Lol, did you read the "most cases" part?
Or do you really think Siberia and Western africa are common case? Maybe you`r huge empire should waste it`s NIs to conviniently pacify a smalish part of it?
Worst National Ideas
- Thread starter knul
- Start date
-
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.
Or do you really think Siberia and Western africa are common case? Maybe you`r huge empire should waste it`s NIs to conviniently pacify a smalish part of it?
Even in europe having +50% deffensiveness, and possibility of increasing by +50%, target fort deffensiveness, is very usefull, aspecialy in while in a big war, when you may have not enough time to defeat the rebels on the back, while facing enemy on the front, without it. Plus increase in siege skill, make enemy forts fall far quicker...
Every idea is usefull in specific situation. Glorious arms idea is very usefull when you want a lot of prestige for SoI, since one won battle can give a nice +10 prestige with it.
Spy defence idea helps against those little HRE spammers which are quite annyoing.
Espionage helps when you have to tear down all enemy colonies.
Prestige boost from naval battles may be usefull in 5.2, where naval battles are not instant annihilation, still I find it least usefull idea.
Tolerance ideas are helpfull too since it's much cheaper to tolerate other religions instead of converting them. (But I still convert them since it's more fun
)
Spy defence idea helps against those little HRE spammers which are quite annyoing.
Espionage helps when you have to tear down all enemy colonies.
Prestige boost from naval battles may be usefull in 5.2, where naval battles are not instant annihilation, still I find it least usefull idea.
Tolerance ideas are helpfull too since it's much cheaper to tolerate other religions instead of converting them. (But I still convert them since it's more fun
)
Prestige from naval battles... most useless thing in the game, since the naval battles are rare, and are not reliable source of prestige, plus those battles give only little prestige. They are rare, because enemy rarely allows situations in which he fights your bigger fleet, and if your fleet is smaller, you do the same. Maybe in 5.2 it will change a little, but only a little. So glorious arms is still 1000 times better than naval glory, and it is still crap...
Getting 10 more prestige from a BIG battle is not useful at all. If you expand your SoI, you come quite fast to the point where it's costing at least 30 to add new countries to your SoI. So you maybe get 20 prestige more out of 1 year of war against an somewhat similar strong state or coalition. That's incredible bad in any way and not really useful in increasing you SoI, especially since it sucks even more if your SoI gets bigger.
So, no Glorious Arms and Naval Glory (which is way worse) are by far the worst NIs and should never be picked or at least I cannot imagine a single situation in which they were useful.
So, no Glorious Arms and Naval Glory (which is way worse) are by far the worst NIs and should never be picked or at least I cannot imagine a single situation in which they were useful.
Unless, Glorious arms will be given a decision, that requires it, and is realy awesome, i would not take glorious arms at any time...
Even then, it would be still abused like CAD is now with Gilded. I fear Glorious Arms is beyond redemption.
CAD was good allways. Having -33% discount on stability is quite good thing, gilded is just a nice addon to already good NI.
Except for GI, CAD is situational. Colonizers, for example, don't benefit much from it. (Of course, while crusaders benefit from it, crusaders benefit from a lot of NIs; prioritization is key).
Colonizers benefit more than land european powers from CAD, as it decreases stability(and with much colonies stab cost is high), but on the other hand this is not prioritized NI, as they need colonization NI's before being free to use other NI's. Whatever after a colonizers have colonized all provinces in the world, and reasarched whole world provincesin sea and land, they no more need colonization NI's, and they can then just switch them.
well , apparently they fot removed with DW , but i didn't took that idea since the release ... I really hated it when I lost forts
Now the bonus question it's fine to have +1 siege bonus on generals , but most of my sieging is dont with small units , like 2-3 inf regiments without a leader ... so it suddenly becomes much less interesting!
That's the thing. CAD is nice to have, it's just that there's a lot of NIs that are nice to have. (Should have been more clear.)
