Humanism Why?

[Incompetent]

2. Yes. Missionary idle. -2 unrest is de facto +2 tolerance of every religion as long as you maintain unity. No +6 revolt risk for active missionary.

Actually, -2 unrest is better than +2 tolerance (assuming you are aren't suffering negative tolerance), because global unrest is important for when various disasters can happen. Taken as a single idea, it's very strong.

Bonus: Culture conversion is, by all accounts, simply fantastic, though I never do it myself. -10% idea cost is actually meh compared to the rest.

It would be a great bonus if wrong-culture penalties actually hurt, or the base cost of culture conversion was something relatively affordable. As it is, cultural conversion is rarely worth doing on a large scale, even at a 45% discount (Religious bonus + policy), because 14 DIP per base tax is still a lot of mana. I agree that -10% idea cost is overrated though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not a lot as I usually do not play Ironman. I suppose my best ironman game would be Ragusa.

THere are plenty of better EUIV players than I am as I tend to play the game is weird ways. I try for things like OPMs, 2PMs and synergy over building the biggest blobbiest empire I can. I also do not play a huge amount of MP.

Navarra Wurld Empire.




Ironman Ragusa


Germany 1718


I'm not the best EUIV player in the wurld. I do not use exploits and I rarely even use allies so my expansion is usually slow as I will mano a mano France most of the time as opposed to ally Burgandy/Castile or us AI alliances to do my heavy lifting.

This looks like a fun game. Maybe I should mirror your tactics, and say that if you think humanism is consistently a poor choice that you don't know what you're doing? But let's not go that route please. Let's stick to non-canned arguments that actually hold merit, unlike say this one:

I got a little experience.

Which is an overt logical fallacy from a player who only seems to be posting European starts with nations that need neither religious nor humanist, but could benefit from either. Not a very rigorous argument. But, since we're posting empires and whatnot as if it means something, here are a few that took humanist at some point:



Below is ORISSA into Mughals:

Plus innovative + quality will make any nation into Prussia.

Or you can turn any competitor into a laughingstock with neither:

 

[Marox]

Lol, that started because I responded to the "bad at EU for picking Humanism" comment soo .. sorry.

 

[wingzero890]

Religion gives discipline and morale through policies, therefore is fundamentally better (especially in multiplayer) since the only thing that truly matters is army quality.

The other *admin* idea group that is fundamental is economic, because it too gives discipline through policies as well as ticking LA reduction.

Religious andor Economic/Quality/Offense/Quantity/Trade almost every game. I almost never take humanism, as much as I would like to. If every idea tree gave discipline through a policy I wouldn't be forced to do the above build every game (Again, mostly for multiplayer) in order to be able to field a competitive army.

 

[ikkiks]

You guys are ignoring too much the fact that less nationalism + less unrest allows you to reduce autonomy much sooner. It's a huge boost for your country if you're constantly conquering provinces. Humanist is a great idea set.

You can't keep comparing ideas purely by their numbers, you have to consider the nation, the position and the player goals along with that. For Mali or the Ottomans, for example, Humanist is absolutely great. You could argue that you like religious better, but that's an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that both idea groups work really well and the only thing that can decide which is better is your goal and the nation you're playing as.

About policies, humanist has -25% land attrition +5% morale recovery with defensive. Depending on where you're fighting your wars and the size of your troops, that policy is huge!

 

[wingzero890]

You guys are ignoring too much the fact that less nationalism + less unrest allows you to reduce autonomy much sooner. It's a huge boost for your country if you're constantly conquering provinces. Humanist is a great idea set.

You can't keep comparing ideas purely by their numbers, you have to consider the nation, the position and the player goals along with that. For Mali or the Ottomans, for example, Humanist is absolutely great. You could argue that you like religious better, but that's an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that both idea groups work really well and the only thing that can decide which is better is your goal and the nation you're playing as.

About policies, humanist has -25% land attrition +5% morale recovery with defensive. Depending on where you're fighting your wars and the size of your troops, that policy is huge!

