Harsh Treatment Or Autonomy For Dealing with Rebels and Absolutism

[Adamgerd]

You understood it very well. Discipline and tactics save manpower and are better in longterm campaign, but morale wins battles. That's why morale tends to be more important early game when battles are close and you focus on that one war against an ennemy with a relatively close army size and no real forts to retreat behind. It's all about winning the first battle, chasing him until you stackwipe, and carpetsieging, and morale is king. Discipline becomes vastly superior later on. Sure, you can win a battle and lose slightly more men, and start a siege of a level 8 fort. But by the time you advanced slightly he comes back with all his morale back up, and you may win it again, and once again lose more men. But then he comes back, and after 10 forts, you'll eventually run out of manpower and money if both of you have similar strengths but he chose discipline and you chose morale. And in the contect of doing a WC, you will win every battle because you outnumber everyone you fight, so what matters is that you save up your resources.

As we mentioned catch up mechanics in techs, here is a perfect example from my current game:

This Admin tech costs me less than 140 admin points. Not having it earlier sure harms me a bit (textile manufactories are wonderful in my area), but I'll only be 2-3 years late on admin 17 by doing that, and this is the one I want at all cost. If I took 11 on time, then 12 on time, and so on and so on, not only would all of my techs have been more expensive because the neighbours bonus and spy network bonus would have been smaller, but I would also have delayed my admin ideas (which I was forced to take as third group because you can't convert provinces to animist without religious first), so I would have lost points, time, and maybe manpower from revolts, from not having reduced coring cost earlier, and even more monarch points for not having civil service before teching. So yes, I would have been earlier on 11 and 12, but I don't care. What matters is that with what I did I ensured I had tech 17 as early as possible.

There is NO way I could have hit tech 17 on time without intentionally delaying unnecessary admin techs, considering I forcespawned 3 institutions in tropical climate and cored 1000 dev, including a good part before I had admin ideas. Oh and I also got stolen about 500 admin by Ming.
That's why delaying tech is actually a way not to be behind in the longterm. Once again, the difficulty is to know which tech you can sacrifice, and there clearly is a tradeoff as my economy lags behind what it should.

Edit: It seems I was overly pessimistic, I can get it ahead of time.

To follow up with similar strats, as you notice I am intentionally falling behind in dip right now. I'm completing influence and integrating 3 vassals, which means I'll be able to max absolutism around 1630 by decreasing autonomy after the integrations. And then I'll use the same comeback mechanics to hit Dip 23 on time and overall save up thousands of monarch points (cheaper annexation because I will complete influence and will have Admin-Influence, then even cheaper annexation if I time it right because I'll use the absolutism of the first integration to finish the second,and of the second to finish the third, and cheaper tech because of neighbour bonus, spy network and more ideas, cheaper cores during the following years because I will have farmed absolutism).

Yeah, I used the tech advice in my Venetian game and it's actually helpful, that for example tech 6 is not very useful as it improves mainly colonial range and so I decided to have the trade idea group instead

 

[Adamgerd]

Most of the advice given over the last page is good and correct and all that.
But you guys throw around actual numbers like candy.
Our OP needs better understanding of basic game mechanics before anything else.
More Practice and more reading up on things. And start looking for information yourself.
Be it the Wiki, the gamefiles directly or older forum posts. You are not the first person with those questions.


A line like that makes me really question how you could have thought about diving into a WC.
Not knowing what AdminEff does and how to get it is directly a no-go for WC. And not going and looking it up before coming back is even worse.
You cant wait for others to explain every detail to you, you need to learn how to learn.

Yeah, I more meant just advice for this in particular and learning the mechanism. And as for diving in wc. Simple, I just decided to and vastly underexagerrated the difficulty

If you read paragraphs like this always keep in mind that these people have 4-digit hours in the game and may or may not beworking towards a specific goal
which is why tactics like this are to be read carefully.

