Languish.org

I don't have the game, but am considering it. The problem with Paradox games is they take a huge time investment to learn what you are doing and then they are obscenely easy once you know the rules.

I don't want to get the game if I can't be challenged in a long term single player game. If I start in 1492 as Milan and am a major European power by 1600, or if I start as England and have conquered much of western europe with minimal effort--that is not what I'm interested in.

I was thinking of modifying the game along the lines of:
--for every two provinces you own that are not a national core province, you receive a minus one maximum stability
--Exempt from the above rule: the new world, Africa, and Australia
--Modifying the rule above: if a nonnational core province is of the same culture, the penalty is reduced 50%
--I can't get new noncore provinces
--All these rules only apply to me (lord knows paradox AI has enough challenges)

Are these types of modifications possible? And how much work would they require if they are (not willing to put in more than a few hours)?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:46:33 PM
I don't have the game, but am considering it. The problem with Paradox games is they take a huge time investment to learn what you are doing and then they are obscenely easy once you know the rules.

I don't want to get the game if I can't be challenged in a long term single player game. If I start in 1492 as Milan and am a major European power by 1600, or if I start as England and have conquered much of western europe with minimal effort--that is not what I'm interested in.

I was thinking of modifying the game along the lines of:
--for every two provinces you own that are not a national core province, you receive a minus one maximum stability
--Exempt from the above rule: the new world, Africa, and Australia
--Modifying the rule above: if a nonnational core province is of the same culture, the penalty is reduced 50%
--I can't get new noncore provinces
--All these rules only apply to me (lord knows paradox AI has enough challenges)

Are these types of modifications possible? And how much work would they require if they are (not willing to put in more than a few hours)?

A few different thoughts (remembering I only purchased eu3 a couple of weeks ago):

-yes, I think long term EU3 has the same problem as the predecessors - if you take a major country you will not face substantial problems over the long run.  I think you need to either set house rules on yourself or play as a minor in the long run.

-that being said that's only once you really understand the game and the systems.  You'll certainly have plenty of fun trying to figure them out.  The game is similar enough to EU2 you should get the basic hang of it pretty soon, but different enough to make it a new game.

-I don't understand what you mean by "modifying the game".  There's no ability to modify the basic dynamics of the game as you suggest.  You can edit save files, but thats about it.  Or you can play with house rules, but that's basically just restrictions you place on yourself and aren't modifying anything.

-You should probably play the game before thinking of how you want to add house rules.  For example the "core province" dynamic is changed quite a bit from EU2 - you can gain a core on any province if you hold it for 50 years.  Or, you can lose a core province 50 years after losing the province.

-Fundamentally I recommend simply not playing as a warmonger.  As Milan I think you could have a lot of fun trying to unify Italy and become a major European power - but you don't need to conquer France and Germany.  Or as England maybe decide to conquer Great Britain, or to keep your French holdings, but no need to then try and conquer Spain.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2009, 06:03:23 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 05:46:33 PM
I don't have the game, but am considering it. The problem with Paradox games is they take a huge time investment to learn what you are doing and then they are obscenely easy once you know the rules.

I don't want to get the game if I can't be challenged in a long term single player game. If I start in 1492 as Milan and am a major European power by 1600, or if I start as England and have conquered much of western europe with minimal effort--that is not what I'm interested in.

I was thinking of modifying the game along the lines of:
--for every two provinces you own that are not a national core province, you receive a minus one maximum stability
--Exempt from the above rule: the new world, Africa, and Australia
--Modifying the rule above: if a nonnational core province is of the same culture, the penalty is reduced 50%
--I can't get new noncore provinces
--All these rules only apply to me (lord knows paradox AI has enough challenges)

Are these types of modifications possible? And how much work would they require if they are (not willing to put in more than a few hours)?

A few different thoughts (remembering I only purchased eu3 a couple of weeks ago):

-yes, I think long term EU3 has the same problem as the predecessors - if you take a major country you will not face substantial problems over the long run.  I think you need to either set house rules on yourself or play as a minor in the long run.

-that being said that's only once you really understand the game and the systems.  You'll certainly have plenty of fun trying to figure them out.  The game is similar enough to EU2 you should get the basic hang of it pretty soon, but different enough to make it a new game.

-I don't understand what you mean by "modifying the game".  There's no ability to modify the basic dynamics of the game as you suggest.  You can edit save files, but thats about it.  Or you can play with house rules, but that's basically just restrictions you place on yourself and aren't modifying anything.

-You should probably play the game before thinking of how you want to add house rules.  For example the "core province" dynamic is changed quite a bit from EU2 - you can gain a core on any province if you hold it for 50 years.  Or, you can lose a core province 50 years after losing the province.

-Fundamentally I recommend simply not playing as a warmonger.  As Milan I think you could have a lot of fun trying to unify Italy and become a major European power - but you don't need to conquer France and Germany.  Or as England maybe decide to conquer Great Britain, or to keep your French holdings, but no need to then try and conquer Spain.

Isn't the Magnus Mundi a user made mod? It seems to have some fairly drastic changes. Even if there are only back end ways of modifying the game, such as giving my country a -1 stability hit every time I get a certain number of non core provinces and achieve 3 stability, I think it would be worthwhile.

Here is my problem with your house rules suggestion--at some point I will become Italy, for example, and end up at war with France (or another major country). I will demolish them, and they will offer me half their country. I can certainly refuse, but it really kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess my major problem with the paradox games is that they are so close to a game I would want, but at least for me they miss the point. Take Western Europe during the EU2 time period--Spain, France, the UK--they didn't exist at the start (at least as we know them), and came into existence primarily through inheritances. Germany and Italy never formed. Becoming a major country, or falling from the ranks of major countries, never took place through a war. But the games play like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on a different map and in realtime.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2009, 07:22:40 PM
Isn't the Magnus Mundi a user made mod? It seems to have some fairly drastic changes. Even if there are only back end ways of modifying the game, such as giving my country a -1 stability hit every time I get a certain number of non core provinces and achieve 3 stability, I think it would be worthwhile.

Here is my problem with your house rules suggestion--at some point I will become Italy, for example, and end up at war with France (or another major country). I will demolish them, and they will offer me half their country. I can certainly refuse, but it really kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess my major problem with the paradox games is that they are so close to a game I would want, but at least for me they miss the point. Take Western Europe during the EU2 time period--Spain, France, the UK--they didn't exist at the start (at least as we know them), and came into existence primarily through inheritances. Germany and Italy never formed. Becoming a major country, or falling from the ranks of major countries, never took place through a war. But the games play like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on a different map and in realtime.

I haven't played with MM mod, but based on what I do understand about it there are certain things that can be edited - various events, stats of various provinces, various graphics mods, etc.  But what you can't change are some basic mechanics. 

BUt I think you're being too hard on a game you've never played.  First of all in EU3 as I understand it one nation inheriting another can happen much more easily - which means Spain and Great Britain forming is much more possible in a historic manner.

And on the other hand the idea of a nation of Italy or Germany was commonly heard in the EU time period - much of Machiavelli talks about that idea.  So why shouldn't it be a theoretical possibility.

And - if you get into a major war with France and they offer you half the country - well take it, then vassalize all the areas you don't want.  Problem solved.  Or vassalize all of France.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 10:54:35 AM

And on the other hand the idea of a nation of Italy or Germany was commonly heard in the EU time period - much of Machiavelli talks about that idea.  So why shouldn't it be a theoretical possibility.

Italy, yes. Germany? I don't know. But neither happened. In fact there were no major countries formed via warfare in western europe during the entire period. How often do you think that happens in your average EU game?

Maybe it isn't fair to judge the game when I haven't played it, but I just have some fustration with the paradox games I've played in that they end up being far too tilted toward easy military conquests.

As for my suggested mod, it doesn't require changes to the basic game mechanics. Just create an event that gives -1 stability every time you have 3 stability and a certain number of noncore provinces. The real question is if you can set up the number of noncore provinces as an event trigger (as well as ignoring provinces in certain regions of the globe).

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 01:56:34 PM
Italy, yes. Germany? I don't know. But neither happened. In fact there were no major countries formed via warfare in western europe during the entire period. How often do you think that happens in your average EU game?

France?  Russia?

I think that considering Russia as "Western Europe" is a bit of a stretch there, Beeb. :P

Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
I think that considering Russia as "Western Europe" is a bit of a stretch there, Beeb. :P

Well I considered his restriction to only Western Europe to be a cop out since most of the bext examples of nations forming by conquest happened in the East.  :p

One of the things that modders like about EU3 is that most of what used to be hard coded in EU2 can now be modified.  However, you probably wont know for sure whether you can make all the mods you wish until you buy the game, pop the hood and get your hands in there.

There is that mod, SRI 3.3 or something similar which I use. It has better AI, and everything which is good about Magna Mundi, leaving out all that is wrong in it.
I highly recommend to use it instead of MM.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 02:45:14 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
I think that considering Russia as "Western Europe" is a bit of a stretch there, Beeb. :P

Well I considered his restriction to only Western Europe to be a cop out since most of the bext examples of nations forming by conquest happened in the East.  :p

Exactly.

There was a lot going on in Western Europe during the time period--massive internal changes, colonization, revolts, wars of religion. What there wasn't was an English king saying, "LOL Barcelona is a nice province, I think I'll declare war on Spain and take it." That wasn't in the realm of the plausible.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2009, 03:00:56 PM
One of the things that modders like about EU3 is that most of what used to be hard coded in EU2 can now be modified.  However, you probably wont know for sure whether you can make all the mods you wish until you buy the game, pop the hood and get your hands in there.

I'm not interested in making many changes. Just add 3 or 4 events.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 03:18:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2009, 03:00:56 PM
One of the things that modders like about EU3 is that most of what used to be hard coded in EU2 can now be modified.  However, you probably wont know for sure whether you can make all the mods you wish until you buy the game, pop the hood and get your hands in there.

I'm not interested in making many changes. Just add 3 or 4 events.

What you are talking about requires some pretty significant tinkering with the game mechanics.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 03:06:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 02:45:14 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
I think that considering Russia as "Western Europe" is a bit of a stretch there, Beeb. :P

Well I considered his restriction to only Western Europe to be a cop out since most of the bext examples of nations forming by conquest happened in the East.  :p

Exactly.

There was a lot going on in Western Europe during the time period--massive internal changes, colonization, revolts, wars of religion. What there wasn't was an English king saying, "LOL Barcelona is a nice province, I think I'll declare war on Spain and take it." That wasn't in the realm of the plausible.

Umm, I disagree.  First you're ignoring the 100 years war which included exactly that sort of thing.  The expansion of Prussia which involved exactly that sort of thing.  Various wars between the Italian city-states which involved just that sort of thing.  The Spanish Reconquista.  The Napoleonic Wars.  And that's just off the top of my head.

Western Europe did in fact have a handful of well-established borders - the Pyrenees for example between France and Spain.  But that certainly there was plenty of wars of conquest.

Anyways AR I think you're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "can I make a handful of very specific mods to the game", and are disappointed to learn the answer is probably no.

Instead you should ask "can I make significant mods to the game to make it more what I like", and I think the answer is probably yes.  You can make all kinds of mods and changes to the game that would probably make conquest tougher.  It's just some of the specific event triggers you suggest I don't think are allowed.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 03:48:56 PM

Umm, I disagree.  First you're ignoring the 100 years war which included exactly that sort of thing.  The expansion of Prussia which involved exactly that sort of thing.  Various wars between the Italian city-states which involved just that sort of thing.  The Spanish Reconquista.  The Napoleonic Wars.  And that's just off the top of my head.

Western Europe did in fact have a handful of well-established borders - the Pyrenees for example between France and Spain.  But that certainly there was plenty of wars of conquest.

