Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

1.5 - Changes for Subjects: Protectorates/CNs/Vas/PU; Independence; feeding; more

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 81895 EUIV: Bug Reports 447 EUIV: Suggestions 19148 EUIV: Technical Support 6719 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Another question that may have already been asked:
Judging from the chart at the beginning of this thread, this theoretical chain should work: Western tech nation has a Muslim tech vassal, which, in turn, has an Indian tech vassal. Thus, on paper, a Western power could have an Indian tech vassal (or, alternatively, the muslim tech annexes the indian tech, which will then, in turn get annexed by the Western tech). Beyond the difficulties in setting up such a chain, is that all possible?
 
Dragonheart said:
I annexed the Maya (6 provinces).....cored 5 provinces and a CN formed. Then i annexed the atzecs and all provinces were transfered to the CN.
My CN run into massive overextension problemes, caused them to collapse....i run out of money and manpower when trying to help haunting down rebels. :(

According to the listed changes.....

....is it better to annex the atzecs first, core 5 provinces which should make a CN-blob where everything is cored......and then annex the smaller maya?

Which approach to you suggest?
Click to expand...

just as far as rebel patrolling, I suggest putting 10 infantry merc + 4 regular cavalry down there, should be more than enough to police the whole of central america, if you need to
 
Tom013 said:
AE is pretty regional in the new patches too, so you'll really be dealing mostly with coalitions in India and not Europe as well which makes it not quite as bad as it might first sound. Well, unless you're aggressive on both fronts, in which case you're kinda screwed.
Click to expand...

It's easy enough to avoid angering the other european nations, at least until the others get claims on indian provinces. The problem would be having to beat huge eastern coalitions every time I try to grab a couple of provinces. Also, coring all those rich provinces will be a nightmare... Anyway, just gonna wrap up my spain-is-the-emperor game and then figure out how to tackle this one. Cheers!
 
Need to know the answer, but what's with allies that for no reason whatsoever goes hostile on me and break up alliance? Is it scripting error or is it an attempt to simulate, say the nation trying to expand and feels like I'm on the way by giving an ally a small chance to go hostile every so often? Because I always take care of my allies, rep 150+, I give provinces after winning wars, send gifts when I have extra money, so it wouldn't be from lack of trying... seems like the emo A.I. also started only after 1.5, never seen that on 1.4.x
 
Loveeulongtime said:
Need to know the answer, but what's with allies that for no reason whatsoever goes hostile on me and break up alliance? Is it scripting error or is it an attempt to simulate, say the nation trying to expand and feels like I'm on the way by giving an ally a small chance to go hostile every so often? Because I always take care of my allies, rep 150+, I give provinces after winning wars, send gifts when I have extra money, so it wouldn't be from lack of trying... seems like the emo A.I. also started only after 1.5, never seen that on 1.4.x
Click to expand...

It's been in the game all along, so it's not a 1.5 thing. Basically they decided they wanted something you had. It is, generally speaking, intentional because it reflects the fact that even long-time allies can have their interests diverge. That said, it can happen in some weird (and unopportune for the AI) times. I recently watched a MUCH weaker Portugal flip hostile to my Spain (probably over a colonial holding in Africa) and break the alliance leaving them with NO alliances.
 
Should it be noted that if you force vassalize a country by war and that country has any colonial nations, all of those colonial nations will now be independent countries.
 
Homusubi said:
Why they suddenly group China, a country which was technologically ahead of everyone for some time, in the same "group" as Africa and the Americas beats me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to argue over technological advancement, but... I'll just point out that you start with an entirely incorrect premise: China is not in the same tech group as Africa OR ANYONE in America (and, in fact, both of those are separate from one another as well). Actually, the whole East-Asian tech group is named for China - "Chinese"

Also, how is this related to subjects?
 
When I said "group", I didn't mean tech group, I meant group in relation to protectorates. Chinese is considered "lower tech" by the developers for some reason, and that's what I'm wondering about.
 
Homusubi said:
When I said "group", I didn't mean tech group, I meant group in relation to protectorates. Chinese is considered "lower tech" by the developers for some reason, and that's what I'm wondering about.
Click to expand...

They aren't in the same "group" in relation to protectorates either though. They are protectoratized by Western (which is reasonably justified by the way western Europe dealt with most east Asian territory during the time period) but vassalizable by all other tech groups including Eastern (European). In any case, this is not the place to debate technology groups, and that is still what you are asking about because this is all based on tech group.
 
TheBloke said:
What you describe sounds exactly like the test I did. In my test, I DOW'd Ferrara who are a member of the empire. Therefore, Austria joined as Emperor, and brought some other allies as well. Austria became Warleader. I took control of Ferrara's one province, giving me 100% WS against Ferrara - but only 1% in the overall war. Then I did a Separate Peace with Ferrara, and chose to Full Annex them.

Which all sounds the same as your situation of DOWing Denmark, Lithuania becoming WL, and you then making a separate peace with Denmark.

What CB did you use?

Yeah it would be good if you could try and re-create it, in a non-Ironman game so you have saves available that can be checked.
Click to expand...

Yeah I used no CB for the first war.

I found out what is happening though I think. Denmark was in the process of integrating its vassal Holstein. This might have triggered the odd tooltip. Or maybe it happens all the time. Anyways, once I chipped off enough to get enough war score to annex in the last war, it worked. So it appears that it is just a misleading tooltip. When the target to annex is still too big and has a vassal the tooltip says that it is impossible because of the vassal when in fact the problem is just that the target is too big yet to get the war score down to 100%. I experimented with a few different situations using the console and that is what appears to be going on to me. Despite what the tooltip says having the vassal did not prevent annexation.

In my case, unfortunately I wasted too much time and Sweden managed to break off but I still got Norway and Holstein. Got a whole lot of over extension and aggressive expansion and some debt too. Still worth it but I could probably do a lot better job of it if I started over.

I noticed in my game that Poland has Lithuania as a PU and Moldova as a vassal. I think that would be another good target for this strategy. I probably will pass on it in this game since I am focusing on Naval. But if starting as Austria or Bohemia that might be worth a try.
 
Last edited:
ByteJunk said:
You might have better luck checking the right post. Looking forward to hear you complaining about 1.6.x AE crap! :rofl:
Click to expand...

I skimmed that and saw nothing about AE one way or the other.

The coalition mechanics are what needs work anyway, and AE is only a small part of that equation. The devs have shown clear issues with what's actually wrong with the 1.3 --> 1.4 --> 1.5 patch history, and possibly before that. The war score scaling system is fundamentally broken, and that makes coalition non-separate peace broken by extension. Coalitions are currently a mechanic designed to punish small nations when they expand and reward large ones for expanding by letting them bypass truces. Either that isn't WAD, or the design intent is very odd...

Ironically, the biggest issues with coalitions existed in 1.4 just the same as 1.3 and 1.5, but it was difficult to create them outside HRE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back