I always thought it affected trade and production, but tbh I've never checked either
Edit: Seeing what Vulkandrache wrote I was appearantly wrong about that..good to know
Harsh Treatment Or Autonomy For Dealing with Rebels and Absolutism
- Thread starter Adamgerd
- 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 always thought it affected trade and production, but tbh I've never checked either
Edit: Seeing what Vulkandrache wrote I was appearantly wrong about that..good to know
To continue derailing this thread....
Maldives doesn't exist... And my power numbers are above 95% except in Indus. I just noticed no one else is steering south in Aden, so my effective power is greater, and, apparently, I also have a +90% steering bonus from naval tradition (exploration? I guess, although I fought a bunch of naval battles recently) which gives me ~96% total there (although the percentage on the trade mode map doesn't change, but the pie-chart does) Switching to Goa->Aden->Hormuz increased value by 20, although the AI noticed the next month, and Portugal starting steering some away, dropping it to a net 15 increase.
Overall, I'm getting a considerable advantage from the AI. They have merchants in Alepo and Alexandria, steering straight to Constantinople and a couple other locations. Collecting in Bengal with power at 68%, drops power to 52%. I can collect in Ceylon, downstream, at 93% and still get the full 68% pulled away from Bengal. And with only 32% power in Zanzibar, it's not worth collecting there when the spice can flow unmolested along the Persian Gulf. (Although, I realize now I really muffed the last Kilwa peace deal and didn't take the other COT province...that's what I get for playing after midnight...)
No, Ceylon->Goa->Indus->Hormuz is 30->48->52->61 with power of 96-98-80-99. However, I just noticed the ducat numbers in the outliner don't match. Does the outliner account for the steering bonus? There's also some help steering from other countries that it presumable doesn't count.
Maldives doesn't exist... And my power numbers are above 95% except in Indus. I just noticed no one else is steering south in Aden, so my effective power is greater, and, apparently, I also have a +90% steering bonus from naval tradition (exploration? I guess, although I fought a bunch of naval battles recently) which gives me ~96% total there (although the percentage on the trade mode map doesn't change, but the pie-chart does) Switching to Goa->Aden->Hormuz increased value by 20, although the AI noticed the next month, and Portugal starting steering some away, dropping it to a net 15 increase.
Overall, I'm getting a considerable advantage from the AI. They have merchants in Alepo and Alexandria, steering straight to Constantinople and a couple other locations. Collecting in Bengal with power at 68%, drops power to 52%. I can collect in Ceylon, downstream, at 93% and still get the full 68% pulled away from Bengal. And with only 32% power in Zanzibar, it's not worth collecting there when the spice can flow unmolested along the Persian Gulf. (Although, I realize now I really muffed the last Kilwa peace deal and didn't take the other COT province...that's what I get for playing after midnight...)
If you just focus on ideas vs ideas. Yes, there are stronger nation than Ottoman. And their unit type makes him strong at the start of the game, around mil tech 15 equal to the western and late game it's just another ROTW country.
For WC having a strong mil ideas is nice, but it isn't the focus to do the job. It's about having a good backbone economy and to an extend how much RCC you'll get. You can beat a country faster if you can a strong mil, but you'll still restainted to how much MP you'll get and how fast you core and integrate vassals. imo what most important about RCC isn't the reduction of MP, but the reduction of coring time.
Reason why Ottoman is one of the easier nation to do a WC isn't really about their military, but about their starting economy (which is decent) and their location. He can expand with relative ease and speed to rich part of the world (India and East African gold mines) and expand in every direction.
Yeah, I don't remember getting the Janissary event
Ok, I wont. But what do war taxes have to do with monarch points?
But you need money for the mercy, which the ottomans don't have in the early game, but only later
QUOTE="ElGranCapitan, post: 23434507, member: 1217022"]Nope, your economy is fine..you are one of the richest countries in the game[/QUOTE]
Ah, good.