If you are relying on attrition for defense then you have already lost. Attrition is easily countered by sieging with mercenaries, and 5% morale is nothing by the time you unlock the policy. Again, multiplayer pvp wars are what sets the bar here. Any player can blob hard enough to beat the AI in single player (countering TMIT talking about his huge netherlands, grats m9).

If you take economic as your admin policy you will never need to manually lower local autonomy, as it has ticking local autonomy reduction in the idea tree. Additionally, it grants you +5% discipline with the economic/quality policy.

 

[ikkiks]

If you are relying on attrition for defense then you have already lost. Attrition is easily countered by sieging with mercenaries, and 5% morale is nothing by the time you unlock the policy.

If you take economic as your admin policy you will never need to manually lower local autonomy, as it has ticking local autonomy reduction in the idea tree. Additionally, it grants you +5% discipline with the economic/quality policy.

You should read again the policy. It's -25% land attrition, it's the units that you lose on attrition, not for defense. Also, it's +5% morale recovery, so it's the morale you recover after an assault or battle. So, it gets better the more morale you have.

I don't think economic and humanist are ideas that have the same goal. Economic boosts your economy (er...), while humanist lowers the unrest. One is made to fund your wars, the other is to keep your nation together while you keep your conquests. So, you could pick both (although I wouldn't). I don't think economic can replace humanist or religious in a situation that you want one of these two ideas sets.

 

[wingzero890]

You should read again the policy. It's -25% land attrition, it's the units that you lose on attrition, not for defense. Also, it's +5% morale recovery, so it's the morale you recover after an assault or battle. So, it gets better the more morale you have.

I don't think economic and humanist are ideas that have the same goal. Economic boosts your economy (er...), while humanist lowers the unrest. One is made to fund your wars, the other is to keep your nation together while you keep your conquests. So, you could pick both (although I wouldn't). I don't think economic can replace humanist or religious in a situation that you want one of these two ideas sets.

Well the point I'm making is that army quality is the most important thing in this game, bar none. Since religious gives you two polices that boost your army quality, it's better. Economic also boosts your army quality, and you can keep unrest down by raising autonomy which is recovered quickly with the passive autonomy reduction it gives you, compounded by more advanced governments.

I'm not saying humanism is bad, I'm saying that because it does not improve the quality of your armies it is suboptimal when compared to the other two admin groups I mentioned. Taking humanism in multiplayer will put your armies at a significant disadvantage compared to anyone who takes economic or religious instead.

 

[hashinshin]

I'm not saying humanism is bad, I'm saying that because it does not improve the quality of your armies it is suboptimal when compared to the other two admin groups I mentioned. Taking humanism in multiplayer will put your armies at a significant disadvantage compared to anyone who takes economic or religious instead.

Not entirely true. You have quantity/humanist which gives +1 land leader shock and 0.5 yearly army tradition. Better generals are better armies.

 

[wingzero890]

Not entirely true. You have quantity/humanist which gives +1 land leader shock and 0.5 yearly army tradition. Better generals are better armies.

If you stack enough +leader pip idea groups together for that to actually make a big difference, you will have very low discipline and cripple your forces against someone who simply stacks discipline (especially mid-late game, when policies come into full swing)

 

[hashinshin]

Discipline stacking is definitely an issue worth addressing at some point.

Simply by the fact it's a multiplactive value that stacks additively it gets out of control at the 20%+ point.

So on that notion you are correct, religious through discipline will be better mid game.

 

[wingzero890]

Discipline stacking is definitely an issue worth addressing at some point.

Simply by the fact it's a multiplactive value that stacks additively it gets out of control at the 20%+ point.

So on that notion you are correct, religious through discipline will be better mid game.

Don't get me wrong I would LOVE for humanist or alternative mil builds like defensive/aristocratic to be more viable, discipline is just too OP to not take especially if you are playing a competitive min-maxish game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well the point I'm making is that army quality is the most important thing in this game, bar none. Since religious gives you two polices that boost your army quality, it's better. Economic also boosts your army quality, and you can keep unrest down by raising autonomy which is recovered quickly with the passive autonomy reduction it gives you, compounded by more advanced governments.

