After playing this game way to much here are my thoughts on the sliders. Generally I was addicted to high innovative, free subject type nations due to the economy and technology benefits but recently I have been playing as all sorts of weird combinations in order to try them out. THis mini guide or whatever is assuming that each slider is maxed out.
Centralisation vs Decentralisation.
This sldier is unfortionately a no brainer. Centralistion is strictly better than decentralistion 100% of the time. The war weariness advantage offered by decentralisation is a to minor a benefit and situation to really matter. The final nail in the coffin is you need to have a high centralisation slider to westernise as a non European nation. The only real negative of moving your slider down the centralisation path is the almost universally bad options- stability hits or rebels. Rebels can be a killer literally if you are an OPM, ergo move this slider later in the game.
Aristocracy vs Plutocracy.
Generally plutocracy is better but it does depend. This slider is really a choice between a warmonger state and a trading power. The increased cavalry cost at full plutocracy is almost irrelevent except for the smallest (or poorest) nations. High aristocracy gives cheap and better cavalry.
Serfdom vs Free Subjects.
Generally speaking Free subjects is almost always better than serfdom. Cheap infantry in the early game can be nice but a -20% penalty to tech rates hurts compared with a 2-% bonus of free subjects. Unlike Aristocracy Serfdom gives no combat advantage to infantry. Cheap galleys are also a bit meh. The 25% stability bonus however is very good for full serfdom as free subjects get a 25% penalty to stability hits.
Innovative vs Narrowminded.
Once upon a time I used to think that innovative was always better than narrowminded. A 15% bonus to technology costs vs a 15% penalty to tennology costs. Narrowminded however does offer some very attractive bonuses in terms of misisonaries, stabilty, war exhaustion and colonial growth. Narrowminded however is well suited to an aggressive nation that can easily recover stability as Innovative also sucks up a stability penalty. The tech penalty is not a big of a drawback as implied in the western tech group due to neighbour bonus but innovative is always better in a non western tech group as it is required to westernise and modernise your units. Religious conversion however is going to be difficult as an innovative country often requiring Judea/Mecca/Rome and/or a national idea as well. Numerous beneficial religious decisions require some amount of narrow minded as well.
Merchantilism vs Free Trade.
This one is almost another no brainer. Free trade is better 90% of the time than merchantilism. THe exception may be for trade league nations and nations that can easily be aggressive that can seize multiple CoTs. Even then alot of those nations may be stuggling vs traders from countries like Navarra, Ulm, Holland etc. Other countries just don't care to much about merchants due to rich provinces and taxes at least early in the game. Merchants can be nice, but so can a large stack of land units. Merchantilism value is almost directly tied to military prowess.
Offensive vs Defensive.
Generally I find offensive almost always better than defensive. Defensive can be fun however and it is not useless. My personal opinion however leans towards the best defense is a good offense and a mobile army of full offensive for example seems better than the advantages offed by defensive. The AI rarely assaults your forts though if you are full defensive so it is not a bad option by any means and random events often pop up offering a slider change either way. Usually amoung the last sliders I will move with the rare exception of some countries that start with almost full offensive sliders.
Land vs Naval.
Usually the last slider I move regardless. This one is also another no brainer. Land is almost always better than naval. The reason being naval combat in EUIII is rather limited and there are only a few viable island nations in the game anyway such as England. Naval does offer advantages to colonisation but England is even outclassed at that by Portugal/Navarra/Holland (assuming a human player). A colonial empire will noot offer the same advantages as say an aggressive land power in Europe. The final nail in the coffin is even as England, Hansa or Malacca etc eventually I will end up with max land sliders anyway. The cheap ship cost naval offers is easily mitigated by high value targets a land power has or the shipwrights national idea that offers half price ships.
Quality vs Quantity.
More or less exactly what is says. Generally I find quantity better as there are ways around your low man power limits such as becoming the HRE or spamming barracks in the late game. Quantity however can be very good early in the game and horde nations often have a high quantity slider. With some of the epic cascading alliances one can provoke in Europe manpower can be very important when it comes to grinding down the HRE for example.
Putting it All togather.
This game rewards extremes with most of the sliders offering great advantages if maxed out. Innovative+Free subjects for example is a great combo for technology while Narrowminded and Sefdom results in a very stable country which is great for changin national ideas, government types, or moving your capital or shrugging off stability hitting random events. I'll offer some sterotypes below. Sterotypes can be reinforced with national ideas of course. THe stereotypes often blend into each other in the 1600's as the sliders can end up wherever you lipke by then
"Russia"
A stereotypical Russian nation has max serfdom, aristocracy, narrowminded, quantity and land sliders. Trade whats that? Such a nation is often very stable and can be a pain in to assault and can shrug of catastrophic losses at the front. War weariness isn't that much of a problem espcially if you are actually Russian and have the Russian Patriarchy national event. As Russia I have actualy lost 40k stacks in combat and shrugged off losses of 80k+ as you reinforce rapidly and war weariness is only a factor in long drawn out combats. Cheap infantry and cavalry actually matters when you need to spam out 100+ regiments in a month or two.