QUOTE="ElGranCapitan, post: 23434507, member: 1217022"]Increasing autonomy decreases unrest, decreasing autonomy increases unrest. Autonomy will automaticly decrease without causing unrest
There is 2 reasons to decrease autonomy manually:
a) you want to increase absolutism
b) you need gold income as a horde - non-hordes can just hand gold provinces to the burghers for the same effect[/QUOTE]
So it decreases automatically, ok
Last edited:
Thanks for the thread, although wow it has a lot of things to remember and I don't understand how you can stop an event, because whenever you revoke land, it goes more disloyal
But isnt a military more important than an economy? You can gain economy from expansion, but you need a good military to expand everywhere
In a WC scenario (and this alone), wars will always be easy. You'll constantly fight nations with at least two times less Forcelimit. What limits you is overextension and thus revolts, AE, admin points and to some extent the ability to have enough force limit to siege as many level 8 forts with Napoleonic warfare bonus as possible (so 32 cannons protected by 32 infantry if I remember correctly). Only early on will you fight tough wars. As it happens the Ottomans are good early on which helps to fight early wars. After that they have extra FL which is always nice, but the main quality of their set is RCC and tolerance of heathens which help to deal with the biggest issue of a WC: Instability.
What makes them an easy WCer is, as people said, their early expansion opportunities. The ability to ping pong between catholic, orthodox and Sunni land spread in 4 different culture groups means they can conquer a lot faster than the European majors who are limited by AE early on (I actually think Ottomans are not the best choice as an European country which becomes the Emperor and opens up new fronts with no Czb on Cyprus is better, but the Ottomans are undoubtedly the easiest and less tricky option).
I notice you keep on taking about early game money: If you delete forts on day you don't have any issue with money whatsoever.
What makes them an easy WCer is, as people said, their early expansion opportunities. The ability to ping pong between catholic, orthodox and Sunni land spread in 4 different culture groups means they can conquer a lot faster than the European majors who are limited by AE early on (I actually think Ottomans are not the best choice as an European country which becomes the Emperor and opens up new fronts with no Czb on Cyprus is better, but the Ottomans are undoubtedly the easiest and less tricky option).
I notice you keep on taking about early game money: If you delete forts on day you don't have any issue with money whatsoever.
The Ottomans are starting with a God like twelve year old ruler and can choose between three different heirs if they keep their religion. Alternatively they can easily switch to coptic which gives them another 10% RCC.
Wars will be easy? Sure, a force limit is higher, but you need manpower and/or money to build up to it. I have one of the largest force limits, but only around 20-30k troops
But you need strength to expand
And if I delete the forts. the Hungarians or Russians or even the Hobyo invade and crush me. Even the Hobyo and Kilwa are stronger then me, ahead of me 3 techs and have a larger military
You have stupidly strong armies, learn to control them properly. Forts waste money 95% of the time.
You keep repeating that like a mantra.
You f*cked up somewhere very hard or you wouldnt be 3 techs behind some backwater whatever nations.
No, I don't have strong armies any longer. I have around 27k troops and am 3-4 military techs behind everyone else. I might have had them at the start and I did disband some forts at the start and put the rest as half maintenance, but I can no longer afford to not have them ready
Because Imo, thats the cause of every other problem. I can't invade other countries or have manpower, because my military tech is behind. And yes somehow I did mess up, I know that. That does not mean I can't not mess up. So far in every game, by the 17th century, my techs were massively behind every other country. I haven't yet managed to ever master keeping them in time (well once, I managed it, but that was after 1 and a bit centuries of being behind).
As writen in the new lengthy guide falling behind in Admin and Dip is ok, sometimes even adviseable.
But there is practically nothing to spend Mil on, even if every ruler of your end up with 0 Mil you can still tech up on time every time.
Do you develop your land randomly with points for no reason?
Do you spam Artillery barage?
Do you spam harsh treatment?
If your ruler has even some Mil, like 3, you can run into the problem that you cant even spend them and run into the cap.
Well, but even for admin and dip, I am pretty sure 3 techs behind continuously is also bad. Strangely I am further behind on Mil tech than admin and dip tech.
