If I want to move my capital to another continent, can I meet the isolation requirements by first moving it to a one province island?
EUIV - Quick Questions / Quick Answers
- Thread starter Sandmann
- 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.
I am a new EU4 player. I mean I haven't played previous series. I have 3 questions:
1- I started my second game with Scotland and conquered England. There is only 2 wales provinces left. Anyway, now the game offers me to change my primary culture to English with -5 stability penalty. Why would I do that? Is there a culture bonus in the game? (I researched but couldn't find)
2- I moved my capital to London but I have no idea if it gave me any advantage? lol. I just did that to be realistic. What advantage can moving capital give? In my first game I was Ottoman Empire and moving my capital to Constantinople helped me to collect automatically from that trade node so I thought it could be a good idea to do that with London too. However, just having London (not being capital) as a province might also do that? I have no idea. So the original question is; any purpose for moving capital?
3- I won the first game by score. At least I think I did that. I became the 1st nation in terms of score in mid 1800s and suddenly the game ended with the only option of "quit". Just to make sure, did I win? Another question is; is there any other way to win the game?
Thanks a lot
1- I started my second game with Scotland and conquered England. There is only 2 wales provinces left. Anyway, now the game offers me to change my primary culture to English with -5 stability penalty. Why would I do that? Is there a culture bonus in the game? (I researched but couldn't find)
2- I moved my capital to London but I have no idea if it gave me any advantage? lol. I just did that to be realistic. What advantage can moving capital give? In my first game I was Ottoman Empire and moving my capital to Constantinople helped me to collect automatically from that trade node so I thought it could be a good idea to do that with London too. However, just having London (not being capital) as a province might also do that? I have no idea. So the original question is; any purpose for moving capital?
3- I won the first game by score. At least I think I did that. I became the 1st nation in terms of score in mid 1800s and suddenly the game ended with the only option of "quit". Just to make sure, did I win? Another question is; is there any other way to win the game?
Thanks a lot
1.) The main reason to change your primary culture is if your primary culture is not the majority culture in your nation. Other than that, there is no real reason to do so. Just culture flip your English provinces.I am a new EU4 player. I mean I haven't played previous series. I have 3 questions:
1- I started my second game with Scotland and conquered England. There is only 2 wales provinces left. Anyway, now the game offers me to change my primary culture to English with -5 stability penalty. Why would I do that? Is there a culture bonus in the game? (I researched but couldn't find)
2- I moved my capital to London but I have no idea if it gave me any advantage? lol. I just did that to be realistic. What advantage can moving capital give? In my first game I was Ottoman Empire and moving my capital to Constantinople helped me to collect automatically from that trade node so I thought it could be a good idea to do that with London too. However, just having London (not being capital) as a province might also do that? I have no idea. So the original question is; any purpose for moving capital?
3- I won the first game by score. At least I think I did that. I became the 1st nation in terms of score in mid 1800s and suddenly the game ended with the only option of "quit". Just to make sure, did I win? Another question is; is there any other way to win the game?
Thanks a lot
2.) The main advantage moving your capital is that it can enhance your trade income. For example, moving your capital from the Baltic node to the Antwerpen node could greatly increase your trade income. In this case, you made a good call since the London node is much more powerful node, especially if you make like a good Great Britain and colonize America.
3.) The game ends in 1821. That's all.
You no longer get to cower behind the emperor's skirt when big bad comes calling to stomp you. It also really ticks off whoever the current emperor is. You will also immediately lose any un-cored provinces that are part of the HRE and get hit with the non-member penalty to your chance to be elected emperor. Finally, you no longer get to ignore the emperor when you wish to beat up a member state using a valid cb.
There are certainly times when it is a good deal but mostly you're going to be better off staying a member and getting yourself elected emperor instead.
I was just looking at the EUIV wiki and there's this 'talk: land warfare' page http://eu4wiki.com/Talk:Land_warfare
where apparently (unless I'm mistaken) you have the option of deciding what military unit (infantry, cav, arty) goes into front row or the rear. If that's so, HOW do you deploy what goes into which row? And is there a way to (for example) get your cav to maneuver/flank the enemy?
I thought you had no control over land battles lol.
where apparently (unless I'm mistaken) you have the option of deciding what military unit (infantry, cav, arty) goes into front row or the rear. If that's so, HOW do you deploy what goes into which row? And is there a way to (for example) get your cav to maneuver/flank the enemy?
I thought you had no control over land battles lol.
Thanks brifbates! It is just that I hate those f** reforms, but those consequences are far worse than the prestige leak, so I guess I am not leaving.
Thanks. So how do you win a game? Just be 1st in 1821, that's it?
You can't. Infantry always go into the front rows with your cav on the flanks, which will try and outflank the enemy. Your artillery goes in the back row. I believe if you have a full first row of infantry, cav goes in the back row.
