendancy, and we cut a swath from our western frontier to the Med Sea, capturing Antioch, Aleppo, and Syria.

Fourth war we moved for the best bits of Egypt, taking Cairo.

Fifth war was transcendent, as we now were in the Age of Absolutism, and with much higher admin efficiency we could take more land, and now moved in to Anatolia and the Caucasus.

Sixth war took Constantinople and Greece. After each Ottoman war we shifted to the east and alternated wars in India during the truce.

Seventh war took the rest of Anatolia and Egypt and with that the achievement fired. A strong run.

Idea groups were Quantity, Diplomatic, Administrative, Quality, Trade, Offensive, Defensive

[Linked Image]

Attached Files Persia1744.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643726 - 03/13/24 02:54 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
No screens at the mo, and anyway my current border gore is insulting. But I am playing a steppe horde! Yeah, I know right? First time ever playing a horde in this game. What a trip.

The nation is Kazan, which begins the game surrounded by Muscovy, Great Horde, Nogai and Oirat. The mechanics are very different, here's some factionality for ya. For example the razing mechanic. Razing provinces you capture grants loot and monarch points. So if you take a province like 2/2/2 dev and raze it you'll get 20 MPs in each category. Take ten provinces and suddenly you've gotten 200 MPs in each. Pretty strong.

This a cav heavy nation as you'd expect and gets strong bonuses for fighting on flat ground. So you can take on stronger nations, force the battles in the steppe and win. I'm not all that keen on the horde playstyle, but I had to do one. There's a modifier called horde unity, and to keep it high you need to be always at war. This imparts a sort of time pressure that I've never felt suited me all that well. I don't like feeling rushed. But at the same time it is pretty strong and we've expanded considerably already. I'm close to breaking Ming, and that's cool.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643743 - 03/13/24 10:56 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
Interesting...I didn't know there were horde factions in the game. Do you still acquire and hold territory?


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4643758 - 03/14/24 12:27 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Yes, you can capture and hold territory. The Emperor of China has a mechanic where if they have a border with a horde they get big penalties. So the Emperor is always looking to surround himself with tributaries. I said I was close to breaking Ming, but actually the Emperor is Oirat. The mechanic is called 'unguarded nomadic frontier' which suggests my horde is nomadic, but it doesn't play like this. Our tech group is Nomadic and our gubment is Steppe Nomads. But you capture and core just like every other nation.

We also have some good national ideas, including -25% core creation cost which is strong. There is also 25% religious unity. First idea group I took is Horde, the third idea of which is another 25% religious unity. So very early we had 50% and that is also strong. Very good for keeping unrest in check of course. We also have +55% cavalry combat ability in the early 1500s.

Kazan Wiki

I'm shooting for the three achievements shown at the bottom of that page.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643824 - 03/15/24 12:26 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
EU IV is on sale, so if anyone's looking to add some DLC or get the game in the first place now is a good time.

EU IV @ Steam


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643861 - 03/16/24 03:17 AM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
Here's my Kazan in 1575. It looks superb in a screenshot, but of course much of it is very big, very poor provinces. But I like to see my nation's name on the map as big as it can get haha. I honestly go for shorter names when I can so the map looks better. Like if I have an option to tag switch to a much longer and therefore smaller font nation name I avoid it. Like going from Ethiopia to Aksum was good smile

This run has seen a lot of warfare, I guess that is the way of the horde. Feeling a bit on edge though as I don't have many friends aside from Ottos and it's just a matter of time before they turn on me, sitting where I am. I think I was fortunate in my first war with Muscovy, since they were a war ally and not leader, and I could only take 3 or 4 provinces from them in a separate peace. But at least one of them must be required to form Russia. Preventing that was key. And just before this screenshot the league war ended with Catholic victory. Muscovy was in on the Catholic side, and so was their ally Denmark. I couldn't take them both on, so I waited for Denmark to have enough war exhaustion and occupied provinces that they wouldn't answer and we struck Muscovy, taking Moscow. Or Moskva, more accurately. So much of this game is timing, and constantly monitoring the situation of a whole host of nations, looking for those openings.

