Poor stability never costs me. Remember? I'm Mr. 100% serfdom, narrowminded guy. Poor stability? What's that? Never heard of it, as I'm always at +3 stability for all but a few months every several years.
-
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.
Poor stability never costs me. Remember? I'm Mr. 100% serfdom, narrowminded guy. Poor stability? What's that? Never heard of it, as I'm always at +3 stability for all but a few months every several years.
Do conquistidors actually give the bonus when sending colonists? The only difference I've noticed is when you send in an army (or conquistidor, whatever) to wipe out the native population. THEN I notice a difference.
Then again, I rarely play the historical colonial powers, and usually end up with just a few colonies spread out wherever there was something left over, or where natives wipes out a colony and I was able to scoot in there real quick.
I'll say this, though...I usually play as Byzantium or Hungary, and even on full, or close to full, land I still get more explorers and conquistidors than I know what to do with. On the other hand, maybe I don't know what to do with them all because I rarely have very many colonies...and I generaly rely on stolen rutters, sacking capital provinces, and trading discoveries with Portugal, Europan minors, and RoTW countries to get a map of the world.
Ok, so, basically, I have no idea, so feel free to disregard this whole post
.
Then again, I rarely play the historical colonial powers, and usually end up with just a few colonies spread out wherever there was something left over, or where natives wipes out a colony and I was able to scoot in there real quick.
I'll say this, though...I usually play as Byzantium or Hungary, and even on full, or close to full, land I still get more explorers and conquistidors than I know what to do with. On the other hand, maybe I don't know what to do with them all because I rarely have very many colonies...and I generaly rely on stolen rutters, sacking capital provinces, and trading discoveries with Portugal, Europan minors, and RoTW countries to get a map of the world.
Ok, so, basically, I have no idea, so feel free to disregard this whole post
.
Nonesence.Originally posted by dunkel
Ok, so, basically, I have no idea, so feel free to disregard this whole post
I do like to keep a little army in a col. when I send people because the natives can rise up and I don't want all of my women and children getting butchered.
Originally posted by dunkel
Do conquistidors actually give the bonus when sending colonists? The only difference I've noticed is when you send in an army (or conquistidor, whatever) to wipe out the native population. THEN I notice a difference.
Then again, I rarely play the historical colonial powers, and usually end up with just a few colonies spread out wherever there was something left over, or where natives wipes out a colony and I was able to scoot in there real quick.
I'll say this, though...I usually play as Byzantium or Hungary, and even on full, or close to full, land I still get more explorers and conquistidors than I know what to do with. On the other hand, maybe I don't know what to do with them all because I rarely have very many colonies...and I generaly rely on stolen rutters, sacking capital provinces, and trading discoveries with Portugal, Europan minors, and RoTW countries to get a map of the world.
Ok, so, basically, I have no idea, so feel free to disregard this whole post
A conquistador in place when u send of the colonist gives 3 times his manouver rating as bonus succes %.
Stability is rarely any problem anyway if you just do a bit of planning with your wars and the like. Random events aren´t that bad after all.
So he doesn't have to stay there the whole time???
Conquistador and explorer bonuses are cumulative, I assume.
Nope. I leave a garrison and keep the conquistador moving right along.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So he doesn't have to stay there the whole time???
agreed--further now that you can blockade at any level, having a strong navy is a viable war strategy--a good blockade combined with decentralization (i.e., low risk of war exhaustion) can easily crumble an opponent--let his rebels do the hard work for you
People have played for so long (since EU1) discounting navies that I think it's going to take a long time for the "conventional wisdom" to come around to considering a strong navy a viable strategy.
BarristerBoy
I think the fact that naval has had to be strengthened, first in 1.02, next in 1.05, shows quite clearly that, at least in the eyes of Johan et al, this slider needed work. I'm glad that they've given it some attention, the change is welcome. I just fear that they've made a bad decision in reducing the number of colonists available to land-oriented nations. I don't think it's nearly as realistic as if something else were adjusted, such as trade efficiency or naval tech cost.
barristerboy:
it apparently just takes someone with the keen wit and ability to analyze a problem contrary to the conventional (both traits of a barrister), to have seen the advantages of zigging while others zag!
ignorantia legis, neminem excusat!
It has to do with preferences and many things that are subjective, so on that note I will respectfully disagree.
i see your point as well and the answer really depends upon your play style personal objectives and the country you're playing--it would be foolish to ever go naval as the timurids or muscowy or bavaria, etc--nonetheless if you wanted to dominate the mediterranean as venice, genoa, tuscany, etc, naval is a very viable war option--you should try it on lark if nothing else--it really does work with the right countries
Is wisdom ever conventional? But I agree, the more players engage the game, the more naval might become a more popular option.
Johan did. He didn't say anything else, so I guess in his terseness he may have left out some other things he was considering. I hope.
Originally posted by JohnMK
Johan did. He didn't say anything else, so I guess in his terseness he may have left out some other things he was considering. I hope.
Johan didn't say that