No, I don't develop my land using mil points
No, I don't spam artillery barrage
I spammed harsh treatment in the beginning before I realized, you can increase autonomy to decrease unrest
I might spam generals sometimes
I do use war taxes always, because I thought it was free money and I did not realize it costs military points
Also bad events
I think he uses war taxes all the time without knowing that they cost 50 mil points.
I imagine he took the age of discovery perk to make war taxes free and forgot or didn't notice that this bonus does not apply anymore after. Plus a liberal use of harsh treatment as he said, and not fully understanding institution spread.
Adamgerd could you post a screenshot of your technology tab and the institution tab? You might have not embraced some institutions because of your economic problems, driving tech costs up and thus making you way behind in tech in general ( you said you were also behind in admin and diplo tech).
Other than that, if you want to keep some forts just keep a few in very strategic place (one in Kosovo since it's mountainous terrain on a frontier, another one in Greece on a hill province and maybe 2 on the outer part of Anatolia to protect your heartland) but you should probably delete them later on.
Good luck!
I imagine he took the age of discovery perk to make war taxes free and forgot or didn't notice that this bonus does not apply anymore after. Plus a liberal use of harsh treatment as he said, and not fully understanding institution spread.
Adamgerd could you post a screenshot of your technology tab and the institution tab? You might have not embraced some institutions because of your economic problems, driving tech costs up and thus making you way behind in tech in general ( you said you were also behind in admin and diplo tech).
Other than that, if you want to keep some forts just keep a few in very strategic place (one in Kosovo since it's mountainous terrain on a frontier, another one in Greece on a hill province and maybe 2 on the outer part of Anatolia to protect your heartland) but you should probably delete them later on.
Good luck!
You keep on talking about the situation as it is now to explain that you couldn't have done it differently from the start. Sure you can't delete forts now, or build up force limit, or do anything. You're right, your game is pretty much doomed to be very static and opportunistic as you are behind in tech and did not expand enough. But we're trying to explain how that could have been done differently. And if you delete forts on day 1, noone attacks you. You use that money to get advisors. You use that money to build churches, to have more money later on, which you use to build manufactories. All that money sustains a huge army, with a strong force of infantry mercs so that you save up manpower. And all of a sudden that does not matter that you don't have forts, because you're not behind in miltech, and you have the biggest army in the world. That's what I'm trying to explain, the game is about the snowball. 10 ducats in 1444 can mean 500 in 1600, and 5000 in 1800.
As Vulkandrache said, that's not possible to fall behind in miltech unless you intentionally waste milpoints.
I'll explain it with figures: You generate a base amount of 3 Mil, and if you delete forts you can have at least a level 1 advisor. Even if you focus on admin and Mehmet dies instantly and is replaced by someone with 0 mil, you still generate 3 mil per month, and 4 after you killed Byzantium and gt over 50 PP. That's 48 per year, so 624 every 13 years. Techs come every 13 years and cost about 600 monarch points. So once again, you can't fall behind now that you know that war taxes and harsh treatment should be avoided. Get generals from estate, and if you have a 0 mil ruler and a 0 mil heir, I highly suggest making them generals (and disinherit the heir anyway). If not, then you can sometimes buy generals if you want. Restart and you'll see that you literally can't spend milpoints on anything.
As for falling behind in dip and admin, I'll copy what I said about it in my post (even if I understand you can't learn everything at once):
Techs play an important part in the game, and that’s something even complete beginners immediately understand. But what only more experienced players tend to realize is that not every tech is equally important. Some are clearly decisive ones in almost every scenario.
For instance, military tech 3 gives an extra 25% base morale, and military tech 4 gives an extra 20% and extra tactics. I won’t go into further details regarding how battles work, but trust me if you don’t see it, that’s insanely decisive. Miltech 15 gives a staggering 33% base morale and tactics. At the same time, Miltech 10 only gives better cavalry units and flanking range, so that’s clearly not decisive unless you rely heavily on cavalry.