Not to get into a deep discussion of history here, which I'm outmatched in any event, but I'll counter that somewhat. First, I was assuming the period ended in 1789, so Napoleon is out. Things certainly did change after the French Revolution.

Second, in both Germany and Italy, there were fluctuations in borders, but these did not change the nature of the regions and no large power emerged. There were probably a few causes behind that, but one of the most important was the balance of power. For example, borders were certainly put into flux during the 30 years war, but France intervened to prevent the Catholic side from gaining a decisive victory. In a similar manner, when France stood to lawfully inherit Spain, most of Europe united in opposition during the War of Spanish Succession. These forces acted to prevent the significant consolidation of power, and are not modeled into the game (the badboy system doesn't really count, as it is both deeply flawed and only backward looking).

Third, I agree that the Spanish Reconquista was a major instance of shifting borders due to warfare, but it was mostly conducted before the EU timeframe and also was a special case in that it was between non Christian and Christian states. The same rules simply didn't apply.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 03:51:17 PM
Anyways AR I think you're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "can I make a handful of very specific mods to the game", and are disappointed to learn the answer is probably no.

Instead you should ask "can I make significant mods to the game to make it more what I like", and I think the answer is probably yes.  You can make all kinds of mods and changes to the game that would probably make conquest tougher.  It's just some of the specific event triggers you suggest I don't think are allowed.

Is the answer probably no?  :(

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 04:05:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 03:51:17 PM
Anyways AR I think you're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "can I make a handful of very specific mods to the game", and are disappointed to learn the answer is probably no.

Instead you should ask "can I make significant mods to the game to make it more what I like", and I think the answer is probably yes.  You can make all kinds of mods and changes to the game that would probably make conquest tougher.  It's just some of the specific event triggers you suggest I don't think are allowed.

Is the answer probably no?  :(

You asked about a very very specific event - one that fires for having a certain number of non-core provinces.  Due to the way that core provinces work in this game, no, you can't make that specific event.

But can you make events that cause you great problems for holding non-core provinces (such as raising the stability costs)?  Yes you can.

But you really should play the game once before you wonder about how to improve it.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2009, 04:10:09 PM


You asked about a very very specific event - one that fires for having a certain number of non-core provinces.  Due to the way that core provinces work in this game, no, you can't make that specific event.

But can you make events that cause you great problems for holding non-core provinces (such as raising the stability costs)?  Yes you can.

But you really should play the game once before you wonder about how to improve it.

Okay, I'm downloading EU3 complete now. This is the first game I've bought since victoria. I'm going to spend a lot of time figuring the game out, realize I don't like it, and when that happens I'm blaming you.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 08:50:08 PM
Okay, I'm downloading EU3 complete now.

:nelson

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 08:51:37 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 08:50:08 PM
Okay, I'm downloading EU3 complete now.

:nelson

Now I'm going to blame you too for not speaking up until after I started downloading.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 09:07:18 PM
Now I'm going to blame you too for not speaking up until after I started downloading.

Bring it, bitch.

So I get the game loaded, and try to fire it up, only to find I have the "blue map problem."

With certain intel hardware the game map won't load. There is a workaround, but you can never see a political map mode. A lot of people seem to be having this problem. Paradox says, "don't blame us, blame intel."

Paradox really is a shitty company. Even if they got blindsided by this coming out of beta testing, there should have been a fix in the expansion packs they are charging extra for.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 10:51:51 PM
Paradox really is a shitty company.

Huzzah! That wasn't so hard, was it? :w00t:

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2009, 11:01:15 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2009, 10:51:51 PM
Paradox really is a shitty company.

Huzzah! That wasn't so hard, was it? :w00t:

I just got this computer in January. It isn't top of the line, but it isn't that bad either. I can't imagine what Paradox was thinking that they make the graphics so intensive that people with even new computers can't use a basic part of the game.

Uhm, if you have this problem, then your vidcard is an Intel one integrated on the motherboard.

Buy a proper one for 50$ or so.

I've never experienced that problem with my now vaguely outdated 8800GT.

Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2009, 12:42:08 AM
I've never experienced that problem with my now vaguely outdated 8800GT.

There are 3 stickied threads in the Tech Support section on it. Apparently it is only a problem with Intel chips. Paradox claims it is an Intel problem, so the complaints should be sent to them.

If you are using onboard video you cannot expect any sympathy.  Paradox designs games for people with real computers. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 10:40:33 AM
Paradox designs games for people with real computers. 

I'm not quite sure what the appropriate phrase is yet, but it isn't the one you provided.

Garbon, I am not sure why you bother posting in these threads.  Normally Berkut is better at weeding out pointless posts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 10:51:48 AM
Garbon, I am not sure why you bother posting in these threads.  Normally Berkut is better at weeding out pointless posts.

Indeed, these threads should exist for fabulously paid lawyers to dump on people who buy pre-made computers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 10:40:33 AM
If you are using onboard video you cannot expect any sympathy.  Paradox designs games for people with real computers.

If Paradox doesn't want to design games for systems like mine, that is fine with me, but I meet all of the requirements they list when they sell the game (and am well above most of them). It is deceptive marketing to sell games publicizing a set of requirements that you know will still not allow some people to use the game.

It is also in poor form to hide the tech support forum from people that havent registered the game, and so they won't notice until they buy it that, guess what, the game will never work on their machine.

I got this game last week.  Well above any recommended settings and it crashes constantly.  The tech support forum seems useless as well, but I can see lots of people have problems.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 11:09:51 AM
I got this game last week.  Well above any recommended settings and it crashes constantly.  The tech support forum seems useless as well, but I can see lots of people have problems.

Quit complaining. At least you got to look at the map.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 11:00:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 10:40:33 AM
If you are using onboard video you cannot expect any sympathy.  Paradox designs games for people with real computers.

If Paradox doesn't want to design games for systems like mine, that is fine with me, but I meet all of the requirements they list when they sell the game (and am well above most of them). It is deceptive marketing to sell games publicizing a set of requirements that you know will still not allow some people to use the game.

It is also in poor form to hide the tech support forum from people that havent registered the game, and so they won't notice until they buy it that, guess what, the game will never work on their machine.

You're right.  That is shitty.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 11:12:00 AM
Quit complaining. At least you got to look at the map.

:lol:

I installed the handdrawn map mod, it actually looks pretty nice.   

Apparently they hide the tech support forum because they don't want pirates to get tech support...unfortunately that also fucks over legit customers who are curious as to if it will run.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 11:14:28 AM

:lol:

I installed the handdrawn map mod, it actually looks pretty nice.

You are more driven than me--I wouldn't play without a political map. But reading the thread, some people seem to have actually been playing without any kind of map.

Against my better judgment, can I just go to Best Buy and pick up a video card tonight to fix this problem?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 11:44:21 AM
Against my better judgment, can I just go to Best Buy and pick up a video card tonight to fix this problem?

I dunno, maybe, I have a dedicated graphics card and my map works fine.  Only have a problem with crashing.

Which I think I've solved after reinstalling, apparently I patched the game wrong.  Was able to play several years as Portugal without a crash.

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2009, 10:54:16 AM
Indeed, these threads should exist for fabulously paid lawyers to dump on people who buy pre-made computers.

Are you suggesting that AR cant afford a $50 card for his new computer?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 12:26:27 PM
Are you suggesting that AR cant afford a $50 card for his new computer?

Not in the least, although I wouldn't suggest that he should buy one to play eu3.

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2009, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 12:26:27 PM
Are you suggesting that AR cant afford a $50 card for his new computer?

Not in the least, although I wouldn't suggest that he should buy one to play eu3.

With MMP and all the expansions its actually a great game.  Don't listen to Garbon.

I'm not sure if it would work with a new graphics card.....would anyone on Paradox fora help you?

Quote from: Queequeg on June 04, 2009, 12:57:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2009, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 12:26:27 PM
Are you suggesting that AR cant afford a $50 card for his new computer?

Not in the least, although I wouldn't suggest that he should buy one to play eu3.

With MMP and all the expansions its actually a great game.  Don't listen to Garbon.

I'm not sure if it would work with a new graphics card.....would anyone on Paradox fora help you?

I posted last night in the tech support thread, but so far no. I'll just pick up a card on the way home tonight and hope for the best.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
I posted last night in the tech support thread, but so far no. I'll just pick up a card on the way home tonight and hope for the best.

At the very least you will have a real computer now.  :P

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 11:14:28 AM
I installed the handdrawn map mod, it actually looks pretty nice.

:bleeding:

For the graphics card problem, I think the requirement they list for EU3 is pixelshader 2.0 support. As I understand it the trouble is that some intel cards claim to have this, but don't.

Quote from: Pishtaco on June 04, 2009, 01:51:05 PM


:bleeding:

For the graphics card problem, I think the requirement they list for EU3 is pixelshader 2.0 support. As I understand it the trouble is that some intel cards claim to have this, but don't.

Two points about this:

1) They say Intel doesn't. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I don't believe it is that black and white considering Intel has been marketing those cards for years and is continuing to do so.


2) Paradox knows that a number of people have Intel Graphic Cards that are not going to work, but based on information from both Intel and Paradox believe that they will. Why not communicate this to buyers before they purchase the game? (ie, game is likely not compatible with Intel Video Cards x, y, and z).

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 02:08:34 PM

Quote from: Pishtaco on June 04, 2009, 01:51:05 PM


:bleeding:

For the graphics card problem, I think the requirement they list for EU3 is pixelshader 2.0 support. As I understand it the trouble is that some intel cards claim to have this, but don't.

Two points about this:

1) They say Intel doesn't. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I don't believe it is that black and white considering Intel has been marketing those cards for years and is continuing to do so.


2) Paradox knows that a number of people have Intel Graphic Cards that are not going to work, but based on information from both Intel and Paradox believe that they will. Why not communicate this to buyers before they purchase the game? (ie, game is likely not compatible with Intel Video Cards x, y, and z).

No, If intel adverstises that it supports something that it doesn't, how can you make that the problem of a game developer.  Take your beef up with intel/store for selling you a lemon.  They have told you that you need pixelshader 2.0 - it is your responsibilty to figure out whether you actually have it before you blame them.

Its like you coming to the edge of a cliff and there is a sign that says "warning do not attempt to climb down without at least 100' of rope."  You look at your rope and it says "100" feet but in fact the manufacturer short changed you and only gave you 80' so now you cant make it to the bottom.

Instead of going after the rope company you are going after the owner of the cliff who didnt warn you that the rope manufacturer didnt do what they promised.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2009, 11:44:21 AM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 04, 2009, 11:14:28 AM

:lol:

I installed the handdrawn map mod, it actually looks pretty nice.

You are more driven than me--I wouldn't play without a political map. But reading the thread, some people seem to have actually been playing without any kind of map.

Against my better judgment, can I just go to Best Buy and pick up a video card tonight to fix this problem?

The Handdrawn Map mod has a political map mode and is much better than the vanilla map anyways.  I would always recommend using it even if you don't have to.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2009, 04:24:24 PM
No, If intel adverstises that it supports something that it doesn't, how can you make that the problem of a game developer.  Take your beef up with intel/store for selling you a lemon.  They have told you that you need pixelshader 2.0 - it is your responsibilty to figure out whether you actually have it before you blame them.

Its like you coming to the edge of a cliff and there is a sign that says "warning do not attempt to climb down without at least 100' of rope."  You look at your rope and it says "100" feet but in fact the manufacturer short changed you and only gave you 80' so now you cant make it to the bottom.

Instead of going after the rope company you are going after the owner of the cliff who didnt warn you that the rope manufacturer didnt do what they promised.

Because first, I'm skeptical that Paradox is correct in stating that Intel is misrepresenting its graphic cards. It is possible, but this applies to multiple Intel products over several years. If it is as clear as Paradox says, isn't it odd that Intel isn't getting its ass sued off for it?

