DP sliders strategies rediscussed?

[knul]

I've read the discussions initiated by BiB about the use (and misuse ) of the DP sliders. However, these discussion were held when 1.04 was brand new and since then the slider effects have been changed, sometimes considerably.

For example, in 1.04 Land was considered superior to Naval. But now the Land/naval slider also influences manpower, trade and production efficiency and oversee tax penalty. The discussion is highly obsolete and gives no advice on how to choose in 1.09.

Wouldn't it be a nice idea to discuss the sliders again? Especially because 1.09 is considered the last patch, we could have a final discussion/poll on DP slider effects.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

As I wrote in another post, the naval/land slider is a no-brainer in SP. The question is only when to start moving it to Naval.

In MP it is much more difficult. Even though some nations appear to be best suited for LAND in MP, like RUS, it may be advantageous not to go to LAND 10 since that costs 1 colonist per year compared to being at LAND 5.

 

[unmerged(53166)]

IMHO, never go Naval unless you are an island nation or a nation that relies on islands/colonies (e.g. Great Britain, Venice, Spain, France the Ottomans, etc.)

Everyone else....move your investment slider for Naval all the way to the left and go all Land.

Most Italian states, every German state, Austria, Russia, the Balkan states and almost much every other country in the world does not need a navy - maybe some Asian countries.

Other than that....don't bother. Even if you moderately rely on naval power (the united Italy, Venice, Ottoman Empire) I still say to not invest any money in Naval research. Your neighbor bonus should more than make up for the lack of investment money. I'm playing as the Kingdom of Italy in the AGCEEP and I'm investing absolutely nothing in Naval. Yet I'm only one level behind the leader, France.

 

[knul]

Well, I appreciate your comments on the Land/naval slider, but I'd like to remind you that that's not the main question I asked. Besides, with no argumentation offered, it's hard to see why one should choose one way or another.

 

[binTravkin]

Okay, here's a short summary:

Pluto-Aristo
Reasons to go Aristo:
- predict high BB score
- are not christian (the christian +1 and +2 diplo bonus is really huge)
- want to expand diplomatically

Miserable reasons to go Aristo:
- want a cheap cavalry force - faulty because with trade and prod effic +10% you can afford more of expensive cavalry and likely have better tech.

Reasons to go Pluto:
- want to research, want money (+10% trade,effic and even +20% if compared to full aristo really rocks)
- want cheap warships

A controversial one.


Decentra-Centra
Only reason why go Decentra
- want delay rebels and lower war exhaustion

Basically, a reasonable player would always go centralised because of +10% prod. eff and -10% research cost


Conservative-Innovative
Reasons to go Conservative:
- need to convert
- want to colonise
- have stability problems

Reasons to go Innovative
- want to be techmonster

Conservative is often better.


Free Trade-Mercantilism
Reasons to go Free Trade:
- want to colonise
- want yer merchants stay longer in foreign CoTs
- want to have LOTS of merchants = lots of money

Reasons to go Mercantilism:
- want to embargo with impunity
- want yer merchants stay longer in home CoTs

Another no-brainer, most people will always go Free Trade.


Naval-Land
Reasons to go Naval:
- have lots of trade income
- want to colonise
- have overseas provinces
- are a 'sea nation' (Venice, England, Japan) - can defend yourself with navy

Reasons to go Land:
- want to do conquest (most countries are accesible by land, so this is the choice of warmongers)
- have high production income compared to trade (rarely the case, but mostly for non-europeans)

A controversial one.


Defensive-Offensive
Reasons to go Defensive:
- want to build fortresses
- want to siege fast and get the hell out
- want to have lots of arty

Reasons to go Offensive:
- want to be a warmonger and win everyone on land (offense - best defense)

No-brainer for me.


Quantity-Quality
Reasons to go Quantity:
- target: 1d infantry (max quant, max serfdom, max land, max offensive)
- need much manpower
- early warfare (15th century warfare mostly ignores artillery modifier for land troops)

Reasons to go Quality:
- aim: small elitary force less susceptible to attrition
- good fortresses (if you have the money to build many of them under maxed out morale - max land, offensive, quality, free subjects, they should be able to withstand clearly superior force of lesser moraled troops)

Somewhat situation-based.