I'm not saying humanism is bad, I'm saying that because it does not improve the quality of your armies it is suboptimal when compared to the other two admin groups I mentioned. Taking humanism in multiplayer will put your armies at a significant disadvantage compared to anyone who takes economic or religious instead.

Asserting that army quality is the "most important thing, bar none" in this game is flat out wrong. Even in MP it's not entirely true (but it's certainly more important in MP), but that statement is a complete farce for SP, arguing from that premise is flawed from the start.

That Taungu game above involved a fight (several, actually) against Russia and Prussia combined. Both had superior discipline by 10% or more, Prussia had superior morale also. Here's what that "army quality" means in SP:



That superior "army quality" nation was riding -3 stab and got forced out inside 2 years, getting to enjoy internal conflicts. Russia got a dose of non-existence. Ikkiks mentioning -25% attrition resistance is quite relevant; that policy opens up some options that work much better and faster with them than without.

Like I said earlier in the thread, most nations prefer religious because deus vult opens at religious 1 while imperialism opens in the late 1600's. However, when you never have to convert anything, suddenly humanist starts looking pretty good, to the point where you can take 100% OE (in addition to feeding vassals), not raise autonomy, and have no unrest.

 

[wingzero890]

Eh, I have never found single player blob runs that interesting barring a few funny achievements like Jihad. When your goal is to simply annex as much as possible as quickly as possible against an AI that behaves erratically at best then sure, Humanist is good (pair that with diplo for truce breaking)

However against intelligent enemies you can't play like that; someone will cut you down if you are expanding too fast.

 

[Zardnaar]

In single player I find you can run more or less anything you like and there are multiple ways to be stable. Even in SP as the Ottomans I got hit with 1 million rebels. Humanism may have been useful then but I killed them all with 150k manpower in my reserve. It was at 0 buy the time I was finished but still. That Ottoman game I had religious+ economic.

I also generally do not play Asian nations either IDK why as I loved playing in India in EUIII. Its not because of the tech penalty either as I play in Africa and the Americas more.

 

[lolada]

Just had it in my Switzerland game. I could completely ignore religion altogether, Swiss have extra religious unity in their ideas, and thanks to - nationalism from humanism ( + admin republic has this bonus) and with plutocracy i don't think i had even one non-event revolt in whole game (up to 1710 year). Conquered whole HRE + Ottomans lands for Switzerlake achievement.

 

[1alexey]

Neither of 2 ideas is strictly better than the other, that, IMO, is the good balance.
Question rather is, which one fits your current goals better. Religious is much better for wars and allows more stable realm, after a period of initial intability due to conversion.
Humanist allows integrating people quicker, although the integration treshold is arguably lower as tolerance of heretics and heathens is capped, and idea is more focused on diplomacy.

For me, the question always is/was where to obtain enough heathen tolerance to get to +3. How do you do it?

 

[Zardnaar]

Just had it in my Switzerland game. I could completely ignore religion altogether, Swiss have extra religious unity in their ideas, and thanks to - nationalism from humanism ( + admin republic has this bonus) and with plutocracy i don't think i had even one non-event revolt in whole game (up to 1710 year). Conquered whole HRE + Ottomans lands for Switzerlake achievement.

What ideas did you have and in what order?

 

[Violent AI]

still take innovative for the general and war exhaustion reduction mainly. Not always like I used to though.

Aristocratic and innovative are also a godsend for super cheap mil techs.

Plus innovative + quality will make any nation into Prussia.

Innovative is really good if you're playing a non-western nation that you'd westernize with. Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite is probably the best even in the game for these nations.

 

[lolada]

What ideas did you have and in what order?

Not 100% sure, will have to check when i get home: I think it was Influence 1st (AE was a killer still), Plutocracy 2nd (morale, unrest), Economics for some fun (helped a lot, i had Tirol and i built all Iron, Cloth Manufactories and even good number of Counting Houses), Humanism 4th - it wasn't late, i had like 5-6 Protestant provinces so it came just right in time, Quantity/Offensive after that.