And second, if I'm a guy selling permits to climb down a 100 foot cliff, and I know that there is a rope shop next door marketing 100 foot rope that is really 80 feet, I think it would be dishonest to keep selling the permits without mentioning the problem up front. Whether or not it is legal, that isn't a line of business I'd want to be in.

Quote from: sbr on June 04, 2009, 06:34:15 PM

The Handdrawn Map mod has a political map mode and is much better than the vanilla map anyways.  I would always recommend using it even if you don't have to.

Well, it is too late now; I got a new graphics card. Installing it is a task for tomorrow.

Alright people a computer with only an integrated graphics card was never meant to run anything graphically more demanding than MS Word. If you want to play, you buy a graphics card. Simple as that, and it has always been this simple, regardless of the evölness of Paradox.

AR - you're better off asking modding questions on the Paradox modding forum, at least now that you're registered. ubik and dharper are like EU3 modding gods.

So I started a game with England, with a 1493 start date and on very hard. I was going along nicely in about 1495, when Scotland and France declared war. I only had a 5000 man army, and was in big trouble. Had France landed troops, I'd have been screwed. But my navy bailed me out. With a lot of mercenaries, I took a couple provinces off of Scotland. I gave Calais to the French, since not to do so would seem a little gamey (Scotland was alliance leader, but I doubt in real life France would walk out of Calais because Scotland asked them to). It was actually exciting--for probably the first time in a paradox game I was actually worried about surviving with a major start country, and the war played out much like the history of the period.

But while that is encouraging, it is now a bit past 1500 and I already have most of Ireland and have neutered Scotland. In my very first game on very hard, it seems the old problem of the game just being too easy is still here.

Quote from: Tamas on June 05, 2009, 06:19:41 AM
Alright people a computer with only an integrated graphics card was never meant to run anything graphically more demanding than MS Word. If you want to play, you buy a graphics card. Simple as that, and it has always been this simple, regardless of the evölness of Paradox.

True, and Paradox shpuld stop claiming that their games can be run with onboard graphics.

I don't think that it is reasonable for every Paradox customer to be aware of your personal opinions.

I also agree with AR that Paradox's hiding of their tech support forums to keep customers from discovering how buggy their games are before buying them "pirates from gettng tech support" is absolute bullshit, and one reason I don't do much business with them anymore (I did pick up the addons for HoI2, but that is the end of it).

Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2009, 06:04:34 PM
True, and Paradox shpuld stop claiming that their games can be run with onboard graphics.

In fairness to Paradox, I have played EU3 just fine now on two different laptops with onboard graphics; the current chip is even some sort of Intel thing (Mobile Intel 965 Express, per device manager).

I agree that it should be easier to figure out if your onboard graphics won't work, though.

Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2009, 06:04:34 PM
I also agree with AR that Paradox's hiding of their tech support forums to keep customers from discovering how buggy their games are before buying them "pirates from gettng tech support" is absolute bullshit, and one reason I don't do much business with them anymore (I did pick up the addons for HoI2, but that is the end of it).

I prefer that method of "copy protection" than all of the on-line authentication and root kits that other developers use.  I think if you spend any time on the forums you can get a sense of the problems people are having even without registering.  If someone starts a Tech Support type thread in the main forum it is locked, not deleted.  Shouldn't be too hard to look back a handful of pages and see what kind of problems other are having.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2009, 11:34:37 AM
So I started a game with England, with a 1493 start date and on very hard. I was going along nicely in about 1495, when Scotland and France declared war. I only had a 5000 man army, and was in big trouble. Had France landed troops, I'd have been screwed. But my navy bailed me out. With a lot of mercenaries, I took a couple provinces off of Scotland. I gave Calais to the French, since not to do so would seem a little gamey (Scotland was alliance leader, but I doubt in real life France would walk out of Calais because Scotland asked them to). It was actually exciting--for probably the first time in a paradox game I was actually worried about surviving with a major start country, and the war played out much like the history of the period.

But while that is encouraging, it is now a bit past 1500 and I already have most of Ireland and have neutered Scotland. In my very first game on very hard, it seems the old problem of the game just being too easy is still here.

Alfred - you're playing as England.  It's one of the most powerful countries out there.  You shouldn't be facing existential crises as England, and you can and should be able to walk over any smaller nation.

All I can tell you is I'm having a fun but frustrating time playing as Venice.  I've expanded only cautiously, but now further expansion is blocked.  I'm squeezed between a Papal States that owns much of Italy on one side, Austria on another, HUngary, and a quite powerful Ottomans (haven't conquered the Mamluks, but have consolidated much of the Balkans).  If I try to pick off a small neighbor like Ragusa I get multiple DOWs.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2009, 11:34:37 AM
But while that is encouraging, it is now a bit past 1500 and I already have most of Ireland and have neutered Scotland. In my very first game on very hard, it seems the old problem of the game just being too easy is still here.

England is a tiny, relatively resource scarce country that conquered 1/4th of the world in this timeframe.  What do you expect?  Just keep the wooden walls up and take and keep control over the two big Islands and you are set for colonizing North America and eventually sticking your firm British proboscis into India and Australia. 

Play as Moscow.  Declare war on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  Prepare to be raped unless you've conquered, converted and cheated to culturally change most of the Islamic Steppe. 

One of the things I like about it is that subterfuge can make a huge difference in warfare, especially if you use it against a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Empire (like say Lithuania).  Actually it sometimes works too well, as it sometimes results in a shitload of Anti-judaist revolts going on pogroms and kicking the Jewish populations out of the Pale, which really pisses me off as I don't think I will ever be liberal enough to invite them to settle by myself. 

If you ever want to see something fun, just get the Espionage national trait around 1700 and use it to incite social chaos and dominate war councils during a conflict with a substantial power.  They go Yugoslavia within a couple of decades.   

Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2009, 10:13:49 PM


Alfred - you're playing as England.  It's one of the most powerful countries out there.  You shouldn't be facing existential crises as England, and you can and should be able to walk over any smaller nation.

All I can tell you is I'm having a fun but frustrating time playing as Venice.  I've expanded only cautiously, but now further expansion is blocked.  I'm squeezed between a Papal States that owns much of Italy on one side, Austria on another, HUngary, and a quite powerful Ottomans (haven't conquered the Mamluks, but have consolidated much of the Balkans).  If I try to pick off a small neighbor like Ragusa I get multiple DOWs.

I think England should be having existential crisis--in real life it had the Spanish Armada, the threat from Napoleon, and arguably the threat from the War of Spanish Succession. It also lost the American colonies and had at least 3 governments fail (Charles II, the Glorious Revolution, and the commonwealth under cromwell).

Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
I think England should be having existential crisis--in real life it had the Spanish Armada, the threat from Napoleon, and arguably the threat from the War of Spanish Succession. It also lost the American colonies and had at least 3 governments fail (Charles II, the Glorious Revolution, and the commonwealth under cromwell).

Spanish Armada and Napoleon - those were two incidents over the entirety of the time period.  So yes, if you play an entire game beginning if it were to be true to history you would face massive threats to your existence exactly twice.

I won't give you Spanish Succession.  England was involved in a number of wars where important issues were at stake, but England's very survival was not in question.  Spanish Succession is one of them.

If you play the game the entire way through you will get some revolts and civil wars if I understand it correctly.  But again that's only a handful through the entire game.

As a counterpoint I started playing a 1399 game as Scotland last night.  I was doing well but I attempted to stop England from swallowing the Irish minors - and got my ass handed to me.  It was a hard game...

Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
I think England should be having existential crisis--in real life it had the Spanish Armada, the threat from Napoleon, and arguably the threat from the War of Spanish Succession. It also lost the American colonies and had at least 3 governments fail (Charles II, the Glorious Revolution, and the commonwealth under cromwell).

It won both these wars as no one was able to beat the English Navy, which is exactly how it works in MMP.  Fail to see the problem. 

Been replaying a couple of times as Scotland - not sure how the hell I can expand at all...

Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2009, 09:36:22 PM
Been replaying a couple of times as Scotland - not sure how the hell I can expand at all...

Yeah--the AI seems better than in other Paradox games. I was thinking that Scotland might be hard--if you can't fight England, and the HRE is closed off now, I can only think of three strategies: assemble an alliance to beat down England with you, pick off Ireland, and/or colonize. Colonizing would seem like a good idea, but the world seems to be getting colonized faster than historically, so with a late start scotland may be screwed.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 07, 2009, 07:18:24 PM

It won both these wars as no one was able to beat the English Navy, which is exactly how it works in MMP.  Fail to see the problem.

a) Both of you are ignoring my point that the ruling government completely collapsed three times (Charles II, the Commonwealth, and the Glorious Revolution) and was threatened many other times during the period from internal problems (often funded from France.

b) It is true that the Spanish Armada failed. But if I bought a game recreating the Spanish Armada, I'd be disappointed if my first time with the game I crushed the Armada on the hardest difficulty setting.

Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2009, 09:36:22 PM
Been replaying a couple of times as Scotland - not sure how the hell I can expand at all...

Scottish expansion = not becoming a vassal of the English.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2009, 10:05:21 PMColonizing would seem like a good idea, but the world seems to be getting colonized faster than historically, so with a late start scotland may be screwed.

Yeah, my first game I'm playing as Portugal, and colonization is going super fast.  At first I thought it was going to be really slow, as I'm only getting 1.1 colonist per year.  Then I noticed my colonies in Brazil, the Caribbean, and South Africa are growing at 80 people per year, rather than a few percent, or even negative percent, in EU2.  No need to pile on settlers, just send one and in a few years it's a city.

If I restarted as Scotland I would if it is a viable strategy to try and suck up to England as much as possible, and get into an alliance with them.

Is there some risk they can then vassalize me against my wishes?  Or would their inevitable offer to become their vassal, once I reject it, kill off whatever good relations existed?

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 08, 2009, 02:26:40 PM

Yeah, my first game I'm playing as Portugal, and colonization is going super fast.  At first I thought it was going to be really slow, as I'm only getting 1.1 colonist per year.  Then I noticed my colonies in Brazil, the Caribbean, and South Africa are growing at 80 people per year, rather than a few percent, or even negative percent, in EU2.  No need to pile on settlers, just send one and in a few years it's a city.

Superfast colonization is a problem. In the game I'm playing, NA has almost filled up to the Mississippi by about 1575 (i started my game in 1493). I have most of them--I wouldn't have wanted to go so fast, but Portugal had already taken the southern US so I felt I had to go quickly to get the rest. Conquering the Cherokee and Iroquois was a big help (Plus when you convert those provinces, they not only become your religion but also your culture, and I've converted all of them).

To add on, something kind of funny: I bought a conquistador who I landed in North America with 4 regiments. With him and those 4 regiments, I completely conquered the Iroquois and Cherokee and explored every single province north of the Aztecs with the exception of a few pacific coast provinces (he was about half way up the pacific coast when he died in 1550 or so).

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
Conquering the Cherokee and Iroquois was a big help (Plus when you convert those provinces, they not only become your religion but also your culture, and I've converted all of them).

I imagine Neil would be very happy if this EU2 carryover happened just once in real life.

Quote from: saskganesh on June 08, 2009, 02:55:54 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
Conquering the Cherokee and Iroquois was a big help (Plus when you convert those provinces, they not only become your religion but also your culture, and I've converted all of them).

I imagine Neil would be very happy if this EU2 carryover happened just once in real life.

Sadly not, as their converted culture was English, not Ethnic Albertan.

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 02:29:23 PM
Is there some risk they can then vassalize me against my wishes?  Or would their inevitable offer to become their vassal, once I reject it, kill off whatever good relations existed?

The only way they can vassalize you against your wishes is as a peace offering and even then you dont have to accept it.  They cannot make a diplomatic offer unless you have only 3 provinces.  IMO being close to England is the only way to survive since the French AI cant figure out how to land in England to help defend you as an ally of France.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2009, 03:38:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 02:29:23 PM
Is there some risk they can then vassalize me against my wishes?  Or would their inevitable offer to become their vassal, once I reject it, kill off whatever good relations existed?