Military tech is generally always good, but that’s not the case of Admin and Diplo who sometimes do literally nothing. Key admin techs are the one who unlock idea groups and the ones giving you admin efficiency, in some scenarios those giving you extra states. Key diplomatic techs are… are… pretty much nonexistent. There is one, tech 23, which unlocks Imperialism and Client States. There is one very useful in some scenarios, tech 9, and I’ll talk about it later. Else pretty much everything is irrelevant unless you fight highly contested naval battles or you play the colonial game (in which case you must rush dip7). Extra accepted culture can also be nice. I’d go so far as saying that the only reason to tech up dip is that your vassals don’t become disloyal.
Yes, you read me. Falling behind in tech is often not a problem at all so long as you hit the key techs on time. Playing in ROTW and trying to conquer massive amounts of land usually means that you will fall behind, you can’t help it unless you play too passive. That’s ok to be something like Admin 10, Dip 10, Military 15 when it’s time to get tech 15. What really matters is that you catch up at Admin 17, and Admin and Diplo 23. Players usually overcommit to techs, while only military tech is almost always relevant.
A good example is the early admin techs. Tech 5 unlocks the first idea group, and let’s assume you took Administrative as many people do. The next important tech in admin is tech 7, it brings a new idea group… which you deemed less important than admin ideas. The next one is admin 8 which gives more states, as does the finisher of admin ideas. So what’s better in most scenarios, to fill out this idea group and get admin 6, 7 and 8 after, benefiting from the discounts you’ll have to the cost of admin techs, or to care about getting these techs as fast as possible? In 99% of the scenarios the answer is pretty obvious.
As Vulkandrache said, that's not possible to fall behind in miltech unless you intentionally waste milpoints.
I'll explain it with figures: You generate a base amount of 3 Mil, and if you delete forts you can have at least a level 1 advisor. Even if you focus on admin and Mehmet dies instantly and is replaced by someone with 0 mil, you still generate 3 mil per month, and 4 after you killed Byzantium and gt over 50 PP. That's 48 per year, so 624 every 13 years. Techs come every 13 years and cost about 600 monarch points. So once again, you can't fall behind now that you know that war taxes and harsh treatment should be avoided. Get generals from estate, and if you have a 0 mil ruler and a 0 mil heir, I highly suggest making them generals (and disinherit the heir anyway). If not, then you can sometimes buy generals if you want. Restart and you'll see that you literally can't spend milpoints on anything.
As for falling behind in dip and admin, I'll copy what I said about it in my post (even if I understand you can't learn everything at once):
Techs play an important part in the game, and that’s something even complete beginners immediately understand. But what only more experienced players tend to realize is that not every tech is equally important. Some are clearly decisive ones in almost every scenario.
For instance, military tech 3 gives an extra 25% base morale, and military tech 4 gives an extra 20% and extra tactics. I won’t go into further details regarding how battles work, but trust me if you don’t see it, that’s insanely decisive. Miltech 15 gives a staggering 33% base morale and tactics. At the same time, Miltech 10 only gives better cavalry units and flanking range, so that’s clearly not decisive unless you rely heavily on cavalry.
Military tech is generally always good, but that’s not the case of Admin and Diplo who sometimes do literally nothing. Key admin techs are the one who unlock idea groups and the ones giving you admin efficiency, in some scenarios those giving you extra states. Key diplomatic techs are… are… pretty much nonexistent. There is one, tech 23, which unlocks Imperialism and Client States. There is one very useful in some scenarios, tech 9, and I’ll talk about it later. Else pretty much everything is irrelevant unless you fight highly contested naval battles or you play the colonial game (in which case you must rush dip7). Extra accepted culture can also be nice. I’d go so far as saying that the only reason to tech up dip is that your vassals don’t become disloyal.