Free Subects-Serfdom
Reasons to go Free Subjects:
- want to be rich (+10% prod eff)
- have no stability issues
- want to have high morale army (in combination with other morale DP)

Reasons to go Serfdom:
- 1d infantry (see above)
- stability problems (have eaten a lot of heathen land)
- navy based on galleys

Situation-based

 

[Registered]

Most Italian states, every German state, Austria, Russia, the Balkan states and almost much every other country in the world does not need a navy - maybe some Asian countries.

Do not forget that going naval affects more then just your navie's fighting skills. The naval land slider also affects your production and trade incomes. Since you can often, especially later in the game, get more money from trade then production going naval can be good for your income. The problem is, of course, that it also makes your armie more expencive to keep. So i agree that unless you are an island nation, or one with a small homeland like Portugal, going full naval makes no sense.
If you want more colonists, going narrowminded gives you exactly that.

 

[knul]

binTravkin, an excellent post! I'd like to comment on it.

Okay, here's a short summary:
Pluto-Aristo
Reasons to go Aristo:
- predict high BB score
- are not christian (the christian +1 and +2 diplo bonus is really huge)
- want to expand diplomatically

Miserable reasons to go Aristo:
- want a cheap cavalry force - faulty because with trade and prod effic +10% you can afford more of expensive cavalry and likely have better tech.

Reasons to go Pluto:
- want to research, want money (+10% trade,effic and even +20% if compared to full aristo really rocks)
- want cheap warships

A controversial one.

This slider IMO is a choice between warfare and economy, as BB reduction is quite important for a conqueror. The diplo bonus is in general quite good. I played my last GC with China and full plutocratic and I got .4 diplomats each year. Not fun.

Decentra-Centra
Only reason why go Decentra
- want delay rebels and lower war exhaustion

Basically, a reasonable player would always go centralised because of +10% prod. eff and -10% research cost

I agree, Centralisation is in 99% of all cases the best choice.

Conservative-Innovative
Reasons to go Conservative:
- need to convert
- want to colonise
- have stability problems

Reasons to go Innovative
- want to be techmonster

Conservative is often better.

I like to have options. Innovative only decreases tech cost, while limiting your colonization, makes stabilizing more difficult and reduces missionaries. innovativeness is boring. (at least in EU2)

I think anyone who has multiple religions in his nations should have <6 Innovative. Especially Christians, as Christian nations pays about 4x as much stability costs for each non-Christian province.

Free Trade-Mercantilism
Reasons to go Free Trade:
- want to colonise
- want yer merchants stay longer in foreign CoTs
- want to have LOTS of merchants = lots of money

Reasons to go Mercantilism:
- want to embargo with impunity
- want yer merchants stay longer in home CoTs

Another no-brainer, most people will always go Free Trade.

One thing, Mercantilisme decreases merchant cost, so it could be an option for small poor nations.
I try to conquer a lot of CoT, which give me 1 merchant/year each. I haven't tried full mercantilism yet, but it could be useful to hurt other nations with embargo's. Each embargo gives 3% TE penalty, so it isn't an option for Free Traders. But with full Mercantilism, you could embarge the top 10 traders with no TE loss. So, maybe mercantilism could be worth it, but for now I have to agree with you that Free Trade is the better option.

Naval-Land
Reasons to go Naval:
- have lots of trade income
- want to colonise
- have overseas provinces
- are a 'sea nation' (Venice, England, Japan) - can defend yourself with navy

Reasons to go Land:
- want to do conquest (most countries are accesible by land, so this is the choice of warmongers)
- have high production income compared to trade (rarely the case, but mostly for non-europeans)

A controversial one.

The most complicated slider by far, and the one that really determines what kind of country you are running. Naval is excellent for oversea colony empires, while Land is the choice for warmongering land empires. As some note that Trade is better than Production, I'd like to add that reduced cost for armies is generally better than reduced naval costs. So, Naval is slightly better for peaceful economy builders and Land for warmongers. I think that neither Naval nor Land is always better than the other, but that it heavily depends on whether you want to colonize or to expand with military force.

Defensive-Offensive
Reasons to go Defensive:
- want to build fortresses
- want to siege fast and get the hell out
- want to have lots of arty

Reasons to go Offensive:
- want to be a warmonger and win everyone on land (offense - best defense)

No-brainer for me.