The only way they can vassalize you against your wishes is as a peace offering and even then you dont have to accept it.  They cannot make a diplomatic offer unless you have only 3 provinces.  IMO being close to England is the only way to survive since the French AI cant figure out how to land in England to help defend you as an ally of France.

Good to know.

In what situations does an inheritance/personal union situation happen?  If I'm at +200 relations, alliance, and royal marriage can a James I/VI situation happen?  And what happens in my gameplay?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
Superfast colonization is a problem. In the game I'm playing, NA has almost filled up to the Mississippi by about 1575 (i started my game in 1493). I have most of them--I wouldn't have wanted to go so fast, but Portugal had already taken the southern US so I felt I had to go quickly to get the rest. Conquering the Cherokee and Iroquois was a big help (Plus when you convert those provinces, they not only become your religion but also your culture, and I've converted all of them).

I'm at 1600 and started the same date as you, and the entire eastern coast of the new world is taken, mostly at city level, split between me in the south, and England, France, and Spain in the north.  I also have South Africa and the Spice Islands built up to city level.  I know Portugal is kind of a noob country, but colonization and exploration now seems much easier than playing as any of the historical colonizers in EU2.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 08, 2009, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
Superfast colonization is a problem. In the game I'm playing, NA has almost filled up to the Mississippi by about 1575 (i started my game in 1493). I have most of them--I wouldn't have wanted to go so fast, but Portugal had already taken the southern US so I felt I had to go quickly to get the rest. Conquering the Cherokee and Iroquois was a big help (Plus when you convert those provinces, they not only become your religion but also your culture, and I've converted all of them).

I'm at 1600 and started the same date as you, and the entire eastern coast of the new world is taken, mostly at city level, split between me in the south, and England, France, and Spain in the north.  I also have South Africa and the Spice Islands built up to city level.  I know Portugal is kind of a noob country, but colonization and exploration now seems much easier than playing as any of the historical colonizers in EU2.

For me, I (England) have most of Canada and America up to the Mississippi except for the American South and the Delaware, Maryland Pennsylvania region, which are primarily Portugese--that seems to be their spot for colonizing rather than Brazil--which makes sense I suppose.

France has the Aztecs, South America is sparsely colonized, with a variety of countries contributing, and Spaid has the Incas.

I'm thinking this could be tweaked: perhaps you should only get 1 colonist every 5 years, and only Spain and Portugal start with the ability to found colonies until about 1600, when France and England pick it up. Plus all the Indian tribes excluding the Aztecs and Inca should go.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 04:36:32 PM
I'm thinking this could be tweaked: perhaps you should only get 1 colonist every 5 years, and only Spain and Portugal start with the ability to found colonies until about 1600, when France and England pick it up. Plus all the Indian tribes excluding the Aztecs and Inca should go.

That's very contrary to the intent of EU3 which was to get away from hard-coding certain things for certain countries...

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 04:43:28 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 04:36:32 PM
I'm thinking this could be tweaked: perhaps you should only get 1 colonist every 5 years, and only Spain and Portugal start with the ability to found colonies until about 1600, when France and England pick it up. Plus all the Indian tribes excluding the Aztecs and Inca should go.

That's very contrary to the intent of EU3 which was to get away from hard-coding certain things for certain countries...

first, it already is hardcoded. But second and most important, I don't think it is sane that 50 years before the English made their first colony in America, I have more expensive North American holdings than they did in 1776. And the reason I got them was because if I didn't, Portugal seemed like they were about to.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 05:00:50 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 04:43:28 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 04:36:32 PM
I'm thinking this could be tweaked: perhaps you should only get 1 colonist every 5 years, and only Spain and Portugal start with the ability to found colonies until about 1600, when France and England pick it up. Plus all the Indian tribes excluding the Aztecs and Inca should go.

That's very contrary to the intent of EU3 which was to get away from hard-coding certain things for certain countries...

first, it already is hardcoded. But second and most important, I don't think it is sane that 50 years before the English made their first colony in America, I have more expensive North American holdings than they did in 1776. And the reason I got them was because if I didn't, Portugal seemed like they were about to.

I wasn't arguing with your observation, only with your proposed solution.

And colonization isn't hardcoded.  It's shaped by the nature of the missions that are given to certain countries, but anybody if they take the right National Ideal can go exploring...

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
And colonization isn't hardcoded.  It's shaped by the nature of the missions that are given to certain countries, but anybody if they take the right National Ideal can go exploring...

I think the order of National Ideas is hardcoded by country (see common/countries/*, look for historical_ideas).  In IN, I don't think any country is set with Quest For The New World first, and only a few have it second.

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 04:04:02 PM
In what situations does an inheritance/personal union situation happen?  If I'm at +200 relations, alliance, and royal marriage can a James I/VI situation happen?  And what happens in my gameplay?

Whenever you have a royal marriage with someone, upon the death of the king (yours or thiers) there is a chance that the nation who lost their king will be inherited by the other nation or enter a personal union.  A player nation can never be inherited by an AI nation but a player nation can be the junior partner in a personal union. 

I am not sure of all the modifiers for those chances.  I assume that things such as having a good relationship and alliance modify the chances.  But I dont think that relative size matters.  I have had a royal marriage with much smaller nations and still become a junior partner in a personal union when my monarch dies.

If a personal union occurs then the only way to break it is to have a poor relationship (cant remember if it is below 0 or below +100) at the time the monarch of the senior country dies.  If that occurs then you regain your nation.

The effect of being subject to a personal union is the same as being a vassal.  You can make no international diplomat moves on your own - eg declare war, sue for independant peace, arrange marriages etc.  You are effectively handcuffed for the period of the personal union.

On the bright side if as Scotland you were able to become the senior partner in such a personal union then the chances of inheriting England are much better.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2009, 09:45:07 AM

If a personal union occurs then the only way to break it is to have a poor relationship (cant remember if it is below 0 or below +100) at the time the monarch of the senior country dies.  If that occurs then you regain your nation.

Negative relations, so below 0.

Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2009, 07:02:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
And colonization isn't hardcoded.  It's shaped by the nature of the missions that are given to certain countries, but anybody if they take the right National Ideal can go exploring...

I think the order of National Ideas is hardcoded by country (see common/countries/*, look for historical_ideas).  In IN, I don't think any country is set with Quest For The New World first, and only a few have it second.

I don't think it's hardcoded, but I'll run a few checks.  There is no doubt that with IN 3.1, countries tend not to take it as early as they used to (partly because you have to have Trade 7 first--which incidentally, the introduction of pre-recs for NI is one of the reasons I pretty sure that NIs aren't hardcoded).

I'm finally making progress on a Scotland game.

I'm doing whatever I can to keep my French allies happy (which means joining every silly war they start, but not joining any other alliance and risk them starting a war with France).  I'm helped by England getting the mission to take Normandy.  England gets into a silly war with Morocco, then starts a war with an Irish minor.

I had warned England, and guaranteed Ireland, so that's my sign.  I crank up my spending slider to all income and pump out as many mercenaries as I can (my manpower is shot to hell after just a couple of units).  But England is largely distracted by Ireland, and by France taking England's French provinces.  I manage to beseige 5 or 6 English provinces, and one unit of rebels appears as well.

But then things start to go sideways.  All of my income is going towards unit maintenance - I'm so far beyond my support limits it isn't funny.  Which means no money for mercs.  England starts focusing on me, and takes back a province.  They vassalize the Irish minor (better than an annex I guss), and then France sues for a separate peace (those traitorous dogs) demanding England set Cornwall free. :blink:

So with no allies I sue for the best peace I can, and get Cumbria.

But I guess this sets the pattern for future wars.  Get England sidetracked elsewhere, keep France in the game (in retrospect it was good they didn't demand any of England's French territories), and then strike when the war exhaustion is up.  And also answers how to destroy England without becoming England - split it up instead.

:scots:

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 11:03:55 AM
I'm finally making progress on a Scotland game.

I'm doing whatever I can to keep my French allies happy (which means joining every silly war they start, but not joining any other alliance and risk them starting a war with France).  I'm helped by England getting the mission to take Normandy.  England gets into a silly war with Morocco, then starts a war with an Irish minor.

I had warned England, and guaranteed Ireland, so that's my sign.  I crank up my spending slider to all income and pump out as many mercenaries as I can (my manpower is shot to hell after just a couple of units).  But England is largely distracted by Ireland, and by France taking England's French provinces.  I manage to beseige 5 or 6 English provinces, and one unit of rebels appears as well.

But then things start to go sideways.  All of my income is going towards unit maintenance - I'm so far beyond my support limits it isn't funny.  Which means no money for mercs.  England starts focusing on me, and takes back a province.  They vassalize the Irish minor (better than an annex I guss), and then France sues for a separate peace (those traitorous dogs) demanding England set Cornwall free. :blink:

So with no allies I sue for the best peace I can, and get Cumbria.

But I guess this sets the pattern for future wars.  Get England sidetracked elsewhere, keep France in the game (in retrospect it was good they didn't demand any of England's French territories), and then strike when the war exhaustion is up.  And also answers how to destroy England without becoming England - split it up instead.

:scots:

Sounds like you did well--every war should get easier as you lift provinces from them. Hopefully now they won't declare war on you and your French allies back out.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 11:34:29 AM
Sounds like you did well--every war should get easier as you lift provinces from them. Hopefully now they won't declare war on you and your French allies back out.

That's the plan at least - but losing Cumbria and Cornwall isn't that big a loss, and now England has a big, fat CB on me.  We'll see though.

I also lucked out and got a 6* inflation busting great man to start, so even after running that war I'm down to about 1.3% inflation, and should have it at zero in a decade.

Man - why didn't I buy this game a long time ago? :)

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 11:34:29 AM
Sounds like you did well--every war should get easier as you lift provinces from them. Hopefully now they won't declare war on you and your French allies back out.

That's the plan at least - but losing Cumbria and Cornwall isn't that big a loss, and now England has a big, fat CB on me.  We'll see though.

I also lucked out and got a 6* inflation busting great man to start, so even after running that war I'm down to about 1.3% inflation, and should have it at zero in a decade.

Man - why didn't I buy this game a long time ago? :)

It is probably a good thing because I bet it was overwhelmed with bugs and other quircky "features" that took two expansion packs and several patches to fix.

I'm fairly far into my game around 1650--though I've only fought one real war when Scotland and France attacked me around 1495 so I've basically been turning things up to the fastest speed my computer can take and watching the years roll by. Inflation isn't that big of a problem long term--if you get the national bank idea that gives you an automatic -0.1 inflation. My inflation was close to 9 and it is now down to 0, and I'm doing quite a bit of minting.

I'll say the game is better than I expected, with a real balance of power in the game I'm playing. But that probably has a lot to do with me not trying very hard to expand my power base.

Also, since you guys said that I should wait to get the game until I concluded it was too easy and needed the changes, I've now bought the game and come to the same conclusion.

Also, I'd like to tone down colonization and take out all the native countries besides the Aztecs and Incas.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 12:37:50 PM
Also, since you guys said that I should wait to get the game until I concluded it was too easy and needed the changes, I've now bought the game and come to the same conclusion.

Also, I'd like to tone down colonization and take out all the native countries besides the Aztecs and Incas.

Well at least not you have a better idea what changes you'd like to make.

Yeah, reading a little bit on Paradox (I can't go there at work, which is why I'm posting here) complaints against colonization speed were numerous.  I wonder if the simple solution isn't to just reduce the rate you get colonists dramatically - like by a factor of ten.

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 01:32:17 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 12:37:50 PM
Also, since you guys said that I should wait to get the game until I concluded it was too easy and needed the changes, I've now bought the game and come to the same conclusion.