Yes, you read me. Falling behind in tech is often not a problem at all so long as you hit the key techs on time. Playing in ROTW and trying to conquer massive amounts of land usually means that you will fall behind, you can’t help it unless you play too passive. That’s ok to be something like Admin 10, Dip 10, Military 15 when it’s time to get tech 15. What really matters is that you catch up at Admin 17, and Admin and Diplo 23. Players usually overcommit to techs, while only military tech is almost always relevant.
A good example is the early admin techs. Tech 5 unlocks the first idea group, and let’s assume you took Administrative as many people do. The next important tech in admin is tech 7, it brings a new idea group… which you deemed less important than admin ideas. The next one is admin 8 which gives more states, as does the finisher of admin ideas. So what’s better in most scenarios, to fill out this idea group and get admin 6, 7 and 8 after, benefiting from the discounts you’ll have to the cost of admin techs, or to care about getting these techs as fast as possible? In 99% of the scenarios the answer is pretty obvious.
Last edited:
Yeah, so my game is doomed. I started to think so too. Damm. Oh well, no point in learning mechanisms which I no longer need. Though maybe I can change the focus on the EU4 game from WC to something easier
You get 50 Power projections from killing Byzantium? And then it gets down and doesn't disinheriting cost lots of prestige?
Yeah, I did read the parts of the guide which were completed earlier
What is "ROTW"? And so are extra tactics good? And what is reliance on cavalry? Is having 50% cavalry reliance?
You get Power Projection passively from being a great power and having rivals, and embargoing them. You get it actively (it decays) when you insult a rival, you win a war against them, you take provinces from them, or pretty much everything that shows you're the boss. If you rival Byzantium on day 1 and full annex them, that pushes you above 50 PP for long enough, until you get more PP from winning a war against Qara Qoyunlu, and more from winning a war against the Mamluks...
That's why you need to chose your rivals carefully, they have to be your next targets.
Rest of the World = ROTW. Anything that is not European, so lags behind in institutions unless you develop them (but if you're small you cannot really develop them as that would benefit your neighbours more than you).
I won't dive into army composition and warfare, the wiki is very good on this topic. But a generic early game composition is 12 infantry and 4 cavalry.
Cavalry is mostly good when it flanks, so the idea is to have a maximum amount of cavalry which is your flanking range multiplied by 2 (because you flank from two sides). Any additional cavalry is a waste of money, and cavalry usually is a waste of money anyway. Some people literally use 0 cavalry of the entire game. I like 4 early game, but I don't add any more and I usually delete them late, as lategame, someone who can't fill the frontrow entirely is someone you'll stackwipe, so flanking is either impossible or pointless.
And tactics is an excellent modifier. The saying is that Morale helps you win battles, Discipline helps you lose less men and kill more, and Tactics does both.
That's why you need to chose your rivals carefully, they have to be your next targets.
Rest of the World = ROTW. Anything that is not European, so lags behind in institutions unless you develop them (but if you're small you cannot really develop them as that would benefit your neighbours more than you).
I won't dive into army composition and warfare, the wiki is very good on this topic. But a generic early game composition is 12 infantry and 4 cavalry.
Cavalry is mostly good when it flanks, so the idea is to have a maximum amount of cavalry which is your flanking range multiplied by 2 (because you flank from two sides). Any additional cavalry is a waste of money, and cavalry usually is a waste of money anyway. Some people literally use 0 cavalry of the entire game. I like 4 early game, but I don't add any more and I usually delete them late, as lategame, someone who can't fill the frontrow entirely is someone you'll stackwipe, so flanking is either impossible or pointless.
And tactics is an excellent modifier. The saying is that Morale helps you win battles, Discipline helps you lose less men and kill more, and Tactics does both.
Ah, ok
Develop? With monarch points. And so 5 cavalry to 11 infantry is a waste then, I am guessing
Morale, discipline, tactics are good, got it. How is one supposed to remember all this stuff, like tech, admin efficiency, whether ideas are better than techs. Do people just use an spreadsheet for all this?
Tech Screen:
Institution Screen:
And as you can see I am isolated in not having them. Even Hobyo has global trade
Institution Screen:
And as you can see I am isolated in not having them. Even Hobyo has global trade