If you play a normal game as someone like the Ottomans you do not have to fall back in tech intentionally.
If it happens, for whatever reason, then evaluate why, check wether its really a problem and if it is find a way to make it not be.[/QUOTE]
But also these tactics helped me not fall as much back in tech

To also give some pissing contest benchmarks i started my next OF yesterday. Since for Shia my choice was the Ottomans i went with that in spirit of this thread.

By 1470 i had recovered my cores, conquered Kosovo, gutted the Mamluks, defeated QQ to release Persia,
destroyd the first half of the Timurids, fough of a small coalition offensively, got lucky with Crimea and build a good 20 churches.

In 1504 Mehmet died at the impressive age of 72, by that point i had disinherited 4 people, the best of which was a 432, which would barely be acceptable as a last resort.
View attachment 309947

1517 i just took Tech 10 a year early because i cant spend the points to save my life.
Using the power of the Burghers i can take 3 Influence ideas at once.
View attachment 309940

Blue color means the province has the building already.
I would build them in Persia aswell preemtively but that would make them more money, giving me less loans to pay of.
View attachment 309943 View attachment 309941

Small coalitions come and go. The AE is as it should be.
A bit in Europe to tick down, and the ever shrinking Sunni hate me.
Ever since i unlocked Deus Vult i have been hitting Ethiopia aswell.
View attachment 309944

Hungary and Ajuuran got wrecked and just recently accepted Diplo Vassal, both with a good 20 provinces to reconquer.
View attachment 309946

Iraq exists as an OPM because they where Shia. They got to keep their last province so i could enforce Religion for next Ages objective.

Granada has been guaranteed Day1 and then forcefully vassalized by declaring on Tlemcen allied Morocco allied Granada. They are 45% at the start of the game. Every since they have been making claims on the Maghreb and every few years i send a small army over to clean up.
I would have liked to Diplovassal Baluchistan but Sind was too fast this time.
Its easy acces to Thatta for "Unify Islam".

Yeah, unfying islam is an interesting goal. Maybe Ill salvage my game some day to reconvert back to Islam from coptic and unify Islam, that should at least be doable (well the conversion will take forever, but otherwise)

 

[$ilent_$trider]

The thing about fortress is that they consume a lot of money and the only benefit they bring in time of peace is to make sure your army tradition doesn't decrease that much.
If you are always at war or almost always at war, which is a a must have for a WC (something that I never actually tried, but I understand the difficulty of it) then your army tradition will never be dropping because you will always be fighting battles.
So, fortress should only be kept in your capital (which is already the case but you must spend money to keep it on par with tech) and maybe in a mountain region on the border with someone or near the border or on a strait.

For instance, I like to play with Castille/Spain, and mostly just play the colonial game.
As much as I try not to, France always ends up rivalling me, in which case, Navarra and Rosello will have fortress that will never be moth-balled and maybe Gibraltar if I didn't conquer the Tangiers and vicinities and that's it.
I do admit, playing in a different location, say, Poland or Brandeburg, you might end up building some fortress when the Thirty Years War starts brooding, but that's the thing where most people here will tell you that a good defense is a good offense. If you can save the money spent on fortress instead to go on mercs, those 1-2 ducat a month at 1450 will be 1800-3600 ducats by 1600, just imagine how many mercs you can buy with that (and build temples and workshops to increase your income).

 

[YuriiH]

Not expressly, why?

19+ forts are a a bit too many for the area of your empire. Unless you plan to fight defensively along all your borders with each and every your neighbour.

 

[Adamgerd]

The thing about fortress is that they consume a lot of money and the only benefit they bring in time of peace is to make sure your army tradition doesn't decrease that much.
If you are always at war or almost always at war, which is a a must have for a WC (something that I never actually tried, but I understand the difficulty of it) then your army tradition will never be dropping because you will always be fighting battles.
So, fortress should only be kept in your capital (which is already the case but you must spend money to keep it on par with tech) and maybe in a mountain region on the border with someone or near the border or on a strait.