Also, I'd like to tone down colonization and take out all the native countries besides the Aztecs and Incas.

Well at least not you have a better idea what changes you'd like to make.

Yeah, reading a little bit on Paradox (I can't go there at work, which is why I'm posting here) complaints against colonization speed were numerous.  I wonder if the simple solution isn't to just reduce the rate you get colonists dramatically - like by a factor of ten.

Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

A factor of 10 may be too harsh: it seems you get about one colonist a year, which would mean by a factor of 10 you would only be able to establish about 20 colonies max in 2 centuries (and it would really hurt if the natives killed your colony, or if a colony failed). If England started colonizing when they did historically, they could never match their historical results. It seems that to reduce everything by a factor of 5 would be better.

Anyone else notice with MMP that the Hindus tend to kick the Muslims out of India pretty fast and form huge semi-national Kingdoms?  In my Russia game it is 1529 and Rajputana and Viryanagar (not looking up how to spell that) have split all the non-central (Avadhi and Kanauji culturally, and Bihari) Indian provinces between them and V. is under a union lead by Rajputana.  I hope that ends up with a super Rajputana, that'd be kind of awesome. 

The Ottoman Empire is actually developing pretty well, starting to take huge chunks out of the Mamelukes and Central Europe.

The Conquest of the Steppe (especially Sibir) is a lot more trouble than it was in reality.  THERE WAS BARELY ANYONE THERE, so when the Russians move in it should become Russian culturally pretty quickly.  I hate having to build up huge castles and temples and dedicating lots of missionaries. 

Quote from: Queequeg on June 10, 2009, 03:29:11 PM

The Conquest of the Steppe (especially Sibir) is a lot more trouble than it was in reality.  THERE WAS BARELY ANYONE THERE, so when the Russians move in it should become Russian culturally pretty quickly.  I hate having to build up huge castles and temples and dedicating lots of missionaries.

Dude, it was the Mongols mongolofying Muscowy, not the other way around. :rolleyes:

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

Except there were examples of European colonies prior to 1600.  Roanoke is perhaps most famous.

It's just that those examples were either quite small (more of the old-school trrading post than like colonies) or they failed.

If this was going to be fixed I tihnk you need to make colonies in general in that part of the world harder to establish and grow up until a certain point, and not artificially limit colonies to 2 countries.  After all the game is all about alt-history - why not an Aragon colonial empire?  A Navarrese/Basque colony?  Grenada?  All countries immediately around Castille and Portugal.

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 05:19:57 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

Except there were examples of European colonies prior to 1600.  Roanoke is perhaps most famous.

It's just that those examples were either quite small (more of the old-school trrading post than like colonies) or they failed.

If this was going to be fixed I tihnk you need to make colonies in general in that part of the world harder to establish and grow up until a certain point, and not artificially limit colonies to 2 countries.  After all the game is all about alt-history - why not an Aragon colonial empire?  A Navarrese/Basque colony?  Grenada?  All countries immediately around Castille and Portugal.

If you were talking about a 1399 start date, I agree. But with a 1492 start date, I think there is a case that the situation in England (especially) and France just wasn't conducive to colonizing. The problem with making it harder to establish colonies up until 1600 is that Spain and Portugal were very successful. I think that any fix really needs to take into account the different starting conditions of the countries in that regard, and the easiest I can think of is to recognize that Spain and Portugal were ready, while no other countries were.

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2009, 03:33:15 PM
Dude, it was the Mongols mongolofying Muscowy, not the other way around. :rolleyes:

That was in the 14th Century, in the 16th-17th Century Russia faced some resistance from Kazan but the Siberians basically lay down and took it.  I don't understand why they aren't anything but particularly pesky natives, as Russia's push into Siberia had a lot more in common with its subsequent colonizations further east than a traditional war (which was more like the conflict with Kazan). 

Quote from: Queequeg on June 10, 2009, 06:49:53 PM
That was in the 14th Century, in the 16th-17th Century Russia faced some resistance from Kazan but the Siberians basically lay down and took it.  I don't understand why they aren't anything but particularly pesky natives, as Russia's push into Siberia had a lot more in common with its subsequent colonizations further east than a traditional war (which was more like the conflict with Kazan). 

Well the issue we had in eu2 is that a lot of Sibir's lands started off owned by the nascent Uzbeks at the start of the period.  There's really no way to have province control fade away (a la Great Invasions), so really it was a probably of nomadic states not being handled well.

And the second war of English Aggression ended with Scotland gaining Northumberland, and England giving up claims on Cornwall.

Going to be tricky from here.  I don't want any more English provinces, don't really want to see France get much stronger, but I do want to see England give up Wales, and maybe take Meath while I'm at it...

And as soon as the truce is up France goes on the offensive. <_<

I do find the steppe nomad states way too overpowered, the AI would manage to unite Russia most of the time I think, if it wasn't for them.

And my point was about the Muscovite Russians being just as brutal uneducated savages as the nomads so there was no big cultural difference, only technological, which is easy to port.

I don't know if this is the typical experience, but my game has jumped the shark by around 1650.

Aside from the colonization issues, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France are probably about right in terms of their power and historical position. The historical boundaries are reasonable. The minor west german states are still intact.

Central and Eastern Europe are another story. The north german states have been assumed by Poland. Austria, which controls the netherlands, is a monster, having taken hungary and much of the Ottoman empire up to thrace. The biggest problem is Russia, which is just huge. It has taken a giant chunk out of the Ottoman Empire and is well into modern day iran. Technology wise, it is ahead of everyone else in the game. The Ottoman Empire has virtually collapsed, which is fine, but a major reason it has fallen apart--17th century crusades, is a bit anachronistic. There are some odd things, such as Japan owning provinces around India, which I'm not sure how has happened.

The most troubling thing to me is Russia being the most modern state and with France one of the top two land powers in Europe in 1650.

Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

It is EU3 Complete, without any mods.

What worries me more than how huge Russia is, is that it is way ahead in tech. But if this is a one off occurance, I guess that is fine.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2009, 10:52:41 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

It is EU3 Complete, without any mods.

What worries me more than how huge Russia is, is that it is way ahead in tech. But if this is a one off occurance, I guess that is fine.

It's pretty much guaranteed that 100+ years from the start things are going to look different from real life.  You're right, it's only a problem if it happens consistently.

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

I think the problem stems from the game's inability to really portray internal strife. Sure there are improved rebels in this game, but it doesn't replicate how torn apart France was during the 16th century. That also comes back to the colonial issue--France wasn't going to be focusing thousands of guys on overseas missions during the timeperiod.

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2009, 01:32:17 PM
Yeah, reading a little bit on Paradox (I can't go there at work, which is why I'm posting here) complaints against colonization speed were numerous.  I wonder if the simple solution isn't to just reduce the rate you get colonists dramatically - like by a factor of ten.

Well MMP did that and I find their speed of colonization to be far too slow.
What it really needs is the western powers colonizing first and the rest coming later.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2009, 01:34:40 PM
I think the problem stems from the game's inability to really portray internal strife. Sure there are improved rebels in this game, but it doesn't replicate how torn apart France was during the 16th century. That also comes back to the colonial issue--France wasn't going to be focusing thousands of guys on overseas missions during the timeperiod.

A hard part about that though is figuring out who the player is to represent. After all, if you were to strictly be the monarch, it might get rather tedious to jump through all the necessary hoops to get your will enacted.

Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2009, 03:31:16 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2009, 01:34:40 PM
I think the problem stems from the game's inability to really portray internal strife. Sure there are improved rebels in this game, but it doesn't replicate how torn apart France was during the 16th century. That also comes back to the colonial issue--France wasn't going to be focusing thousands of guys on overseas missions during the timeperiod.

A hard part about that though is figuring out who the player is to represent. After all, if you were to strictly be the monarch, it might get rather tedious to jump through all the necessary hoops to get your will enacted.

I agree--the game isn't really set up to handle civil wars, it is more focused on international affairs.

But a problem emerges when you take a country such as France that was torn apart internally, don't replicate that, and then give them the relative internal economic advantages they had in the 18th century. Suddenly they appear to be an unstoppable European and colonial power when in actuality they were in the middle of a civil war.

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 01:37:55 AM

And my point was about the Muscovite Russians being just as brutal uneducated savages as the nomads so there was no big cultural difference, only technological, which is easy to port.

:cry:

The Kazan Khanate was an agricultural, centralized state that drew upon a mixed Turkic-Iranian-Muslim heritage, with a literate upper class, advanced metallurgy, relatively centralized government and really pretty advanced.  They weren't Sky worshiping cow's blood drinkers, like the ancient Magyars; they were settled and cultured.  The "steppe" really only starts east and south of Kazan, and then I think you might have a point, but even then the Steppe peoples of the period would not have struck a modern as substantially more advanced than the average, say, Swede or anything.   

I find it a little funny that a Hungarian thinks that the only difference between a "Russian" and a "savage" of the period was that the Russians had guns.  Does this mean that the Hungarians, a few steps (pun!) removed from savagery themselves, were too stupid to fight off the Turks, unlike the Russians?

Alfred; whenever a nation starts getting too powerful, just get it in a war against a power of vaguely similar potence, and start with the Spies; puppet army council, cause social chaos, etc....it'll work eventually, especially if they have a weak monarch.  Go into the save file, remove luck, maybe tone down the current monarch's stats, get them into a war with Poland and watch the fireworks. 

Oh by the way - how the hell do you use spies?

I can't seem to find the interface anywhere...

Quote from: Barrister on June 11, 2009, 04:38:30 PM
Oh by the way - how the hell do you use spies?

I can't seem to find the interface anywhere...

IIRC it is at the bottom, slightly right of center.  Have to have the province (or at least country) highlighted; so if I wanted to destabilize the Ottoman Empire, I might have Athens highlighted, and from there I can do a province specific action (support local revolt) or a nationwide one (cause social chaos).

It is a lot more useful if you have Espionage national idea or a good spymaster.  Not a whole lot of people use it effectively, but it can, in the right circumstances, mean the difference between a four year campaign and a decade long slaughterfeast.   

Spellus, I was reviewing the map of my game--1655--and Russia is out of control. Highest techs, has almost colonized to the pacific ocean,has moved into the Middle East, Persia, and even Pakistan (India and the Ming seem to be in trouble). Right now I have the second highest income, and they are more than twice mine.

a) Are you sure this is rare?
b) Is there any way for me to break them up? As England, my manpower is about a tenth of theirs, so a land war that doesn't involve a grand alliance is probably out of the question. Their stability costs are probably through the roof, if I use all my spies destabilizing them for the next 100 years, would that have a possible effect? Right now the cost to do that is 100, and the chance of success is 30%. I'd hate to do that and then have them launch a counter spy campaign against me.

I have not seen a huge-ass Russia like that. Ever.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Spellus, I was reviewing the map of my game--1655--and Russia is out of control. Highest techs, has almost colonized to the pacific ocean,has moved into the Middle East, Persia, and even Pakistan (India and the Ming seem to be in trouble).

Jesus, you're gonna turn pants in to dairy factories with that kind of talk.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 11, 2009, 04:24:22 PM

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 01:37:55 AM

  Does this mean that the Hungarians, a few steps (pun!) removed from savagery themselves, were too stupid to fight off the Turks, unlike the Russians?

this was a rhetorical question, right?

Quote from: Queequeg on June 11, 2009, 04:24:22 PM

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 01:37:55 AM

And my point was about the Muscovite Russians being just as brutal uneducated savages as the nomads so there was no big cultural difference, only technological, which is easy to port.

:cry:

The Kazan Khanate was an agricultural, centralized state that drew upon a mixed Turkic-Iranian-Muslim heritage, with a literate upper class, advanced metallurgy, relatively centralized government and really pretty advanced.  They weren't Sky worshiping cow's blood drinkers, like the ancient Magyars; they were settled and cultured.  The "steppe" really only starts east and south of Kazan, and then I think you might have a point, but even then the Steppe peoples of the period would not have struck a modern as substantially more advanced than the average, say, Swede or anything.   

