Europa Universalis IV announced

[Tamas]

I wonder if overextension should kick in so quickly like it does with the first non-core acuried. Seems like it'd make more sense to allow you to have a few (perhaps scalable on size of nation) provinces that are not cores without acquiring overextension. Downside being that they wouldn't be effective as your cored provinces.

Yeah, I like that idea too.

IDK, the game is a blobfest enough even with the present system.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if overextension should kick in so quickly like it does with the first non-core acuried. Seems like it'd make more sense to allow you to have a few (perhaps scalable on size of nation) provinces that are not cores without acquiring overextension. Downside being that they wouldn't be effective as your cored provinces.

Yeah, I like that idea too.

IDK, the game is a blobfest enough even with the present system.

Not by the nations that should be blobbing though.   Its because the AI doesnt know how to game the system.  Rather than teaching it those lessons why not create a better system that creates more rational outcomes?

[garbon]

I wonder if overextension should kick in so quickly like it does with the first non-core acuried. Seems like it'd make more sense to allow you to have a few (perhaps scalable on size of nation) provinces that are not cores without acquiring overextension. Downside being that they wouldn't be effective as your cored provinces.

Yeah, I like that idea too.

IDK, the game is a blobfest enough even with the present system.

The problem is that there is a fundamental tension between wanting states not to expand and states that historically should expand quickly (e.g. Ottomans, Persia, Mughals).

[garbon]

I wonder if overextension should kick in so quickly like it does with the first non-core acuried. Seems like it'd make more sense to allow you to have a few (perhaps scalable on size of nation) provinces that are not cores without acquiring overextension. Downside being that they wouldn't be effective as your cored provinces.

Yeah, I like that idea too.

IDK, the game is a blobfest enough even with the present system.

Not by the nations that should be blobbing though.   Its because the AI doesnt know how to game the system.  Rather than teaching it those lessons why not create a better system that creates more rational outcomes?

[Anatron]

I wonder if overextension should kick in so quickly like it does with the first non-core acuried. Seems like it'd make more sense to allow you to have a few (perhaps scalable on size of nation) provinces that are not cores without acquiring overextension. Downside being that they wouldn't be effective as your cored provinces.

Yeah, I like that idea too.

IDK, the game is a blobfest enough even with the present system.

Agree,getting new provinces seems fast enough to mee too.
I only would change one thing,the changing of culture.Its a joke,after you have the religion what you want (what you can reach 2~5 years) its about 2 years to change the culture.
I would change it like 50 years,whats seems more realistic to me.
What I dont like in current mechanism is the building system.every time when I want to build something I am loosing monarch point.so I end by an empire with full of gold and a lack of economy ...
The cost of building something should reduced from 10 to like 2 or 3 or not asking any monarch point at all for bulding (10 point for a marketplace ... ).

For nations like Ottomans more events/decisions should add  for example "Force The Mameluks to Personal Union" -what would give you restoration casuss belly against them.

There some ideas helping you conquer faster in the Diplomatic group.

For conquering India fast (till 1630) I used 1.st Aristocracy (+1 diplomat) 2nd Diplomatic ideas,the 3rd Idea was religious.I really did not need any other military ideas for defeating the indians like offiensive ideas.

[garbon]

For nations like Ottomans more events/decisions should add  for example "Force The Mameluks to Personal Union" -what would give you restoration casuss belly against them.

Why would we want more events/decisions that push for things that never happened?

[Anatron]

For nations like Ottomans more events/decisions should add  for example "Force The Mameluks to Personal Union" -what would give you restoration casuss belly against them.

Why would we want more events/decisions that push for things that never happened?

Because some player is crying The Mameluks was defeated in a single war.A PU war is the best to conquer large nations with a single war.

[garbon]

For nations like Ottomans more events/decisions should add  for example "Force The Mameluks to Personal Union" -what would give you restoration casuss belly against them.

Why would we want more events/decisions that push for things that never happened?

Because some player is crying The Mameluks was defeated in a single war.A PU war is the best to conquer large nations with a single war.

Ah, so we should encourage ahistorical decision making to account for the fact that the game unfairly penalizes historical actions?

[Anatron]

For nations like Ottomans more events/decisions should add  for example "Force The Mameluks to Personal Union" -what would give you restoration casuss belly against them.

Why would we want more events/decisions that push for things that never happened?

Because some player is crying The Mameluks was defeated in a single war.A PU war is the best to conquer large nations with a single war.

Ah, so we should encourage ahistorical decision making to account for the fact that the game unfairly penalizes historical actions?

Use an evenet/decison to add claims on mameluks lands like mughal has in India instead?
It still means 4 wars for Egypt.

Anyway the Ottomans are unstoppable in the first 100 years.Giving them free Egypt would harm the balance in power.
Use an evenet/decison to add claims on amelku lands like mughal has in India instead?

[garbon]

I hope they fix the Great Britain situation. I've yet to see a game without Great Britain around in the early 16th century.

[Viking]

I managed to arrange matters in such a manner that BOTH Russia and Zaporozhye had Ukraine as a vassal.

Originally only Zap had them as a vassal then I attacked and annexed Ukraine. Then, before unpausing, I released as a vassal. But, this was too quick for the game and it had both as master.

The way I resolved this is by forming a coalition aginst zap, waiting for ukraine to joine and BEFORE it leaves the coalition (which it will do) declare war. Then ukraine joins that war... Now I just have to anenx Zap.

[crazy canuck]

Use an evenet/decison to add claims on mameluks lands like mughal has in India instead?
It still means 4 wars for Egypt.

There is such an event, I got it in my game as the Ottomans.  It had something to do with the Mameluks entering an alliance with Venice.

[dps]

I hope they fix the Great Britain situation. I've yet to see a game without Great Britain around in the early 16th century.

It was a problem in EU3 as well.  I'm not sure exactly what happens in EUIV, but in EU3 it was simply too easy for England to conquer Ireland and Scotland.

[garbon]

I hope they fix the Great Britain situation. I've yet to see a game without Great Britain around in the early 16th century.

It was a problem in EU3 as well.  I'm not sure exactly what happens in EUIV, but in EU3 it was simply too easy for England to conquer Ireland and Scotland.

Same sort of thing here. I wonder if at least for Scotland, it's first national idea that you get should be something about terrain/guerilla tactics making it hard to take Highlands and automatically increases attrition gained by any would be conquerors.

[JonasSalk]

Anybody else getting a weird bug where a country is allied with no one, but then when you go to declare war on it, they're allied with a fuckton of people? I'm trying to take Milan down, but they're allied with the Ottomans and other countries that I don't want to have to slog through. I could take them on, but it'd be annoying.