Yeah, army tradition does help a lot

For instance, I like to play with Castille/Spain, and mostly just play the colonial game.
As much as I try not to, France always ends up rivalling me, in which case, Navarra and Rosello will have fortress that will never be moth-balled and maybe Gibraltar if I didn't conquer the Tangiers and vicinities and that's it.
I do admit, playing in a different location, say, Poland or Brandeburg, you might end up building some fortress when the Thirty Years War starts brooding, but that's the thing where most people here will tell you that a good defense is a good offense. If you can save the money spent on fortress instead to go on mercs, those 1-2 ducat a month at 1450 will be 1800-3600 ducats by 1600, just imagine how many mercs you can buy with that (and build temples and workshops to increase your income).

I think it might even be very strongly encouraged for France to rival Castile, like it rivals England. As Brandenburg or Prussia, you definitely don't need any fortress or even many mercy if any, I rarely used them in my last Prussian game. Prussian military ideals+Reformed Military Bonus+ some Absolutism and some Militarization+Prussian Events+Advisors are already OP and if you have also military idea groups, lots of PP and prestige, religious ideas, defender of faith and enact a golden age, then you effectively lose any military challenge whatsoever as your armies are so ridiculously OP, it's very difficult for you to lose in a war and you need no forts, because unless you're attacked by a gigantic coalition, you will rarely lose. Did not try Poland, but it's supposed to have the second strongest military ideas, so probably similar

 

[Adamgerd]

19+ forts are a a bit too many for the area of your empire. Unless you plan to fight defensively along all your borders with each and every your neighbour.

19+ Forts? In that game, I only have around 6-7 forts max

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Poland has a strong, insane cavalry, but as others said already, cavalry is only good in the early game and most of the insane bonus you will get will be by the middle-end of the game where the only thing that matters is having artillery up to the combat width and the infantry to keep it in the line behind.

Besides, Poland might end up completely surrounded by powerful rivals like russia, Ottomans and Austria (if you did your job right, Prussia won't be forming), so if 2 of those ally and you get enough AE to get a coalition, you might get screwed if they all team up (which happened to me once when I was aiming for 'Poland can into space'. It cost me insane amounts of loans and manpower being reduced to zero to fend off a Russia allied to both Ottomans and Austria.
And about Spain/France relations, I like to play the colonial games, so most of the time I try to stay away from European wars, which, I admit, Portugal is the best country to do that. You just have to make sure that Spain doesn't get involved in too many defensive wars and Portugal can pretty much forget that Europe exists.
Incidentally, I would advise on you playing with Portugal or Castille to better understand how trading steering and collecting works. Specially to make sure that whatever Indian riches go around the coast of Africa instead through the Red Sea.

 

[Adamgerd]

Poland has a strong, insane cavalry, but as others said already, cavalry is only good in the early game and most of the insane bonus you will get will be by the middle-end of the game where the only thing that matters is having artillery up to the combat width and the infantry to keep it in the line behind.

Besides, Poland might end up completely surrounded by powerful rivals like russia, Ottomans and Austria (if you did your job right, Prussia won't be forming), so if 2 of those ally and you get enough AE to get a coalition, you might get screwed if they all team up (which happened to me once when I was aiming for 'Poland can into space'. It cost me insane amounts of loans and manpower being reduced to zero to fend off a Russia allied to both Ottomans and Austria.

I don't really see why cavalry does stop mattering in late game from a game perspective and also historically. They still used the cavalry up to WW1.

And about Spain/France relations, I like to play the colonial games, so most of the time I try to stay away from European wars, which, I admit, Portugal is the best country to do that. You just have to make sure that Spain doesn't get involved in too many defensive wars and Portugal can pretty much forget that Europe exists.