I find it a little funny that a Hungarian thinks that the only difference between a "Russian" and a "savage" of the period was that the Russians had guns.  Does this mean that the Hungarians, a few steps (pun!) removed from savagery themselves, were too stupid to fight off the Turks, unlike the Russians?

Oh FFS sure the sun was shinging from Kazan asses. And Hungarians, coming from that region, adopted more western culture by the time of EU3's start date, than those assorted remaining people there ever did until present day.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 11, 2009, 04:24:22 PM




I find it a little funny that a Hungarian thinks that the only difference between a "Russian" and a "savage" of the period was that the Russians had guns.  Does this mean that the Hungarians, a few steps (pun!) removed from savagery themselves, were too stupid to fight off the Turks, unlike the Russians?

No, I think it was something to do with the ragtag union of slavs and mongols called  "Russia" sporting a much bigger population.

I'm getting a little irritated in my Scotland game.  As mentioned I wanted to weaken England and keep her as "little England", with Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall all free (plus have her lose her continental possessions).  After about 3 wars I've largely done that.

But England keeps DOWing as soon as truces are up.  Not usually on me, but on the British minors I've guaranteed.  So I keep having to spank England, which is at significant cost to me.

Maybe I need to swallow up even more of the place (don't want to do that for RP purposes)?  Maybe I just need to force-vassalize (that could be tough though - so far no way to reach Meath due to the English Navy)?  Or maybe I should take provinces then sell to Wales/Cornwall?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Spellus, I was reviewing the map of my game--1655--and Russia is out of control. Highest techs, has almost colonized to the pacific ocean,has moved into the Middle East, Persia, and even Pakistan (India and the Ming seem to be in trouble). Right now I have the second highest income, and they are more than twice mine.

a) Are you sure this is rare?
b) Is there any way for me to break them up? As England, my manpower is about a tenth of theirs, so a land war that doesn't involve a grand alliance is probably out of the question. Their stability costs are probably through the roof, if I use all my spies destabilizing them for the next 100 years, would that have a possible effect? Right now the cost to do that is 100, and the chance of success is 30%. I'd hate to do that and then have them launch a counter spy campaign against me.

That sounds like a tough nut to crack.  I know that as a player I don't think I've ever expanded that much as Russia, as after a certain point all it does is add cost to stability. 

I think that if you could find some kind of coalition of countries able to tie it down, if not outright win, a war against them, then I think there's really not a whole lot you can do other then try to be friends with it.  I bet that if you were to go into the save file, give them a shitty monarch (which would have been bound to happen, anyway), and keep hitting away at their stability while in a war, their manpower will eventually go down (VERY IMPORTANT) and they might-might- have to deal with huge national rebellions especially in Heathen areas. 

That said, I don't really know, I've never seen anything like that happen in Vanilla as I almost always play MMP, where I've never seen Russia grow to its natural size starting at 1453, let alone become Orwell's Eurasia.  IIRC, in Vanilla province specific cause rebellions are more useful, but you probably don't have enough spies to make that effective.

Shame about the spy efficiency; Russia often chooses the Espionage national idea, and if they choose Internal Security you are profoundly screwed.  If not, then get a good spymaster and/or Espionage, and go nuts when Russia has a bad monarch.   


You might want to consider upgrading to MMP in any case Alfred, its just a better experience on the whole.  There are Jews! 

EDIT: I've never seen Russia get anywhere close to being that big, the most I think I've ever seen is the annexation of Poland and maybe a tiny bit more of the Ottoman sphere.  The only country I'm accustomed to seeing go nuclear (besides France, Austria and Poland) is Ming, which usually expands pretty quickly into South-East Asia.  Thailand (or whatever the contemporary equivalent was, Ayyahua or something weird) often expands into Malacca, but that's not that impossible. 

Quote

No, I think it was something to do with the ragtag union of slavs and mongols called  "Russia" sporting a much bigger population.

Ragtag union of Mongols and Slavs?  Who  does that remind me of again?  Hmmmm?

Quote
Oh FFS sure the sun was shinging from Kazan asses. And Hungarians, coming from that region, adopted more western culture by the time of EU3's start date, than those assorted remaining people there ever did until present day.

This was when the height of Western Culture outside of Italy meant being able to quote Aristotle's opinions on theology.  I don't see your point, and it is a fair bet that Russian and contemporary Magyar rates of education were similar, as Russia already had a pretty strong vernacular (and Slavonic, near vernacular) language in fairly common usage, though the Mongols and rise of Muscovy were very detrimental to Russia's literacy rates.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 12, 2009, 03:56:42 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Spellus, I was reviewing the map of my game--1655--and Russia is out of control. Highest techs, has almost colonized to the pacific ocean,has moved into the Middle East, Persia, and even Pakistan (India and the Ming seem to be in trouble). Right now I have the second highest income, and they are more than twice mine.

a) Are you sure this is rare?
b) Is there any way for me to break them up? As England, my manpower is about a tenth of theirs, so a land war that doesn't involve a grand alliance is probably out of the question. Their stability costs are probably through the roof, if I use all my spies destabilizing them for the next 100 years, would that have a possible effect? Right now the cost to do that is 100, and the chance of success is 30%. I'd hate to do that and then have them launch a counter spy campaign against me.

That sounds like a tough nut to crack.  I know that as a player I don't think I've ever expanded that much as Russia, as after a certain point all it does is add cost to stability. 

I think that if you could find some kind of coalition of countries able to tie it down, if not outright win, a war against them, then I think there's really not a whole lot you can do other then try to be friends with it.  I bet that if you were to go into the save file, give them a shitty monarch (which would have been bound to happen, anyway), and keep hitting away at their stability while in a war, their manpower will eventually go down (VERY IMPORTANT) and they might-might- have to deal with huge national rebellions especially in Heathen areas. 

That said, I don't really know, I've never seen anything like that happen in Vanilla as I almost always play MMP, where I've never seen Russia grow to its natural size starting at 1453, let alone become Orwell's Eurasia.  IIRC, in Vanilla province specific cause rebellions are more useful, but you probably don't have enough spies to make that effective.

Shame about the spy efficiency; Russia often chooses the Espionage national idea, and if they choose Internal Security you are profoundly screwed.  If not, then get a good spymaster and/or Espionage, and go nuts when Russia has a bad monarch.   


You might want to consider upgrading to MMP in any case Alfred, its just a better experience on the whole.  There are Jews! 

EDIT: I've never seen Russia get anywhere close to being that big, the most I think I've ever seen is the annexation of Poland and maybe a tiny bit more of the Ottoman sphere.  The only country I'm accustomed to seeing go nuclear (besides France, Austria and Poland) is Ming, which usually expands pretty quickly into South-East Asia.  Thailand (or whatever the contemporary equivalent was, Ayyahua or something weird) often expands into Malacca, but that's not that impossible. 

On the Paradox board someone mentioned it is probably a result of my start date. 1493 is a date that the golden horde has collapsed, making AI mega russia possible.

What do you think would happen if I just use spies to lower their stability over a period of time? Since they can't attack me, would they respond with espionage as well?

Quote from: Queequeg on June 12, 2009, 03:56:42 PM
You might want to consider upgrading to MMP in any case Alfred, its just a better experience on the whole.  There are Jews! 

I tried upgrading to MMP, it was just too slow.  Big slow down at the end of every month, while vanilla runs like a dream.

Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 01:23:31 PM
I'm getting a little irritated in my Scotland game.  As mentioned I wanted to weaken England and keep her as "little England", with Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall all free (plus have her lose her continental possessions).  After about 3 wars I've largely done that.

But England keeps DOWing as soon as truces are up.  Not usually on me, but on the British minors I've guaranteed.  So I keep having to spank England, which is at significant cost to me.

Maybe I need to swallow up even more of the place (don't want to do that for RP purposes)?  Maybe I just need to force-vassalize (that could be tough though - so far no way to reach Meath due to the English Navy)?  Or maybe I should take provinces then sell to Wales/Cornwall?

You have to strip more provinces from them if you want them to be docile.  If you don't want the provinces yourself, then selling them to Wales and Cornwall is probably the way to go.  Note that since provinces other than their core provinces are probably in the wrong culture group for those countries, you may have to offer to sell the provinces to them at a price of 0 in order for them to accept.

Quote from: dps on June 12, 2009, 06:12:44 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 01:23:31 PM
I'm getting a little irritated in my Scotland game.  As mentioned I wanted to weaken England and keep her as "little England", with Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall all free (plus have her lose her continental possessions).  After about 3 wars I've largely done that.

But England keeps DOWing as soon as truces are up.  Not usually on me, but on the British minors I've guaranteed.  So I keep having to spank England, which is at significant cost to me.

Maybe I need to swallow up even more of the place (don't want to do that for RP purposes)?  Maybe I just need to force-vassalize (that could be tough though - so far no way to reach Meath due to the English Navy)?  Or maybe I should take provinces then sell to Wales/Cornwall?

You have to strip more provinces from them if you want them to be docile.  If you don't want the provinces yourself, then selling them to Wales and Cornwall is probably the way to go.  Note that since provinces other than their core provinces are probably in the wrong culture group for those countries, you may have to offer to sell the provinces to them at a price of 0 in order for them to accept.

Great - thanks for that.  Selling at a price of 0 is acceptable to me.  Hell, even knowing I'll probably have to march my own armies in to put down any revolts is worth it to me.

Gah - these fucking Englishmen - they just don't know when they're beat!

Everything in France is gone.  Meath is gone.  Wales is independent.  Cornwall is independent - and owns Sussex for good measure.  Scotland (me) owns Cumbria, Northumberland, and Yorkshire.

And yet still as soon as the truce's are up England DOWs someone.


I'm going to try one more round of simply taking away provinces.  If that doesn't work I'll just have to force-vassalize the suckers.

Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2009, 12:59:09 PM
Gah - these fucking Englishmen - they just don't know when they're beat!

Everything in France is gone.  Meath is gone.  Wales is independent.  Cornwall is independent - and owns Sussex for good measure.  Scotland (me) owns Cumbria, Northumberland, and Yorkshire.

And yet still as soon as the truce's are up England DOWs someone.


I'm going to try one more round of simply taking away provinces.  If that doesn't work I'll just have to force-vassalize the suckers.

Why not just take them over and become GB?

It is 1687 in my game, and I just destroyed Portugal in my first major war since defeating Scotland almost 200 years before. I wanted to vassalize them, but apparently I need a war score of 487%? I guess that isn't in the cards, which is too bad because I was thinking of pacifying Europe as my vassals.

I think I'm going to give up and start over, with a mod. The game is a little silly with the map looking more like 1850 than 1687. With the exception of the central US, all of North and South America is colonized, and more of the central US isn't because I've colonized a circle around it so no one else has access. Africa has largely been conquered. Southern India is European free, but Russia has moved into the North (Russia as a monster is apparently common if you use my start date, because Muscovy has united quite a bit of the region and the GH has desintegrated).

3 things I want to do:

1) Significantly slow down colonization in the New World and Africa (by making colonists appear 1/5 as often and removing native countries besides the aztecs and incas)
2) Keeping Russia from becoming so silly (I think removing Siber and replacing it with natives might do the trick)
3) Making the game more difficult (I'm going to see if I can make things so for every non-core province I own max stability is reduced by 1).

Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2009, 05:44:16 PM
I wanted to vassalize them, but apparently I need a war score of 487%? I guess that isn't in the cards

Which may be a problem for BB if he tries to force-vassalize England.  He probably needs to get them down to 5 or fewer provinces before he can get the war score needed to force-vassalize them down to 100 or less.  Depends in part on which provinces and how valuable they are.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2009, 05:35:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2009, 12:59:09 PM
Gah - these fucking Englishmen - they just don't know when they're beat!