Do you mean a no-brainer to be Offensive or Defensive? Well, this is IMO a slider that strongly depends on playing style. Cheap fortresses and artillery can be pretty sweet, as WS is mostly gained by capturing provinces. OTOH, wiping out the enemy's army guarentees your victory, even if sieging is slower. However, I mostly go for Offensive because the +1 shock is very handy when killing rebels (I hate rebels. Really.)

Quantity-Quality
Reasons to go Quantity:
- target: 1d infantry (max quant, max serfdom, max land, max offensive)
- need much manpower
- early warfare (15th century warfare mostly ignores artillery modifier for land troops)

Reasons to go Quality:
- aim: small elitary force less susceptible to attrition
- good fortresses (if you have the money to build many of them under maxed out morale - max land, offensive, quality, free subjects, they should be able to withstand clearly superior force of lesser moraled troops)

Somewhat situation-based.

Until now I have always gone for Quality, but I think Quantity has it charms. Again, matter of playing style I think. Note however, that Offensive does not reduce infantry cost as you implied.

Free Subects-Serfdom
Reasons to go Free Subjects:
- want to be rich (+10% prod eff)
- have no stability issues
- want to have high morale army (in combination with other morale DP)

Reasons to go Serfdom:
- 1d infantry (see above)
- stability problems (have eaten a lot of heathen land)
- navy based on galleys

Situation-based

I don't see what galleys have to do with the Serfdom slider. Like Aristocracy, this is a choice between economy and warmongering. A better production is nice, but only when stability costs are manageable.

All in all, I think with 1.09 the DP sliders are pretty balanced with no option being always the best. Some sliders like Offensive are playing style dependend, many depend on whether you want to play militairistic or peaceful.

But as far as I can see, there is no interest in polls on this subject?

 

[yls3431]

IMHO, never go Naval unless you are an island nation or a nation that relies on islands/colonies (e.g. Great Britain, Venice, Spain, France the Ottomans, etc.)

Going naval is absolutely a wrong idea for Ottoman while you have Austria and (later)Russia as an enemy.

 

[unmerged(34338)]

Going naval is absolutely a wrong idea for Ottoman while you have Austria and (later)Russia as an enemy.

In MP..yes. In SP you can go naval with any country. Like Daniel said, the difference is about when you should go naval. But when you get 5 merchants in every Cot the extra money is better than any advantage going land can offer. In SP of course.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Serfdom - in most cases I'm in favour of going Free Peasantry. The reasons for doing so are fairly obvious - however, in one particular case, I'd go for serfdom, and that's in a situation where you know you are going to face a lot of rebels, for instance you own the Dutch provinces or are playing China. Rebels are always infantry, never cavalry and serfdom worsens infantry morale but doesn't affect cavalry. It therefore becomes a little easier to cut down rebellious peasants with your cavalry if you have high Serfdom.

 

[Jomini]

The most complicated slider by far, and the one that really determines what kind of country you are running. Naval is excellent for oversea colony empires, while Land is the choice for warmongering land empires. As some note that Trade is better than Production, I'd like to add that reduced cost for armies is generally better than reduced naval costs. So, Naval is slightly better for peaceful economy builders and Land for warmongers. I think that neither Naval nor Land is always better than the other, but that it heavily depends on whether you want to colonize or to expand with military force.

Naval is by far superior in most SP games. With a decent nation you should be able to snag 20% of world trade with relative ease. This plus the fact that TE is calculated into income more times than PE easily makes it superior.

Reduced army costs tend not to be an issue in SP. It is exceedingly rare for a robust SP nation to actually have to fight on anything close to even terms. A SP can slip around, run away and only fight when the Ottos are attacking massed cavalry on plains across the straights. When you are small, poor, and backward, then yes land is helpful; but with any european you should eventually look to go naval. Native Americans, exotic tech Africans, etc. may actually need land, but then they have extreme difficulties breaking into world trade.

I like to have options. Innovative only decreases tech cost, while limiting your colonization, makes stabilizing more difficult and reduces missionaries. innovativeness is boring. (at least in EU2)

High innovation carries with it a chance of getting a free manu. Mid game this is easily the biggest windfall event one can have; even greater than random conversion of a Japanese CoT.