And staying from the European wars? Where's the fun in that. Colonizing for me at least is not nearly as much fun, you just click a button and wait and the new world is not much of a challenge. You never really have to fear coalitions or attacks as you're the strongest tech wise nation against natives. Now a European war is interesting and not as one-sided, they have more of a chance against you. And as for forgetting about Europe and Africa, certainly. Unless Morocco invades you and Spain and takes southern half of Spain and so ruins your one ally and then you know that the next war, they take some of your land and more of theirs. Never again will I play Portugal or Spain. Luck hates me there. When I played Castile I did not get the BI or the Union with Aragon and was defeated by Aragon and France. When I played Portugal, we defeated Grenada but somehow morocco strengthened, got more allies like Tunis and managed to wreck Spain and me.

Incidentally, I would advise on you playing with Portugal or Castille to better understand how trading steering and collecting works. Specially to make sure that whatever Indian riches go around the coast of Africa instead through the Red Sea.

so yeah, no thanks about playing Castille or Portugal. And anyway I am currently playing Venice as you need to know trading well and use of navy to succeed as Venice, especially since you're limited to 20 provinces or less unless you want to change out of the government, but it has good trading bonuses and also republics make certain techs.

 

[oros]

The thing about fortress is that they consume a lot of money and the only benefit they bring in time of peace is to make sure your army tradition doesn't decrease that much.

It also decays devastation faster, it can be useful to keep a fort in constantinople before killing pirate nations to make sure you have prosperity when you plan to dev an institution.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Venice is a good one where you can benefit from trade a lot but you don't actually have to worry too much about how the trade is being steered.
In the end, I guess is a matter of different tastes and playstyle, I'm still trying to make the entirety of the American continent under a single Colonial Lord (and that's when I fight other european powers), but the way trade is directed from the USA and Canadian coast, I would only benefit from there, if playing as Castille if I got the Netherlands or fought France until I had all its lands, which at this point if I'm Spain and control France I don't need to worry about anything else.

Regarding cavalry. Really, it's not that good. At the most you will use 2 cavalry units attached to an army just because of the flanking bonus but if both the other army is also filling its combat width completely, the flanking bonus doesn't matter.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

It also decays devastation faster, it can be useful to keep a fort in constantinople before killing pirate nations to make sure you have prosperity when you plan to dev an institution.

I didn't know that. Good to know, thanks!

 

[ElGranCapitan]

Poland has a strong, insane cavalry, but as others said already, cavalry is only good in the early game and most of the insane bonus you will get will be by the middle-end of the game where the only thing that matters is having artillery up to the combat width and the infantry to keep it in the line behind.

Besides, Poland might end up completely surrounded by powerful rivals like russia, Ottomans and Austria (if you did your job right, Prussia won't be forming), so if 2 of those ally and you get enough AE to get a coalition, you might get screwed if they all team up (which happened to me once when I was aiming for 'Poland can into space'. It cost me insane amounts of loans and manpower being reduced to zero to fend off a Russia allied to both Ottomans and Austria.
And about Spain/France relations, I like to play the colonial games, so most of the time I try to stay away from European wars, which, I admit, Portugal is the best country to do that. You just have to make sure that Spain doesn't get involved in too many defensive wars and Portugal can pretty much forget that Europe exists.
Incidentally, I would advise on you playing with Portugal or Castille to better understand how trading steering and collecting works. Specially to make sure that whatever Indian riches go around the coast of Africa instead through the Red Sea.

Poland has 10% inf combat, 15% morale and 5% discipline, also 25% manpower and -10% cost on top of space cavalry

Also you can conquer the hordes and get your cav from the cossacks estate for extra shock damage

The thing with Poland is, it starts with low manpower and income making both regular and merc armies a pain to field. Also their mission lead you into the wrong direction (attack teuton who are allied with Denmark and Hungary..yeah exactly).