Everything in France is gone.  Meath is gone.  Wales is independent.  Cornwall is independent - and owns Sussex for good measure.  Scotland (me) owns Cumbria, Northumberland, and Yorkshire.

And yet still as soon as the truce's are up England DOWs someone.


I'm going to try one more round of simply taking away provinces.  If that doesn't work I'll just have to force-vassalize the suckers.

Why not just take them over and become GB?

A. It would be no different than if I had started as England then, and
B. I wanted to try playing a innovative, naval, free-trading state (which is the complete opposite of how I usually played EU2).   Already I'm way behind track with all these wars, but trying to conquer all of Britain would make it almost impossible.

And with another round of peeling provinces off (maybe one for me, and one each for my Cornish and Welsh allies) England should be down to 5-6 provinces and vassalizable...

How big is their army relative to yours?

I've revised the game files so that in the future only the Aztecs, Inca, and Zapotec will be present in the new world and subsaharan africa. I also reduced all events and settings that give colonists so that they only give 1/5 as many.

Since I've been playing 1493, a major problem is that the Russians seem to be majorly overpowered. Russia has essentially been united by this period, so they are strong, but in the south and west only have very weak neighbors. I don't know how to keep them from going too far south (or even out of India), but I've replaced Siber, Kazakh, and Nogai with native tribes to slow them down. I've also replaced Sibir with very docile populations to try to ease them into going west. The major problem is that by crushing the Ottomans from the North, they make Europe a lot less interesting, so I want to avoid that.

We will see how this goes.

:bleeding:

England is reduced to a rump state of 4 provinces - basically London, Kent, East Anglia and Oxfordshire.  Wales has as many provinces.

And yet still the English AI provokes a war against an Irish minor, despite me warning England, me guaranteeing the minor, and Wales being in an alliance with the minor.

Last war with England at 5 provinces I still couldn't vassalize.  Lets try this time around...




Alfred - I think you should run more games, or at least simulations, before you base your entire mod around weakening Russia.  Back in EU2 I remember testing mods by picking a random 3rd world minor, turning off all notifications, and letting the game run beginning to end hands-off, in order to test mods.  Try doing something like that perhaps.

Wales snuck in and grabbed Oxfordshire - and only then could I vassalize a 3-province England. :bleeding:

Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2009, 12:59:40 PM

Alfred - I think you should run more games, or at least simulations, before you base your entire mod around weakening Russia.  Back in EU2 I remember testing mods by picking a random 3rd world minor, turning off all notifications, and letting the game run beginning to end hands-off, in order to test mods.  Try doing something like that perhaps.

I gave it a try.

Colonization was much better, around 1630 only the coasts of the US were colonized and Africa was essentially untouched. By the end of the game the new world was almost filled, so things may still be a bit fast. The coasts of Africa were incompletely colonized with only the interior of South Africa touched. I think I'll turn the speed of new colonists down further from 1/5 to 1/7.

Russian colonization also went much better. Instead of hitting the pacific around 1680, they never reached the pacific, being a couple of provinces shy. Unfortunately, GB colonized there ahead of them anyway.

Europe was interesting. The Ottoman Empire was very strong, camped outside of Vienna. Austria was also strong, uniting most of Germany and a couple provinces off of France. Despite Russia holding most of Scandanavia in the mid 1600s, Denmark made a big comeback and took back most of Scandanavia as well as north Germany.

The horrible aspect of the game was that the Ottomans dominated Russia from the south and held Moscow for most of the game. I didn't weaken Russia that much, I just removed 3 of its weaker neighbors. I'll add one of them back in to see how things go.

One other thing that went totally awry: Manchu made it to the Caspian. :rolleyes:

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 06:24:37 AM
Russian colonization also went much better. Instead of hitting the pacific around 1680, they never reached the pacific, being a couple of provinces shy. Unfortunately, GB colonized there ahead of them anyway.

Of course, historically, Russia had reached the Americas by 1730ish.

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2009, 10:13:26 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 06:24:37 AM
Russian colonization also went much better. Instead of hitting the pacific around 1680, they never reached the pacific, being a couple of provinces shy. Unfortunately, GB colonized there ahead of them anyway.

Of course, historically, Russia had reached the Americas by 1730ish.

I think there is some room for debate over what a "city" means. Paradox seems to be taking a rather expansive view, with for example almost all of the US being filled by the mid 18th century, with the central region occupied by France. I'd prefer to take a more conservative view that those were essentially claims, similar to trading posts in EU2, but not rising to the level of cities. I don't think I'd consider Alaska to be settled until the gold rush after the EU period.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
I think there is some room for debate over what a "city" means. Paradox seems to be taking a rather expansive view, with for example almost all of the US being filled by the mid 18th century, with the central region occupied by France. I'd prefer to take a more conservative view that those were essentially claims, similar to trading posts in EU2, but not rising to the level of cities. I don't think I'd consider Alaska to be settled until the gold rush after the EU period.

I haven't played eu3 in a while. They've only cities?

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2009, 11:32:03 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
I think there is some room for debate over what a "city" means. Paradox seems to be taking a rather expansive view, with for example almost all of the US being filled by the mid 18th century, with the central region occupied by France. I'd prefer to take a more conservative view that those were essentially claims, similar to trading posts in EU2, but not rising to the level of cities. I don't think I'd consider Alaska to be settled until the gold rush after the EU period.

I haven't played eu3 in a while. They've only cities?

No, they also have colonies, but colony growth rates are such that they quickly become cities.

So I finally get England under control, and now 5-province Wales has turned into a warmonger!

<_<

Why can't the British Isles just get along?



Also I was quite astonished - I was just magically given English culture.  How does that work?

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
So I finally get England under control, and now 5-province Wales has turned into a warmonger!

<_<

Why can't the British Isles just get along?



Also I was quite astonished - I was just magically given English culture.  How does that work?

If a given percentage of your realm have a non-accepted culture, it becomes accepted. It works both ways, so if you would happen to lose your scottish territories, in time you would lose scottish as accepted culture.

Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2009, 02:30:25 PM
If a given percentage of your realm have a non-accepted culture, it becomes accepted. It works both ways, so if you would happen to lose your scottish territories, in time you would lose scottish as accepted culture.

Nah, not for primary culture (although if another culture is the culture of your capital and is the majority culture, you can switch your primary culture).

Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2009, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
So I finally get England under control, and now 5-province Wales has turned into a warmonger!

<_<

Why can't the British Isles just get along?



Also I was quite astonished - I was just magically given English culture.  How does that work?

If a given percentage of your realm have a non-accepted culture, it becomes accepted. It works both ways, so if you would happen to lose your scottish territories, in time you would lose scottish as accepted culture.

The percentages are calculated on the basis of cores, so you probably just got cores on some of the English provinces you took earlier.

And the tweaks I worked this morning were close to perfect both in the New World and Africa. Slightly less activity in the far east that would be preferred, but not too bad.

Russia did much better too, colonizing all the way to the pacific but still with a few provinces to fill in. They took part of Scandanavia and did better against the Ottomans, though the OE still drove into Russia.

The big problem is that the OE isn't attacking the Ak Koyunlu country, whatever that is. It sits in historic OE territory but the OE doesn't fight it. I'm going to make one last tweak by making that an OE enemy in the OE AI files and see what happens. With a new focus for the OE, that may take some of the pressure off of Russia as well.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 07:04:11 PM
The big problem is that the OE isn't attacking the Ak Koyunlu country, whatever that is. It sits in historic OE territory but the OE doesn't fight it.

Historically, they did fight although the Ottomans only gained that territory after taking it from Persia.

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2009, 07:11:59 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 15, 2009, 07:04:11 PM
The big problem is that the OE isn't attacking the Ak Koyunlu country, whatever that is. It sits in historic OE territory but the OE doesn't fight it.

Historically, they did fight although the Ottomans only gained that territory after taking it from Persia.

Yeah, the ME is messed up a lot of the time as a strong Safavid Empire doesn't come up on its own. 

Alfred'll love this.

In my slow-moving Scotland game, the Scottish nation proudly crosses the Atlantic in the 1470s.  First we discover Greenland, and then Newfoundland.

Where the existing Castillian colony greats us.

Sacra Romanum Imperium 4.0 is out! It includes the Great Power system which will be included in MM Platinum 2:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=381384

Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2009, 12:43:02 AM
Alfred'll love this.

In my slow-moving Scotland game, the Scottish nation proudly crosses the Atlantic in the 1470s.  First we discover Greenland, and then Newfoundland.

Where the existing Castillian colony greats us.

:(

I've run a bunch of games, and I can't fix the russia/middle east issues. The only thing I will do is take out Kazakh, which is Russia's gateway into India and Russia never conquered (according to the paradox maps), and slow down colonization to 1/7 speed.

Having run many games, and not having messed with Europe, a few things I've seen: Portugal and Spain seem to be steady, GB almost always forms, the german minors usually are swallowed (often by Austria), and the Netherlands never forms. In my last game, France was reduced to a 3 province country, mainly by Austria--which seemed to be quite unusual.

Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
I think that considering Russia as "Western Europe" is a bit of a stretch there, Beeb. :P

I've played as Russia and gotten to Western Europe?  Does that count?

I'm adding an event that will give me a max of 2 stability for owning a province with nationalism, and having a house rule that I can't have more than 1 province with nationalism at a time.

Here are the countries I'm considering for my next game:
a) Portugal
b) Venice
c) Milan
d) Brandenburg
e) Baden

Anyone have a suggestion? I'm leaning toward Brandenburg.

My suggestion: try SRI 4.0 I linked a couple of posts ago. I have just started a Burgundy game from 1399 and the diplomatic field feels so much more logical than vanilla's.

It seems that the modders managed to script via events and hardcoded AI behavior an AI which actually takes past relations into considerations, and due to the Great Powers or "Big 7" system, the 7 leading european military powers (AI ones) recognize each other and direct their diplomatic relations based on their own situation in relation to the other 6.

Quote from: Tamas on June 17, 2009, 11:20:01 AM
My suggestion: try SRI 4.0 I linked a couple of posts ago. I have just started a Burgundy game from 1399 and the diplomatic field feels so much more logical than vanilla's.

It seems that the modders managed to script via events and hardcoded AI behavior an AI which actually takes past relations into considerations, and due to the Great Powers or "Big 7" system, the 7 leading european military powers (AI ones) recognize each other and direct their diplomatic relations based on their own situation in relation to the other 6.

While I'm not doubting that there are improvements made, I'll probably only play a few games and am in BB's camp of preferring to play vanilla rather than mods.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 17, 2009, 12:38:30 PM

Quote from: Tamas on June 17, 2009, 11:20:01 AM
My suggestion: try SRI 4.0 I linked a couple of posts ago. I have just started a Burgundy game from 1399 and the diplomatic field feels so much more logical than vanilla's.

It seems that the modders managed to script via events and hardcoded AI behavior an AI which actually takes past relations into considerations, and due to the Great Powers or "Big 7" system, the 7 leading european military powers (AI ones) recognize each other and direct their diplomatic relations based on their own situation in relation to the other 6.

While I'm not doubting that there are improvements made, I'll probably only play a few games and am in BB's camp of preferring to play vanilla rather than mods.

Well it is up to you but you are missing out on a lot, and perhaps you are driven by your mod-experiences with previous Paradox products. However, the reason I play SRI instead of MM, is that SRI is completely missing the straight-jacketing aspect of all the older major mods I know (for EU2 and Victoria). It "only" adds some major historical layers where they are most desperately needed, ie. the HRE and wars of religion. You can check out its manual and see the massive event chains for the religious stuff for example, which try hard to concentrate on the reasons, and not the exact happenings, of those events.

Plus there are lots of other improvements, just check the manual.