With a small subset of countries, in SP, you may find inno helps keep your tech competitive while overcoming a slight handicap.

Generally though in SP narrowminded is better. Colonists, random conversions, and early conquistadors are simply too good to pass up.

Do you mean a no-brainer to be Offensive or Defensive? Well, this is IMO a slider that strongly depends on playing style. Cheap fortresses and artillery can be pretty sweet, as WS is mostly gained by capturing provinces. OTOH, wiping out the enemy's army guarentees your victory, even if sieging is slower. However, I mostly go for Offensive because the +1 shock is very handy when killing rebels (I hate rebels. Really.)

Cheap fortresses in SP are worthless. So rarely does it matter if the enemy actually takes a province that you can afford to pay penalty. Arty are almost useless for most of the game. The only thing of real value here is the increased siege; but I find increased shock makes fighting with cavalry on plains even more effective.

I don't see what galleys have to do with the Serfdom slider. Like Aristocracy, this is a choice between economy and warmongering. A better production is nice, but only when stability costs are manageable.

Early warmongering is far better served with free subjects, morale handily outweighs cost issues. The real question is economy vs stability; though I'm not sure how the fun random events play in.

 

[Iasius]

Cheap fortresses in SP are worthless. So rarely does it matter if the enemy actually takes a province that you can afford to pay penalty. Arty are almost useless for most of the game. The only thing of real value here is the increased siege; but I find increased shock makes fighting with cavalry on plains even more effective.

For nations that don't get many leaders offensive is the way to go IMO (Granada for example). You don't get the -1 siege, but you do get +1 shock in addition to morale. +1 shock and more morale, but more expensive fortresses and arty? I rarely build artillery until the late 16th century and by then I'm rich. I also don't build/upgrade fortresses generally.
Easy decision for me (though for nations like France I'd probably go Offensive 8).

The tough choices come when you play MP, but I don't so ...

 

[unmerged(53166)]

Going naval is absolutely a wrong idea for Ottoman while you have Austria and (later)Russia as an enemy.

Just hope you don't face a strong Venice.

Venice with a strong navy can make the OE easily do its bidding by blocking the Europe-Asia crossings.

In addition, you are never going to get Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus or Cofru without a navy. It's really easy to beat the OE as Venice simply because their navy destroys them.

Of course, whenever I play the OE in SP, Venice always acts like a retard and I easily destroy them....

 

[binTravkin]

Do you mean a no-brainer to be Offensive or Defensive? Well, this is IMO a slider that strongly depends on playing style. Cheap fortresses and artillery can be pretty sweet, as WS is mostly gained by capturing provinces. OTOH, wiping out the enemy's army guarentees your victory, even if sieging is slower. However, I mostly go for Offensive because the +1 shock is very handy when killing rebels (I hate rebels. Really.)

You just confirmed what I said. A no brainer - always offensive (shock + morale boost greatly outweighs defensive bonuses especially in early warfare before firearms.

Note however, that Offensive does not reduce infantry cost as you implied.

It adds morale to low level 1d infantry.

I don't see what galleys have to do with the Serfdom slider.

IIRC serfdom slider changed galley costs. At least they should, serfs are needed for galleys.

Rebels are always infantry, never cavalry and serfdom worsens infantry morale but doesn't affect cavalry. It therefore becomes a little easier to cut down rebellious peasants with your cavalry if you have high Serfdom.

Are you playing the same EU2 as me? I get even arty for rebels in late 16th century.

Early warmongering is far better served with free subjects, morale handily outweighs cost issues.

Just one question:
Have you ever heard about 1d infantry?
If you havent, set your sliders as follows:
Max Land
Max Offensive
Min Quality (or Max Quantity if you wish)
Max serfdom (or Min Free Subjects)

now how much an infantry costs?
1d!
how much manpower you have?
base*.5*1.5 = 2.25*base

It is no question for me if Im a land-based warmonger, do I want a 1d infantry at average morale or 10d at 0.5 morale more.
Even if I get that +20% more production effic. I still can't offset 10times bigger cost and 9 times (2.25 / (1*0.5*0.5) = 9) more manpower.
Not even talking about fact that stability bonus far outweighs +20% production effic in most cases.

And if discussing such things, one shouldn't talk about SP, because in SP you're fighting against retards.
Only when things come to MP you start to really see what is good and what is not.