Crusaders, meanwhile, need military NIs more.
Bottom line, CAD is great for mature powers and powers that are Westernizing. It's not as useful for powers that are in their early expansion phases, or for a hyperteching strategy. (I know you don't do early hypertech rushes, Iwanow, but I'm mentioning them because they're a valid move within the Empire.)
Crusaders, meanwhile, need military NIs more.
Bottom line, CAD is great for mature powers and powers that are Westernizing. It's not as useful for powers that are in their early expansion phases, or for a hyperteching strategy. (I know you don't do early hypertech rushes, Iwanow, but I'm mentioning them because they're a valid move within the Empire.)
well , apparently they fot removed with DW , but i didn't took that idea since the release ... I really hated it when I lost forts
Now the bonus question it's fine to have +1 siege bonus on generals , but most of my sieging is dont with small units , like 2-3 inf regiments without a leader ... so it suddenly becomes much less interesting!
Well if you are big country like france, you have money, and you can make like 5 additional generals easily. Then you make bigger siege armies of 10k, with 4 artilery - and give them 2-3 siege general. Having like 5 such armies, makes sieging easier, and more safe, as 1-3 k stacks are easily wiped out, and such siege armies, can allways be merged to kill of weaker enemy stacks, or withdrawn to friendly provinces. Then you can at the same time, wait for enemy moves, and on the back of your armies, move support stacks, that will come if enemy tries to attack.
Tech rushes are nice, and i use them in some of my sp games(but for tech rush, you need to have one of certains countries, that are good for trading). Other than that i think we agree on that CAD is not the worst, but neither the best NI.
True, i think they are third worst NI, even with the decision they give, as you can just swap it, after taking the decision... They realy should make event that removes the decision if you don't have merchant adventures... it would make you obligated to keep it.
Nah. The worst NI is Ecumenism*, which causes an event that randomly changes your right-religion provinces to be wrong religion. That's far worse than an NI which is merely useless.
*In earlier expansions of the game, these events were associated with, IIRC, Humanist Tolerance.
Nowhere near as good as other things you cna get from NIs.
You have way more of far more usefull ideas to take, after which you usually do not care about induvidual provinces all that much.
So you want to use 14*5=70k troops to siege 5 provinces, instead of one 10k stack to guard them, and 30 2 k stacks, or 20 3k stacks doing the siege?
Not really, you save a lot of money on conversions, you get various province bonuses depending on religion, and you`re not limited by missionairs all that much.
It is not that usefull in Europe due to less religious fraction, but in the east, for India, China, and Japan, they are extreemly usefull, especially since you want to go Innovative as much as you can to catch up with the west.
This should be the case with all decisions that require certain NIs, govt types, and so on IMO.
True, but usefull enough to be NOT the worst. I think its usefullness makes it somewhere in the middle.
Maybe in SP, but even in SP it is quite usefull idea. I took it a few times.
I sad : 10K stacks. 10k. 10k. 10k. 10k. not 14k. Such 10k(2 cav, 4 inf, 4 art) stacks with 4 artilery, and 3 siege general, can take a fortress in few months, instead of few years. So you use six 10k stacks, to take forts in well propably 3-6 months if the fort is level 1 fort. For higher level fort you should take more artilery and enough infantry/cavalry to shield them + 2(so the propably flanked units don't expose your artilery for loses). So for fort level 2, you take 8 artilery and 10 additional units(4 cav, 6 inf), for fort level 3, you take 12 artilery and 14 units(6 cav, 8 inf), for fort level 4, you take 16 cavalry and 18 units(8 cav, 10 inf) etc. Ofc you can just use double force, but it would make you take atrition propably, and you want to keep atrition low as possible.
Well you can gain more growth for wrong religion provinces, with ecumenism, and lower revolt risk than from your own. But on the other side, you don't get cultural assimilation event, in provinces with wrong religion(so you get penalty for wrong culture).