Alfred, why don't you try MMP?  It balances quite a bit out, and Russia and the Mid-East are fairly well balanced (though if you are that concerned about Mid-East/Central Asian balance, start at around 1520, when the Safavids are set up and Kazan is mostly out of the way).

Quote from: Queequeg on June 17, 2009, 06:09:03 PM
Alfred, why don't you try MMP?  It balances quite a bit out, and Russia and the Mid-East are fairly well balanced (though if you are that concerned about Mid-East/Central Asian balance, start at around 1520, when the Safavids are set up and Kazan is mostly out of the way).

SRI is superior, Safavids or no Safavids.

How is colonization in SRI?

Quote from: Solmyr on June 18, 2009, 06:31:13 AM
How is colonization in SRI?

Its been a while I played a country concerned with that (right now I plan on making burgundy into a sea power, however).

IIRC, in the previous version of the mod, around 1560 only some coastal areas were painted in the americas, mostly the north and by castile and portugal, altough not take my word for it, because its been a while.

I love this game.

When starting out with Burgundy (SRI 4.0), England and France both courted me for favor. I decided to gang up against the English for my core Calais. This was the first strategic mistake. I helped France get England out of her back, and eased them into not looking eastward for the time being. So they hit Aragon and Castile hard. The latter so hard, that around 1490ish they collapsed, ressurecting Granada.

But thats not the point. Protestantism started in 1503, followed by Reformation in a few years.
By this time I was colonizing Canada. Having not many colonists per year, and seeing how Reformed religion gives 10% bonus on colony growth, I converted when one of my provinces went Reformed. Strategic mistake #2.

Its funny how my original plan was to be the Netherlands which could had been. Conversion plumetted my stability, and apart from religious revolts, Luxembourg trying to get free, I had a pretender rise in my French territories (Franche-Comte and thereabouts). And to make matters worse, I became the junior partner in a Personal Union with Gelre.

So my plan to fasten my colonization actually almost stopped it. It's 1526, and the pesky French and English have joined me in the landgrab for the NE Canada coast, while Portugal, and to a lesser extent Castile, crawled up on the NE USA territories.
Yes, colonization is a bit too fast, but I dont care much, the rest is just too awesome.

Back to religion: France has all 3 religions but they are huge so they seem to be able to handle it. Germany is dotted with various religions but most of the minors havent converted away from catholicism yet. Bohemia, usual Emperor, decided to fight the heretics (event choice which gets announced globally), so did Hungary but they got also attacked by Austria so they collapsed. England was among the first to have Reformed province(s), but managed to convert them back to catholicism. In other words, the religious mess is in full swing.

Great fun. :)

Started a game with Brandenburg, having reduced colonization to 1/7 speed and removed the native nations (except Inca and Aztecs).

I'm playing with the house rule that for every noncore province I own, my max stability is reduced one (I use a cheat to reduce it when it gets higher).

So far, it is a lot of fun. I'm on the edge of my seat trying to keep good relations with Poland, which could crush me at will. I've taken one province so far when rebels from Bohemia declared independance and I promptly declared war on the ally-less country and annexed it. I don't think it makes sense to have more than 2 noncore provinces at a time, with the stability limits. Diplomacy is definately the key to survival--I just have to be sure to stay cozied up to the winners. Right now only Poland is near me, but Austria, Russia, and the OE are all getting closer.

How is SRI different from MMP?  Sell me, Magyar. 

Quote from: Queequeg on June 19, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
How is SRI different from MMP?  Sell me, Magyar.

It has much less direct stearing of the gameplay, most notably colonization. Yes, this makes colonization a bit too fast, but MMP's "solution" basically eliminates colonization as a game feature, and makes it a tedious scripted story.

SRI already has the enchanced AI MMP's next version will have.

I very rarely play colonizing powers, anyway.  Not for me. 

Quote from: Queequeg on June 19, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
I very rarely play colonizing powers, anyway.  Not for me.

I love playing ahistorical colonizers myself.

I once had a great Hussite Bohemian North America empire going in EU2... :w00t:


And I was starting to get bored or my Scotland game, but you guys just reminded me I'll hit the Reformation any day now... :shifty:

Quote from: Queequeg on June 19, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
I very rarely play colonizing powers, anyway.  Not for me.

:huh:

Well, forgot one more thing: there are wars in SRI

Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2009, 03:41:37 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on June 19, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
I very rarely play colonizing powers, anyway.  Not for me.

I love playing ahistorical colonizers myself.

I once had a great Hussite Bohemian North America empire going in EU2... :w00t:


And I was starting to get bored or my Scotland game, but you guys just reminded me I'll hit the Reformation any day now... :shifty:

Sadly, after SRI I could not go back to vanilla's reformation. It can be very hit or miss.

You've convinced me - I'll try SRI once I'm done this game.

Which at the rate I play, should be August...

Does it have all the new religions of MMP?  Oriental Orthogox, Bogomil, Ibadi, etc..?  The new culture?

Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2009, 03:41:37 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on June 19, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
I very rarely play colonizing powers, anyway.  Not for me.

I love playing ahistorical colonizers myself.

I once had a great Hussite Bohemian North America empire going in EU2... :w00t:


And I was starting to get bored or my Scotland game, but you guys just reminded me I'll hit the Reformation any day now... :shifty:

Unfortunately, the reformation is screwed up. It seems Sweden is almost always Catholic. However, Austria is protestant in my current game. I strategically stayed Catholic as Brandenburg because I'm next to Poland who can snuff me out at will, but most of my provinces never converted anyway.

Alfred, if you want a challenging non-European game try Persia after Tahmasp Ist.  You are smaller than present day Iran, and on both sides of you you have more innovative religious enemies who just happen to be two of the largest Empires in the world.  Very challenging, and not in a frustrating way.  Starting with the early reign of Abbas I is really fun, as you have a great monarch and much work to do.  It is also a great tutorial in the usage of espionage, as you are a monoethnic, monoreligious state with the national idea going up against two huge no-majority states whose most important areas are heathen.   

Whats that key again to make that global screenshot?

I think I have ran my Burgundy game to the ground. :(

Having not recovered from the religious civil war at all, barely reaching -2 stability, I declared war on the Creek and Shawnee who bordered my growing American colonies, in a fear of letting the spanish or french conquer them, since the Hurons and Iroquis had been gone to these powers already.

I did manage to conquer them, but with the liberal realm I had built, stability became a major issue. Revolts have been following each other. Natives in America, and freckin' Protestant Zealots at home. Even some Quebec separatists in Canada. BTW I became a merchant republic somewhere along the way to can become more plutocratic.

With inflation running amock, my inflation is out of control, and following a crushing defeat against a big zealot army, I dont really have the money to build a big army in a reasonable amount of time.

Gonna start a game as Ottomans I think. :P

Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2009, 03:14:33 AM
Whats that key again to make that global screenshot?

F12 I think.

Dammit, Austria at GC start is STRONG. As OE, I had to resort to running: when they attack, I just run back to Asia, seal off the Dardanelles with my navy, and wait until war exhaustion makes the Austrian sign peace in exchange of some money.

I was not helped by the fact that by 1515 they have Hungary, Croatia, and Bosnia, and they are Emperor. Funnily enough, when they were first Emperors, formed Imperial Demense out of most of western Hungary, but after two non-Habsburg Emperors they have got the title back.

Bohemia regularly guarantees my independence, clearly in order to seek a joint fight against Austria, but the tricky Austrian AI just DoWs one of my Balkan vassals, getting around that problem. Altough by now only Moldavia remains as a European vassal of mine.

In other news: I managed to Westernize, I had two very talented Sultans following each other, the first managed to strengthen the country, the second was talented enough to pull Westernization off, so now I am in Latin tech group, but can't come out of -2 stability since.

Funny war: Genoa guaranteed me recently, and I think this was the reason why France declared war on me because they never attempted to land, just went after Genoese territory in Italy. Their ally, Spain, was happy to wage war on an other guarantor (?) of mine, Algiers. And I just sat there. :D

But there was also a recent gang-up on me which started around 1504 or so: When Austria came for his latest war, the Mameluks, whom I have started to take apart, declared war also. So I just sealed the Dardanelles off and proceeded to attack them, but then Georgia felt like hitting me, which prompted the Knights-Morea-Naxos-Cyprus alliance to join the fun. So I had to give Kosovo to Austria, and also cancelling my vassalization of Serbia, but I got Damascus and Cyprus out of it.

Two interesting developments: Denmark was lucky enough to inherit both Norway and Sweden so they are now called Scandinavia, and England, sorry, Great Britain is really on steroids in this game: by 1515 they already annexed Creek, Shawnee and the Aztecs.  :huh:

Here is teh world:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg195.imageshack.us%2Fimg195%2F1435%2Feu3maptur151510111.th.png&hash=eb921dbfd552164ac4bb70007bf40d82a748e9fc) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/eu3maptur151510111.png/)

The game with Brandenburg has been interesting--I think the house rule of reducing stability by 1 for every non core province owned was a good idea. It hasn't kept me from slowly becoming the major European Power mid tier power. I've stayed closely allied to Poland for protection, and have actually had to use diplomacy to keep the balance of power in line within northern germany. The major problems I face going forward are Russia moving into Poland which damages my major ally, and Austria moving into north Germany. But the game is still fairly easy, unfortunately.

How is Hungary? They seem like they could be difficult as they share borders with Austria, Poland, the OE, and sometimes Russia, but then they always seem to start with a lot of territory so under a player's control they may be fairly easy as well.

Tamas; I think you are largely boned as the Ottomans.  Keeping stability costs down is the main goal as the Ottomans, at least until you are big enough to not care that much anymore.  That's the primary problem with multinational Empires, especially if in SRI Turkish is under the Turkic rather than Semitc branch, as you'll have loads of problems conquering the Arab World. 

The HRE changes had such promise, but are so totally screwed up. Russia has become a monster in my game, and keeps getting elected emperor despite not having much land in the HRE (maybe a couple provinces). This is after one and two province countries kept getting elected earlier in the game.

As far as I am concerned, electors should be prohibited from voting for a different religion and then should vote based on army size and prestige, with army size carrying most of the vote. That way if a majority of electors stay catholic, Austria will almost always be emperor, which just happens to be what actually occurred.

So I finished my game with Brandenberg as  the worldwide tech leader with about 35k ducats in the bank and a good chunk of northern germany--I was bigger than prussia was in 1820. I don't think any of my neighbors could beat me in a war, including France (even though they had a much larger army, mine was very high quality and not led by the AI). The house rule of reducing stability by 1 for every non core province was crucial to keeping the game interesting.

Russia was totally jumping the shark in my game though. It was in the process of conquering China when the game ended and it already had Iran and much of the middle east. Even with an army 7 times greater than mine, I was able to beat it in a war fairly easily--I don't think the AI could manage all that territory. I was getting waves of small armies sent against me which I easily handled.

Not being able to take capitals in peace is teh suck.

And the HRE is really odd.
Somehow Burgundy became the Imperial Demense and now passes between whoever is the empire- mostly rather small nation.

Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2009, 10:06:44 AM
Not being able to take capitals in peace is teh suck.

You can do that, at least in vanilla, although I think you may need 100% occupation to take the capital (and it becomes the only province you take in the peace).

Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2009, 10:06:44 AM
Not being able to take capitals in peace is teh suck.

And the HRE is really odd.
Somehow Burgundy became the Imperial Demense and now passes between whoever is the empire- mostly rather small nation.

The HRE had such promise how they introduced it into the game, and then they totally screwed up the process of selecting emperor. That seems odd considering how easy it would be to fix that, in one of the many patches or expansion packs.

Dammit!
Once more my attempts to play EU3 have been foiled.
As I get into the 17th century and all is well with my empire suddenly the game turns on me. At maximum speed one game day takes four real world seconds. Ouch.