 

[unmerged(53166)]

Okay, here's a short summary:

Conservative-Innovative
Reasons to go Conservative:
- need to convert
- want to colonise
- have stability problems

Reasons to go Innovative
- want to be techmonster

Conservative is often better.

First off, very nice summary bin.

But this is the only comment I have - about Narrow-Minded vs. Innovative.

Do people actually go Narrow-Minded? I always go Innovative as soon as humanly possible. I'm a tech-monster (I get 60-60-10-10 around 1780) so maybe it's just me but I feel like it's common sense to be Innovative.

Plus you get the best even in the game - Unexpected Invention! Every time I see that event pop up I smile

 

[binTravkin]

Do people actually go Narrow-Minded?

Yes and they do so alot.
The more warmongers they are the more narrow they go.
And I smile when I see 'heathens converted to one true Faith'..

EDIT: besides in MP it's vitally important to colonise every last stretch of the land you can, before others do, it's another great bonus of narrowminded.

And please note that after going past 8 provinces, each new povince adds slightly less to tech cost modifier. Often it adds less to tech cost than it gives in income therefore there's always merit in being bigger and being bigger often means you need more conservativeness to convert and colonise.
After 80-90 provinces tech cost province modifier stops rising at all, therefore huge empires can have better research than small uber-innovative nations.
See some pagan exotic WCs for a good example - while at start the plaeyer has vey low techs, once he gets big, income far outweighs the tech expense and he starts to catch up with european nations.

Regarding SP again - extreme cases like Granada and some others are exceptions but generally you can often win with any DP slider setting in SP.

 

[unmerged(49521)]

Reasons to go Pluto:
- want to research, want money (+10% trade,effic and even +20% if compared to full aristo really rocks)

I believe the max difference is 10, not 20 (10 steps a 1%). Or is it 11%?

Reasons to go Quality:
- aim: small elitary force less susceptible to attrition
- good fortresses (if you have the money to build many of them under maxed out morale - max land, offensive, quality, free subjects, they should be able to withstand clearly superior force of lesser moraled troops)

That is interesting. What I did not know is that there is less attrition when you go quality.
I also presumed that once you start a siege, you shall complete it (time may differ). Apparenty it is not quite as I had imagined, right? So - better morale of defenders makes it harder to successfully complete a siege? Is there any formula on this? Do morale on both sides go down during a siege? Can it be that sieging army may be forced to abandon a siege because of morale loss?

marek

 

[unmerged(34338)]

First off, very nice summary bin.

But this is the only comment I have - about Narrow-Minded vs. Innovative.

Do people actually go Narrow-Minded? I always go Innovative as soon as humanly possible. I'm a tech-monster (I get 60-60-10-10 around 1780) so maybe it's just me but I feel like it's common sense to be Innovative.

Plus you get the best even in the game - Unexpected Invention! Every time I see that event pop up I smile

Well, once your economy is big enough you're tech-speed is mostly slowed down by the AHT penalty anyway. And narrowminded gives more colonists and missionaries and lower stabcost.
More colonists means bigger empire.
More missionaries means more converted territory (Aztec, Inca, NA natives) means lower stabcost and more income.
Lower stabcost means more investments in tech. High stab is a must once you get trade going as it will suffer if stab is low. So to get the most income after 1500 you've got to have high stab. High inno will mean you'll spend more time investing in stab.

 

[unmerged(53166)]

No...I just don't invest in Stab. I don't ever invest in Stab.

I just kill my rebels

Hrm...I hafta re-consider the whole Narrow-Mind vs. Innovative debate though. I've always gone Innovative in all of my games...even WC ones.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

A recommendation:

Review the strategies of MP players in various current and past MP games. You can find their slider settings and their statistics at this site. Simply change the "Tours" and "Seasons" to find various games. If you want to look at the game's progress in detail, download the save file and open it up, although you might run into troubles for games which go back more than 6 months because of the change in save file format when Johan recoded to allow the map expansion efforts.

You will soon see that there are few strategies NOT employed by someone at some point in time.



As for naval/land: Why would anyone in SP ever go anything but full naval, unless for reasons of role-playing? It isn't like you actually worry about fighting anyone head to head and the added trade income from Naval is just enormous...