"Germany"
The opposite of Russia almost as they pick quality over quantity. High aristocracy will often be chosen along with ideas like military drill and battlefield commisions. The Teutonic Order and Burgandy offer good archtypes for a "German" stereo type.
"Dutch"
A Dutch nation has high innovative, free trade and plutocracy sliders. A stereotype is that they are rich and advanced. Their militart sliders will lack by comparison early on but they will be one of the first nations to get a new unit type. A historical stereo type will also have a high naval slider but in game land is probably better. Holland and Navarra are excellent examples of a Dutch type nation espicially when combined with economic based national ideas.
"England"
The stereotypical English nation has high naval, innovative, free subjects and high quality sliders. In terms of roleplaying you can go either way on the merchantilism or free trade slider based on your prefered time period of English history. Personally I do not like "English" nations but England, The Hansa and Malacca make good "English" nations. You will rock at sea and kind of suck on land. The new world and Indonesia area are particuly attractive to "English" nations.
"Spain"
Spainish nations are based around colonisation, narrowmindedness and high levels of serfdom and aristocracy. Trade takes aback set at least early on and you may actually stay Catholic for warmongering bonuses. Castille,Portugal and some fo the Italian states are good examples of "Spainish" nations along with Byzantium minus the colonisation bits.
"USA"
A USA nation will be similar to a modern democracy. Most of the sliders will be maxed out and alot of the other "nations" often resemble this in the late game. A USA nation will often have max centralisation sliders, max plutcracy, free subjects, free trade, innovative, quality, and land sliders. As a general rule you will have the most advanced units that fight very well. A Hearts of Iron fascist "USA" nation will be very simialr but with maybe high aristocracy, narrowminded and maybe serfdom sliders. They won't be quite as advanced perhaps but will be about as scary on land combat as the game engine allows. Late game sliders often blend togather with the main difference being maybe 2-3 sliders based on personal preference or goals of any EuIII game.
It is very easy in this game to get addicted to free trade, innovative, free subjects and plutocracy. This means wealth and technology and using thiese combos you can plow through the AI without to much trouble. Most nations however will take centuries to get to this point (Holland and Navarra being exceptions). Persoanlly I was quite impressed with a high narrowmindedness in testing as the drawback wasn't that bad and the stability was nice for large land based European empires. Being very rich can often negate the drawback of the tech penalty. IMHO there are only a few sketchy sliders where one is usually better 80% of the time- decentraslisation, merchantilism and naval sliders seem to be traps outside of very specific countries or goals. Decentrailistion seems to be always inferior to centralistion.
Centralisation vs Decentralisation.
This sldier is unfortionately a no brainer. Centralistion is strictly better than decentralistion 100% of the time. The war weariness advantage offered by decentralisation is a to minor a benefit and situation to really matter. The final nail in the coffin is you need to have a high centralisation slider to westernise as a non European nation. The only real negative of moving your slider down the centralisation path is the almost universally bad options- stability hits or rebels. Rebels can be a killer literally if you are an OPM, ergo move this slider later in the game.
Aristocracy vs Plutocracy.
Generally plutocracy is better but it does depend. This slider is really a choice between a warmonger state and a trading power. The increased cavalry cost at full plutocracy is almost irrelevent except for the smallest (or poorest) nations. High aristocracy gives cheap and better cavalry.
Serfdom vs Free Subjects.
Generally speaking Free subjects is almost always better than serfdom. Cheap infantry in the early game can be nice but a -20% penalty to tech rates hurts compared with a 2-% bonus of free subjects. Unlike Aristocracy Serfdom gives no combat advantage to infantry. Cheap galleys are also a bit meh. The 25% stability bonus however is very good for full serfdom as free subjects get a 25% penalty to stability hits.
Innovative vs Narrowminded.
Once upon a time I used to think that innovative was always better than narrowminded. A 15% bonus to technology costs vs a 15% penalty to tennology costs. Narrowminded however does offer some very attractive bonuses in terms of misisonaries, stabilty, war exhaustion and colonial growth. Narrowminded however is well suited to an aggressive nation that can easily recover stability as Innovative also sucks up a stability penalty. The tech penalty is not a big of a drawback as implied in the western tech group due to neighbour bonus but innovative is always better in a non western tech group as it is required to westernise and modernise your units. Religious conversion however is going to be difficult as an innovative country often requiring Judea/Mecca/Rome and/or a national idea as well. Numerous beneficial religious decisions require some amount of narrow minded as well.
Merchantilism vs Free Trade.
This one is almost another no brainer. Free trade is better 90% of the time than merchantilism. THe exception may be for trade league nations and nations that can easily be aggressive that can seize multiple CoTs. Even then alot of those nations may be stuggling vs traders from countries like Navarra, Ulm, Holland etc. Other countries just don't care to much about merchants due to rich provinces and taxes at least early in the game. Merchants can be nice, but so can a large stack of land units. Merchantilism value is almost directly tied to military prowess.
