Europa Universalis V confirmed

[Norgy]

I managed to get into this again. It is a complex, but lovely game. Do I understand every mechanic? Not at all.

Is it rewarding when your gambits pay off? Indeed it is.

I've played about 60 years as Byzantium, and managed to rip the Anatolian coastline off the Turks. Also, Negroponte and Athens. The Black Death seems even harsher in this version, half my population just died. That sort of evens out, as the Ottomans only managed to field two thousand or so when my casus belli was there. Sieges are terrible in the early game. Still.

The rivers now contribute to control, especially if you build bridges, it seems. After running "a bit" of a deficit for the first two-three years, my economy picked up. At a reasonable +30-50 bezants per month, I would say I am doing pretty good. The main problem is food. It seems to drain right out of the market, even with the significantly lower population after the plague.

Byzantium has some horrible events, all will cost you, so revoking the harsh privileges the country is saddled with takes time. You also have an "idot" (not my words) as an heir. And of course he lived to a ripe old age, despite me throwing him in a ship as an admiral against the Aragonese.

There are still some issues. Like your allies not asking for food access and after a war just letting their troops die on your soil.

I think the cost of embracing various early institutions is harsh. Then again, they did shake up the medieval world to some extent. And I think decentralisation gives way too good bonii.

If I take off my glasses as someone who studied history, this is a really good game. Now, if I could only understand the supply chains a bit better.

[Syt]

If I take off my glasses as someone who studied history, this is a really good game.

I think that's something I really struggle with, but it depends on the game. Muslim Italy or crusades for the steppes of Central Asia in CK3? Sure, lol. Britain conquering Tibet from China or Germany annexing Denmark/Iceland/Greenland in many playthroughs in Vic3? I can work with that. But virulent global tech spread in EU4, ahistoric urbanization and African colonization in EU5, or the Allies invading the German coast in 1939? Yeah, can't have that.

I think I need to switch that part of my brain off more and lean into it more of a "it's a game" attitude.

(I felt really triggered when one Youtuber commented on the earlier patches where France/Bohemia/England kept eating the HRE in the 1400s, "Well, the HRE did dissolve eventually, who cares if it's a hundred years early." Bro, have you read a history book!   )

[Norgy]

To be fair to Paradox, ahistorical stuff has always been a staple of their games. Sweden always conquers half of Northern Europe, usually a bit early, the Mamluks colonise the Indonesian islands etc. And it has made the games more fun.

When you have a game of the scope of EUV, I think weirdness is bound to happen, but there are just so many things that are right as well.

If you accept that it is a game, not a simulation, it will be enjoyable to miserably fail to understand game mechanics. 
I have not managed to understand the Orthodox synods well, and Byzantine society is terribly rigged towards the aristocrats. That is mostly because I do not understand what I can gain from becoming a plutocratic society. I do understand I need to keep the state decentralised as I have 10 vassals. And they have not loved the enforcement of Greek culture and religion.

I sent my mighty Thema Makedonikon to help out the Trapezountine Empire in their struggles with various tribes. It ended like the worst case scenario on D-Day. After initial success, the whole professional army was battered into smithereens by Jalarids and Eretnids in a very well co-ordinated attack. So that was 5100 professional soldiers I will not see again. Oh, well, got a navy still.

[Josephus]

Right now I'm in 1620 as Milan. The furthest I've gone in any EUV game so far. Hoping to make it to the end. Enjoying it, and as you say, do I understand all the mechanics? Hardly. But I just go along hoping that I'll learn enough by the time they release a DLC/Patch and change everything I've learned.

[crazy canuck]

I am waiting for 1.2 before jumping back in - that is getting early rave reviews from the testers.  The fixes to how trading works (no more constant micromanagement) alone is worth it.

[Syt]

That's the thing - spend time on this now when next patch is upending things? Kinda how I want to play Vic3, but the new features coming end of the month kinda makes me want to wait till then (though I'm tempted to do a UK run and dismantle the USA and/or integrate it into Canada). Meanwhile CK3 sits on a beta patch that's quite nice but none of my mods are updated for it (most importantly RICE and Community Flavor Project).

I guess I should go back to Imperator for now.

[Solmyr]

I think Stellaris is also currently on a stable patch?

[Norgy]

I liked Imperator, but it felt sort of aimless.
As Rome, you kind of knew what you had to do. I like Persia, but not the post-Alexander version of it.

Anyway, Byzantium is thriving. Sort of. A massive navy ensures, along with coastal fortifications and roads, that control is no longer as sporadic as at the start of the game. That massive navy was, however, mostly driftwood after an unfortunate run-in with the Egyptian navy. Now, facilities have been built for new ships, so Byzantium has a navy again.

I really must stop releasing subjects and enforce religion and culture on them, but what else would a Byzantine emperor do? This time, a huge coalition of most Sunni nations decided to support the crybabies in Sinope. My only allies, apart from that vassal swarm, are Georgia and Trapezous. While both are quite hard to conquer, given the mountains and valleys, that also makes their armies too small. I have not played as a Turkish nation, but it seems their manpower is much like the Norse in CK3. Massive. I have cannons and handgonners, but it is first era ones, so about as effective as setting yourself on fire.

The economy is good, though. I think Basileus Thomas just released a statement that the Konstantinoupolis stock exchange was at 50.000 points. 

After surviving the idiot, I've had two long-lived emperors with good stats. Obviously, I am not doing myself any favours by letting the emperor himself lead the armies. But it is 1445, so it would be natural. By the way, sending a maritime expedition to take Alexandria is not a great idea. 

[Josephus]

Here's one (of many) things I can't understand.

So why is the cost of building, for instance, a tool workshop different in two different provinces of mine, within the same market?

[Norgy]

Here's one (of many) things I can't understand.

So why is the cost of building, for instance, a tool workshop different in two different provinces of mine, within the same market?

I've seen the same, and the building time greatly varies too. I have chalked it down to whether you have proximity or not. But with Milan you probably have a decent proximity? It also seems to cost more if you don't have labourers that can fill the empty slot you are creating.

The game really doesn't tell one much, does it? 

[crazy canuck]

Here's one (of many) things I can't understand.

So why is the cost of building, for instance, a tool workshop different in two different provinces of mine, within the same market?

The first option is to draw from local goods before the market. If there are local goods available, then the cost of production will almost always be lower than the cost of obtaining those goods through the market.  The construction will also be quicker. There are also a bunch of other factors that effect the cost, but I don't remember them.

I don't think the cost increases if the pops who will populate the building after completion are not available.  One of the reasons to construct a building is to allow for the opportunity for those pops to be created.