Going tall, tips and tricks
- Thread starter ShoGuL
- 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.
Which should not really be a problem. First you need to define optimal play, is it world conquest, most money per province, most hated nation while still surviving, best beer?
Secondly there are only three options: Going Tall is optimal, Going Wide is optimal, or they are exactly Balanced. The third option is nearly impossible to do, and I can easily imagine the replies on the forum if Going Tall would be the optimal strategy.
- 7
From what I can remember development can stack pretty damn high:
10% from national idea
10% from capital
5% from center of trade
20% from economy
10% from free city
5% from protestent(according to denkt)
20% from university
5% from first hre reform
Thats a whole 85% reduction in cost. before being affected by the 50% reduction lategame. Sadly maneuvering one of the countries with the national idea to become a free city on a center of trade is probobly gonna be annoying., tough I do wonder how high you could get your development level with this.
10% from national idea
10% from capital
5% from center of trade
20% from economy
10% from free city
5% from protestent(according to denkt)
20% from university
5% from first hre reform
Thats a whole 85% reduction in cost. before being affected by the 50% reduction lategame. Sadly maneuvering one of the countries with the national idea to become a free city on a center of trade is probobly gonna be annoying., tough I do wonder how high you could get your development level with this.
Beat around the bush all you want, the success of a country is mostly measured in economic, political and military power and in EU4, these all equate to more land and base tax. This expansion promised an alternative strategic route (much like in civilization games), but doesnt really succeed in doing so. Sure, EU4 is a sandbox game and you can set your own goals and do whatever, but in terms of advancing your country and influence, we still have a clearly superior way (expanding your territory through diplo-annex/PU/conquest) and an inferior way (improving existing territory), even with the absurly over-nerfed coring and annexation costs.
- 2
Just started a game as Milan with the intention of going Republic and taking over the entire Genoa trade node. Might branch out a little into colonisation to help with the trade steering and maybe a little into West Africa, but ultimately, trade + tall.
Should be fun.
Should be fun.
Tried 2 games as Milan and am now running Tuscany. I found trying a "tall" game rather slow even with all the ideas and NI's buffing it. Seems to me that they need to tweak the formulae and costs a bit to make it more viable. Otherwise, development is just a supplement to expanding wide.
The problem remains that it's nearly impossible to make them equally good. If you make it really cheap to improve your territory than Going Tall seems to be much better. However, if this does not increase the cost to conquer/core that same territory, it becomes even better to let others do the improving and then conquer it. If it does increase the cost of conquering the territory it makes going wide less viable/more difficult which as we can already see on the forums has lots of opponents.
Going Tall is simply for games when you want to play a nation with somewhat realistic borders. No mega-Netherlands blob but simply an extremely rich Netherlands with maybe some minor German states added which has some random holdings in important trade areas and which is rich enough in its own territories to pay for wars and colonization in the Far East or West. Could you be even richer my gobbling up half of Germany? Sure, but would it look half as good? I doubt it. So to me it isn't an inferior way of playing, simply a different way, and that is what the entire intention behind the system was.
- 5
I don't think going tall is supposed to be a mutual exclusive strategy from expanding wide.
It's meant to supplement the game so its not so boring just conquering stuff.
How many times in multiplayer do we get to 1600 and then every war is a world war over a couple provinces. If you lose 2 of those wars it's game over because the province are finite, snowball effect.
Development keeps the game changing and interesting.
Does it need some formula adjustment? Probably.
It's meant to supplement the game so its not so boring just conquering stuff.
How many times in multiplayer do we get to 1600 and then every war is a world war over a couple provinces. If you lose 2 of those wars it's game over because the province are finite, snowball effect.
Development keeps the game changing and interesting.
Does it need some formula adjustment? Probably.
- 2
You could build a mighty Merchant Republic that consists of all the world's coastal 'important centres of trade', and nothing else. The ducats per province would be ludicrous.
How does this work? (I am not at home right now so can't check it.)
Do you have to develop a certain # of times? Just once?
You can develope 3 areas. Base tax, production, manpower.
Accepted culture is tied to % base tax that culture has. So if a culture needs 10% to be accepted and you only control 9% worth of base tax you can just develops their base tax.
Oh I thought you meant developing it would change the culture in the province from an unaccepted culture "Francian" to an accepted one "German".
You meant you can manipulate the % of your base tax that is of that unaccepted culture to make the entire culture accepted.
Misinterpreted you, makes sense now.
You meant you can manipulate the % of your base tax that is of that unaccepted culture to make the entire culture accepted.
Misinterpreted you, makes sense now.