As Poland I'd first restart until Austria rivals Bohemia allowing you to claim their throne without Austrian intervention. In the mean time let Lithuania fabricate claims on both Novgorod and Livonia. Attack Novgorod first and try to snatch Novgorod, Neva and Ingermanland from Muscovy. That way you got 1 of 2 Centers of Trade in the Novgorod node, taking trade money away from Muscovy while blocking them from forming Russia. Next declare on the Livonian order, feed them to Lithuania. Separate peace the Teutons, break all their major alliances, but take no land. You can annex Riga if you want.
From Neva you can claim Swedish land, attack them next. Denmark only has 1 relationship slot open that they will most likely fill with the Teutons due to mutual rivalry with you. Take the Swedish copper mine and some Baltic land..nobody really cares what you do there, cause it's so far north
That should stabilize your income, Teutons are the next target, focus on the 2 provinces on the border of the HRE (Danzig and the second one is Kulm or Tuchel I think) and Memel as it has a trade center as well

Now you should control the Baltic trade pretty much

 

[Sfan]

Low income as Poland? From the start of the game it can field 30k men and run with level 1 advisors, how is that low income? If I remember correctly they start with horrendously bad estate assignment with like nobility on a 6-6-2 cloth province and things like that, but after one year you can fix that and you have a very high income. Even before conquering the Baltic Poland is in a scenario where they have a very strong economy, and you can siphon income of Lithuania regularly because they are an historical friend.
I agree with the rest of what you say.

 

[Badesumofu]

In general I think the potential of Siphon Income is often under-estimated. Once you have a PU stable with maxed Improved Relations you can use Siphon every 2 - 5 years without any real issue.

 

[Sfan]

I just made a quick test as Poland; after 1 year, now that I repositionned merchants, deleted forts and reassigned estates, I have 20 infantry including 4 mercs, 8 cavalry, a level 2 admin advisor from estate and a level 1 mil advisor. I'm even at max maintenance and I make 4 ducats at 0 maintenance. I already got the PU and siphoned income for 150 ducats which means I have over 200 ducats already to see the first war coming. "Low income".

 

[ElGranCapitan]

I just made a quick test as Poland; after 1 year, now that I repositionned merchants, deleted forts and reassigned estates, I have 20 infantry including 4 mercs, 8 cavalry, a level 2 admin advisor from estate and a level 1 mil advisor. I'm even at max maintenance and I make 4 ducats at 0 maintenance. I already got the PU and siphoned income for 150 ducats which means I have over 200 ducats already to see the first war coming. "Low income".

It's not like they are Najd or something. But still, any other european major is either far richer or has a gold mine. Compared to its starting development and position Poland has rather low income

 

[Sfan]

Well, to be honest that depends on what you call a major. Castile and England have barely more income (before Castile develop their goldmine), Denmark is about even, only France and Austria with the emperorship really have a clear edge, and Ottos after their reconquest. And once you conquer the Baltic only France and Ottos have more in Europe. Hungary and Bohemia start with less but have a goldmine. But you can take the goldmine of Hungary anyway.
The real difficulty is the manpower, which is further increased by the instability of having wrong religion provinces and these stupid events decreasing stab and popping revolts all the time. But well, the economy is good enough to sustain mercs from the beginning, that's what I call a rich country.

 

[browd]

And anyway I am currently playing Venice as you need to know trading well and use of navy to succeed as Venice, especially since you're limited to 20 provinces or less unless you want to change out of the government, but it has good trading bonuses and also republics make certain techs.

You are limited to 20 provinces in states (and the only cost of an additional state province or two over 20 is a modest decay in RP). So you can expand pretty freely as a merchant republic, if you leave all but your most valuable provinces as territories (or turned into trade companies, where possible), or fed to vassals and client states. You lose the additional state bonuses that other government types can benefit from, but your trade income will more than make up for it.

 

[Adamgerd]

You are limited to 20 provinces in states (and the only cost of an additional state province or two over 20 is a modest decay in RP). So you can expand pretty freely as a merchant republic, if you leave all but your most valuable provinces as territories (or turned into trade companies, where possible), or fed to vassals and client states. You lose the additional state bonuses that other government types can benefit from, but your trade income will more than make up for it.

I see. It would really help if Hungary did not want Bosnia so much and I did not worsen my dip rep as much. I guess I'll have to restart