EU games are kind of like extra long (or incredibly short) rogue-likes if you start with a weaker nation.
Am I missing something or is this game just broken?
- Thread starter unmerged(783066)
- 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.
Interestingly enough I did practically the exact same as you, apart from conquering Ramazan's buddy instead of befriending them, did the whole Grand Navy thing, despite it being somewhat useless with the Mamluks not really caring about ships, converted all I could with my DoF missionary bonus, dumped admin into stability, got Ragusa (for 2 STA hit), got Zeta from quest.
Only thing I missed was the disband the army for mercs thing, as in history this has usually been a terrible idea, but I see how it could have fixed my problems.
Either way, by the sounds of it, everything would have gone just fine if it wasn't for the end of the world event.
Read the thread, will you? It's not the stability system per se that is the issue, it's the inclusion of a miniscule chance "kick you when youre down" event that I got rather unlucky with. -6 stability for a single event is just bull.
And a bit sad how you just scan everything and then act like you actually know what the hell you're talking about, the game would have been completely fine if it wasn't for that single event.
Please don't respond until you've properly read the thread, you have no idea what you're talking about and it sounds like you just want to feed your ego.
Look, on the positive side you now know what it means when you get a popup that another country informs you that they are suffering from Peasant's War, allowing you to feel properly sympathetic with the suffering AI. 
Additionally, you are unlikely to suffer it again anytime soon, as you will be careful not to deplete your manpower (or have it depleted by moronic allies), when your government is based on keeping the subjects under control by armed nobles.
Additionally, you are unlikely to suffer it again anytime soon, as you will be careful not to deplete your manpower (or have it depleted by moronic allies), when your government is based on keeping the subjects under control by armed nobles.
Considering it was worded the exact same as all the other conquer quests I had, and didn't pop up until I took care of the conquer Ramazan quest, I'm pretty sure at this point that the conquer Egypt quest was completely generic, as after taking back Adana we shared borders. Really not sure about the warscore, I was capable of taking a pretty large chunk of land, but I expected that had more to do with them being somewhat poor regions, IIRC only Allepo, Damascus and Judea had decent scores associated with them.
Annex Egypt has personal flavor text referring to the Shia faith, it is a special mission. When I played my Ottomans game, I had it almost the whole game as one of my options. Most of the time the missions I was given weren't possible to complete (that AI nation would never accept a royal marriage, for instance) and I'd decided from the beginning I wasn't going to try and take the Mamlukes.
Look, on the positive side you now know what it means when you get a popup that another country informs you that they are suffering from Peasant's War, allowing you to feel properly sympathetic with the suffering AI.
Additionally, you are unlikely to suffer it again anytime soon, as you will be careful not to deplete your manpower (or have it depleted by moronic allies), when your government is based on keeping the subjects under control by armed nobles.
Honestly, I think next time I play the demo or if they havn't fixed the whole retard vassals problem yet in the 1.0 version, I'll just set the idiots free and annex them if I care enough.
Talking about warscore by the way, was messing around with Austria a bit yesterday, sent the 66k army stack (in 4 stacks to not get too much attrition ofcourse) to Flanders to murder the rebels, only for them to become a seperate country halfway through that I was still at war with, after getting them to 100% I couldn't annex more then 2 of the 5 provinces and needed 134% to vassalize them which is just the most ahistorical nonsense ever, I understand this is necessary for conquest, but when it's one of your own rebels there should be some specific rule to absorb it back into the empire in one go.
I can't imagine the Habsburgers crushing a peasant rebellion and then giving over half the country independence anyway, because historically everyone thought that peasant leaders where really great guys right? Not to even mention the whole Pope propagated divine right logic that gave kings the legitimacy to rule in the first place.
I noticed a somewhat similar problem in CK2 where if you lost a bunch of land thanks to a CB that takes say a duchy or kingdom of land, you often couldn't get it back thanks to there being no CB available to you that can actually take that much land. Somewhat retarded you couldn't reconquer the land that the mongols took from you because your army was on the other side of the continent at the time.
Its not a kick you when your down, its simulating something that happened the nearest example I can think off is the French Revolution. Did they seize hunk chunks of land? No not really, but they did have high war exhaustion like you and in addition they were bankrupt compared to you. And the result? The end of the bourbon dynasty and a series of long conflicts in Europe that didn't really end till 1815 where then you had peace for awhile.
Think about it, you just wages what seemed to be an endless war that sapped the will of your people to fight, shook their faith in government with needless deaths (assuming some part of the war was mismanaged), waged an expensive war and taxed em more to fund your war (Assuming you raised war taxes), and depending on how low your manpower is have an entirely lost generation. Do you think they will be happy with you or will want to grab their pitch forks and torches and raise hell. Especially christians and other nations who are subjugated under your rule because they don't like you for being Muslim and/or want independence from your rule so now is the chance to grab it.
If you don't want this event then you need to manage your war exhaustion and have short wars. As Sun Tzu said, no nation has ever benefited from prolonged war. That also includes constant wars with one after the other without end as that set the stage for the dissolution of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires with the series of constant wars they had.
Also do not take too many provinces unless you are willing to risk that event or you have low war exhastion. I did the same thing, but my war exhaustion was 2 or 4 (Probabally why I didn't get the event) so I lowered it and then spent my time coring everything so they are integrated into my empire so get rid of over-extension.
Perhaps I missed something from your OP but I got a splitting head ache right now and I'll come back when its gone.
A lot of people here tell the OP to "learn how to play this game" or "seems PI games aren't something for you". But it rather seems that a lot of those should "learn how to post on a forum" or "seems PI forums aren't something for you". All those condescending guys are really obnoxious.
So when the Ottomans don't have the conquest of the Mamluks as DHE, what do they have?
So when the Ottomans don't have the conquest of the Mamluks as DHE, what do they have?
I'm rather skeptical about letting them annex the mamluks in one war. It probably isn't in the game because if they give them cores they just blob the entire map and if they don't they collapse from the amount of over extension.
This would apply to Spatial Anomaly's first post too, though. I don't agree with the condescending jerks either, but SA made a very rude and inflammatory opening post. It is no wonder people got annoyed at him considering this. He did change his attitude latter, though.
The have a text file of 71k of flavor events. This is bigger than most other countries and only smaller than England's and France's files. For example, once they do conquer Egypt, they get and event where the Sultan becomes the Khalifa, which gives them 400(!) adm points. They can also get special events with Mamluks revolts then, so not everything are roses.
I love how there are several threads about how EUIV is way too easy and soft and thus unplayable, and then there's this about how it's too hard and punishing and thus unplayable.
NOT = { has_country_flag = total_war_series }
I wonder what that country flag does...
I wonder what that country flag does...
Well usually you just get a negative event that is annoying not a ridiculous country crippling event.
I got that too as Portugal and unfortunately, I already had designated Morocco as a RIVAL, allied with their next-door rival Algiers, etc. that antagonized them, besides possessing provinces cored by them. Why should you get a mission that calls for improving relations with a rival nation? I think event should be changed to add condition that it only applies to nations that is not your rival. I don't know. Maybe there's (perhaps rare) circumstances where you do indeed want to improve relations with rivals but it's hard to see how that would happen.
Sometimes the other missions aren't what you're looking for either. That's also not a real solution to the problem of being given impossible to complete missions.
You can cancel your mission. Also, I believe that if you simply doesn't chose any mission, the list will refresh.
No mater when you cancel, you then go the next five years without the option of taking a mission. Unless a mission's conditions to make it a possible mission are no longer true, that mission will never leave your list of possible missions. IE: The list does not update or change unless you actually complete the conditions of a mission or start working towards finishing it on your own.