Preventing the formation of Russia meant they didn't get their Siberian Frontier thing, where they can autocolonize all the way to the Pacific. When I finally caught on I dumped Diplomatic idea group after taking it and swapped to Expansion for the colonist and now I am filling in the territory east of the Urals.


[Linked Image]

Attached Files Kazan1575.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4643983 - 03/18/24 02:08 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
And nearly 70 years later. The horde advantages have been good. That's a massive nation compared to our start, expansion has been swift. Razing lowers the development of the province, which costs you money, force limit and manpower in the long run. But it also makes the territory cheaper to core and state. At this stage though I am thinking of shedding the horde and flipping to monarchy. I lose several nice bonuses, including 25% flat-ground shock, 50% cheaper reinforce and more. But that shock bonus is reversed on non-flat ground, and becomes a 25% malus, and as the fighting has moved farther from the steppe I think it is time to make a change. I wanted the Pyramid of Skulls achievement, which requires razing a 30-dev province, and now I have it, so no compelling reason any longer to stay a horde. I was also going for Tartarstan which requires owning all Tartar culture provinces in the world and have that too. So the mad expansion dash has no specific targets any longer and as my conquest slows the switch to a monarchy (or republic or theocracy for that matter) should dovetail nicely as Kazan settles in for the run to the finish. Only objective left is Turning the Tide, which requires starting as a horde and embracing all institutions, which means at least the year 1750.

Kazan in 1644


[Linked Image]


Attached Files Kazan1644.jpg

No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
#4644019 - 03/19/24 10:55 AM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
JohnnyChemo Offline
Member
JohnnyChemo  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,624
Buffalo, NY
Impressive! Not bad for a horde, you really painted the map!


Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-Robert Heinlein
#4644025 - 03/19/24 03:16 PM Re: Europa Universalis, why no love 'round here? [Re: DBond]  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
DBond Offline
Strategerizer
DBond  Offline
Strategerizer
Veteran

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,305
NooJoyzee
But maybe not that great either. I once saw a thread where a player had done a world conquest by like 1530 with Kazan.

I did indeed reform the horde and went autocracy. This removes the horde unity modifier, I can no longer raze, and I lost a couple of very nice advantages. Hordes get +20% speed on the map, which allows the player to engage or evade at will. And I lost the tribal conquest CB, which works rather like Deus Vult, giving you a CB on everyone. But I also now don't have the 25% shock damage malus on non-flat ground.

It's nearly 1700, just about 55 years to go (wait for 1750 for Industrialization then embrace it). Ottos have turned on me as I knew they would. I just kept taking territory they have permanent claims on and they kept getting angrier each time until they broke the alliance and have gone hostile. I went for much of the Persian lands, calling Ottos in, then giving them nothing, controlling their truces. This is a key way to use allies in EU IV, and this way you can prevent them from taking the land you desire. But eventually the shared interest can lead to hostility. In many or most of my runs Ottomans start having internal turbulence in the 1700s, during the Age of Revolutions. I don't necessarily have aims on their lands at this point, but Constantinople would be a nice cherry on top.


No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Page 48 of 49 1 2 46 47 48 49

Moderated by  Meatsheild, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Actors portraying US Presidents
by PanzerMeyer. 04/19/24 12:19 PM
Dickey Betts was 80
by Rick_Rawlings. 04/19/24 01:11 AM
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
Grumman Wildcat unique landing gear
by Coot. 04/17/24 03:54 PM
Peter Higgs was 94
by Rick_Rawlings. 04/17/24 12:28 AM
Whitey Herzog was 92
by F4UDash4. 04/16/24 04:41 PM
Anyone can tell me what this is?
by NoFlyBoy. 04/16/24 04:10 PM
10 Years ago MV Sewol
by wormfood. 04/15/24 08:25 PM
Pride Of Jenni race win
by NoFlyBoy. 04/15/24 12:22 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0