I found that some large countries just disappear. For example, in my first game, Portugal suddenly disappeared and became Castile. In my current game, same happened to Burgundy and they became Austria. As far as I know you cannot vassal countries with more than 3 provinces. So how come these things happened?
Well, it depends on how you define "winning". You're in first, but there's still another ~170 years of potential gameplay through Vicky, Hearts of Iron, and East vs. West.
Also, by at least one definition of "winning", you didn't win unless you conquered everyone else.
By another definition, winning consists of simply lasting until the end.
But yes, in so far as you can win, coming in 1st and lasting until the end is winning.
Winning is the determined by the player. Your score is just one way of measuring your performence against the ai, it is up to you to decide if you acheived the goals you set out to.
They were likely in a personal union and inherited after a minimum of 50 years. Burgundy have an event where France or Austria can get their land, I belive if their king dies early on. I think that usually Austria will get most of the Low countries and France get the rest as well as Burgundy proper but I've never played France or Austria so I'm not 100%.
Well, they might have been integrated in a personal union. Or they could have been forcibly vassalized in a war. Or if Castile/Austria doesn't have cores, they might have simply won a war and demanded full annexation.
Anyone got any answer to my question about how best to go about moving one's capital to another continent?
My question may sound weird for a veteran player. I can understand that
I just don't know the "purpose" of the game. What do you mean by "You're in first, but there's still another ~170 years of potential gameplay through Vicky, Hearts of Iron, and East vs. West."?
When Victoria III comes out, there will probably be an EU IV -> V III converter like there is from Crusader Kings II -> EU IV. And when HoI IV comes out, there will probably be a Vicky III -> HoI IV converter. And then that will probably convert to EvW (or EvW II). So by that measure, you haven't won yet because there's still gameplay to be had (in the future).My question may sound weird for a veteran player. I can understand that
What do you mean by "You're in first, but there's still another ~170 years of potential gameplay through Vicky, Hearts of Iron, and East vs. West."?
Also, if you start the game with a specific goal (say, winning the No Trail of Tears achievement), the game might be said to have been won once that goal has been achieved.
I haven't tried it in EU 4 but previously the easiest ways were either:
1) move your capital to a one province island on your home continent then move overseas
2) create a vassal, give them the required lands to isolate your capital, move overseas, annex vassal (optional, could also subsequently give them your original capital)
The only time I've moved my capital thus far it was on the same continent (Moscow->St. Petersburg, Wasuju (or whatever Mali's capital starts as)->Timbuktu)
My question may sound weird for a veteran player. I can understand that
What do you mean by "You're in first, but there's still another ~170 years of potential gameplay through Vicky, Hearts of Iron, and East vs. West."?
In Victoria II you can play from 1836 untill 1936, there's currently a converter in the works (by forum members) which will allow you to import your EUIV save into Vicky II. And I believe there's already a working one allowing to continue your Vicky II save in Hearts of Iron 3.
How does the converter work? Saved games transfer over and convert into the new game?
I played Vicky (can't remember which version), but that sounds pretty great if they will. Of course, also a great way to get people to buy all the games. I guess I should go try out the demo of CK2 and see how it plays. If there is one.
You should be able to, but I've never tried it. See post #1817.
Thanks for the link. I read the article, and couldn't find any mention of optional deployment.
I'm not an expert and generally don't micromanage my armies, so I'm no expert, but the following is what seems to happen. Let us say that your combat width is 10, and you enter the battle with a 8INF/4CAV/4ART stack. Let us say your enemies' combat width is 8. (These can be found via either the tech screen or the military, I can't remember which). The game probably places 8INF opposing your enemies' 8INF, then 1CAV on the wings, all on the front row.
It depends a little on your enemies' troop composition. It then places the 4ART and the remaining 2 CAV in the back row, where the ART can happily bombard the enemy without getting dragged into front row combat.
. . C A A A A C . .
C I I I I I I I I C
If, say, you had an army of 6INF/4CAV/4ART, it would deploy as
. . . A A A A . . .
C C I I I I I I C C
You should try to avoid having your artillery on the front row, so always maintain enough INF+CAV to cover your front line. It is also advisable to have slightly fewer INF than your combat width, so that the cavalry can flank. I.e., no-no to
. . . . A A . . . .
A A I I I I I I A A
as your front-row artillery will suffer heavy losses.
However, there are cases where two 50-strong armies meet; I think they replenish from "reserves" (as combat width will probably be less than 25), but I do not know how the ai allocates your forces.
A rough rule of thumb is this: if you can afford it, have as much artillery as your infantry, plus varying amounts of cavalry. My armies' ratios tend to be 3INF/1CAV/2ART, though others buff the CAV part.