Offensive vs Defensive.
Generally I find offensive almost always better than defensive. Defensive can be fun however and it is not useless. My personal opinion however leans towards the best defense is a good offense and a mobile army of full offensive for example seems better than the advantages offed by defensive. The AI rarely assaults your forts though if you are full defensive so it is not a bad option by any means and random events often pop up offering a slider change either way. Usually amoung the last sliders I will move with the rare exception of some countries that start with almost full offensive sliders.
Land vs Naval.
Usually the last slider I move regardless. This one is also another no brainer. Land is almost always better than naval. The reason being naval combat in EUIII is rather limited and there are only a few viable island nations in the game anyway such as England. Naval does offer advantages to colonisation but England is even outclassed at that by Portugal/Navarra/Holland (assuming a human player). A colonial empire will noot offer the same advantages as say an aggressive land power in Europe. The final nail in the coffin is even as England, Hansa or Malacca etc eventually I will end up with max land sliders anyway. The cheap ship cost naval offers is easily mitigated by high value targets a land power has or the shipwrights national idea that offers half price ships.
Quality vs Quantity.
More or less exactly what is says. Generally I find quantity better as there are ways around your low man power limits such as becoming the HRE or spamming barracks in the late game. Quantity however can be very good early in the game and horde nations often have a high quantity slider. With some of the epic cascading alliances one can provoke in Europe manpower can be very important when it comes to grinding down the HRE for example.
Putting it All togather.
This game rewards extremes with most of the sliders offering great advantages if maxed out. Innovative+Free subjects for example is a great combo for technology while Narrowminded and Sefdom results in a very stable country which is great for changin national ideas, government types, or moving your capital or shrugging off stability hitting random events. I'll offer some sterotypes below. Sterotypes can be reinforced with national ideas of course. THe stereotypes often blend into each other in the 1600's as the sliders can end up wherever you lipke by then
"Russia"
A stereotypical Russian nation has max serfdom, aristocracy, narrowminded, quantity and land sliders. Trade whats that? Such a nation is often very stable and can be a pain in to assault and can shrug of catastrophic losses at the front. War weariness isn't that much of a problem espcially if you are actually Russian and have the Russian Patriarchy national event. As Russia I have actualy lost 40k stacks in combat and shrugged off losses of 80k+ as you reinforce rapidly and war weariness is only a factor in long drawn out combats. Cheap infantry and cavalry actually matters when you need to spam out 100+ regiments in a month or two.
"Germany"
The opposite of Russia almost as they pick quality over quantity. High aristocracy will often be chosen along with ideas like military drill and battlefield commisions. The Teutonic Order and Burgandy offer good archtypes for a "German" stereo type.
"Dutch"
A Dutch nation has high innovative, free trade and plutocracy sliders. A stereotype is that they are rich and advanced. Their militart sliders will lack by comparison early on but they will be one of the first nations to get a new unit type. A historical stereo type will also have a high naval slider but in game land is probably better. Holland and Navarra are excellent examples of a Dutch type nation espicially when combined with economic based national ideas.
"England"
The stereotypical English nation has high naval, innovative, free subjects and high quality sliders. In terms of roleplaying you can go either way on the merchantilism or free trade slider based on your prefered time period of English history. Personally I do not like "English" nations but England, The Hansa and Malacca make good "English" nations. You will rock at sea and kind of suck on land. The new world and Indonesia area are particuly attractive to "English" nations.
"Spain"
Spainish nations are based around colonisation, narrowmindedness and high levels of serfdom and aristocracy. Trade takes aback set at least early on and you may actually stay Catholic for warmongering bonuses. Castille,Portugal and some fo the Italian states are good examples of "Spainish" nations along with Byzantium minus the colonisation bits.
"USA"
A USA nation will be similar to a modern democracy. Most of the sliders will be maxed out and alot of the other "nations" often resemble this in the late game. A USA nation will often have max centralisation sliders, max plutcracy, free subjects, free trade, innovative, quality, and land sliders. As a general rule you will have the most advanced units that fight very well. A Hearts of Iron fascist "USA" nation will be very simialr but with maybe high aristocracy, narrowminded and maybe serfdom sliders. They won't be quite as advanced perhaps but will be about as scary on land combat as the game engine allows. Late game sliders often blend togather with the main difference being maybe 2-3 sliders based on personal preference or goals of any EuIII game.
It is very easy in this game to get addicted to free trade, innovative, free subjects and plutocracy. This means wealth and technology and using thiese combos you can plow through the AI without to much trouble. Most nations however will take centuries to get to this point (Holland and Navarra being exceptions). Persoanlly I was quite impressed with a high narrowmindedness in testing as the drawback wasn't that bad and the stability was nice for large land based European empires. Being very rich can often negate the drawback of the tech penalty. IMHO there are only a few sketchy sliders where one is usually better 80% of the time- decentraslisation, merchantilism and naval sliders seem to be traps outside of very specific countries or goals. Decentrailistion seems to be always inferior to centralistion.
