Time for a break from this game.

[Kresaux]

Never attack your own rebels when outnumbered. NEVER. Even if you win it will cost you too much manpower.
Rather go to debt and buy some mercs, or just give into their demands.

 

[Sunspawn]

Never attack your own rebels when outnumbered. NEVER. Even if you win it will cost you too much manpower.
Rather go to debt and buy some mercs, or just give into their demands.

In the case of peasants, it is far better to debt up, merc up and kill them, since +15% LA in your whole country hits far harder than some debt.

 

[Antonine]

I'd agree with what's already been said - the reaction to losing a war should not be to instantly restart the game or give up.

If you're beaten then let yourself lose - buy peace as cheaply as possible, lick your wounds and bide your time until you can take revenge.

In my last game I started out as England. As expected I got slaughtered in the 100 years war. Yet I finished the game as Great Britain with all of France as core provinces under my control. Through conquests and bit by bit annexations, careful alliances and not giving up every time I lost.

If you're finding it tough then don't play Ironman mode. Don't be ashamed of reloading. But don't give up too easily either. I've lost wars to rebels before - I've just put up with a change of government and carried on. That's the way to have fun in this game - don't get too bothered by any single defeat and hang in there until things get better.

 

[Antonine]

But I will say that peasant revolts definitely seem overpowered.

 

[Incompetent]

Some general tips if you are struggling:

- Don't play Ironman (like Sarvik said). If you make a small error, it can be instructive to make up for it, but a disastrous situation (e.g. a much stronger power is determined to annex you and you can't stop them) is just torture if you are not that good at the game, and restarting all the time is no fun either.
- Start as one of the big powers, so you're not struggling to stay alive and can recover from a lost battle/war. France is the classic choice for the beginner as its 'natural territory' already gives it a huge power base, and it can get involved in all aspects of the game.
- Don't push too hard: run a surplus, don't spend all your manpower, don't conquer too much at once, and so on. Skilled players will push quite hard because they know what they can and can't get away with, but if you don't know, it's better to play it safe. That includes not running up too much AE from your conquests (something new players often trip up on). It's easy to win a war or two and end up with an overinflated sense of your country's strength, which can cost you dearly. Slow progress is better than getting wrecked by a coalition.
- Don't start a war unless you have an overwhelming advantage. You're not ready to start a war until you have built up your army (+fleet in some cases) and have plenty of manpower in reserve. If you need to fight a big country, wait for moments of weakness or times when you have some special advantage (e.g. a tech lead or a monster general). Always read the war confirmation box carefully to see which countries will be involved on which side.
- Diplomacy! Form alliances, improve relations and generally make as many strong countries your friends as you can. They might not help you offensively (see previous point) but they should keep you safe against surprise attacks by your rivals.

 

[IsadorBG]

At first I found puzzling that you faced so many coalitions in your game but then I read the "I was stuck in a 13 years regency so I restarted"... .

Maybe you should go a bit slower on expansions since apparently you have difficulties handling diplomacy.

 

[shafii777]

I played over 1,000 hours of Europa Universalis, but now, it's finally time for me to take a pause. I consider myself a mediocer tactician/strategist, certainly not an awful one, and yet after every patch, I can make less and less progress. Started up probably a dozen different games over the last week or so.

• Glorious Spain, soon to be lead by Enrique de Retardo - get wrecked by France post Burgundian inheritance. Fight in mountains? No prob. France will demonlish you anyway because they want to. Try again. Same thing. What the hell is going on here? Finally, third try, I get a decent start, get my French provinces. Decide to take some provinces from Portuengland. They're chums. I am the mighty Spanish tercio. Portugal's army is smaller but due to crap rolls I get routed and they chase and stackwipe. Again, no manpower, like 6 war exhaust, game over, gg, fun game.
  
• Fine. Burgundy next. Ally Austria (WTF no rivals?), Castille, and Aragon. Let them kill France for me. Transfer sieges to Aragon so I only take one province myself directly in the war, letting them get the most of the AE (this will be patched soon enough I guess, it's kind of a cheap trick). Give three provinces to Aragon that only borders me and France, eventually, they sell these provinces to me. Trade gold for expansion = success. Austria goes into interregnum, puts a guy of my dynasty on their throne, Bohemia is now emperor. I declare on Austria to force PU, only Bohemia is allied to them. Fine. I can do this. Suddenly, Lithuania joins war. Suddenly, Aragon joins war. Suddenly, Denmark joins war. People allying during wars is fine, but they shouldn't be able to get called into the war. Now, getting creampied by four great powers, when I could've probably had an enjoyable and interesting war with the original two participants. Fuck my life.
• Ok. Sweden. I Swedened a lot. Used to blob like mad. I can do this. Infantry is stronk in this one. I CAN DO THIS. Win independence war, take cores back, screw you Norway, taking stuff from you too. POWERING UP! Soon, Russialand will fear my mighty troops. Get 100 tradition general event. Woots. Two stars! Peasant uprising. 13,000 in Stockholm, no bad terrain, rebels have no general, I go there with my 11,000. War with Denmark just ended and my forcelimit ain't super great. Figure I can take on 13,000 peasant rebels still, my infantry power is stronk and I have discipline bonus. I GET DEMOLISHED. This is some badass ninja peasants. Drains the last of my manpower. Spirals into disasters. Game over. GG Paradox. Well played. Much enjoy. Would play again.
• I SEE YOU ARE TESTING ME, PARADOX. Ottoderps card activated; the pain will be immense. First game, take a unclaimed province from Austria in defensive war to release Styria; coalition instantly forms, I deal with it but king dies and 13 years regency council. Well, it's early in the game, going to restart and try spreading expansion into any direction not HRE. I take Ottoman cores + Georgia, get discovered fabricating claims on islands, suddenly Venice AND Marmadukes are in coalition against me. Their combined fleet demolishes mine and it's basically game over. Insert a new coin. So. Play it chill as fuck. Go into Levant early to get a long ass truce with Marmadukes. Build up fleet and demolishes everything in the Mediterranian. Decide to war Aragon for lands in Italy. Get greedy and 100% warscore because I am stronk at this point; instantly, -two- coalition wars start against me, each one with 100,000+ infantry and 40,000+ cavalry against my combined forces of 44,000 troops.

What the unicornsing unicorns? Did the design team figure that this game is supposed to be played by elite players only? I fight long, hard wars, and then have to back down from my claims because the repercussions of expansion far exceeds the benefits. None of the great, historical, European wars (and the following peace treaties) can be simulated in this game. The Italian Wars? Yeah, right, if France player went to war over Naples they'd end up coalitioned from Ottomans to Spain. Meanwhile, the lucky nations anvils hit hard all over Europe, removing OPMs and crumbling empires alike. Hungary? Om nom, Austria was hungry. HRE? Le Baguette need more basetax and there's plenty in Germany. England? No one cares about England. Go sit on your island.

Seriously, this game is starting to get balanced around players like DDRJake and Atwix, not around the average player who just enjoys the grand strategy genre. I don't suck at the game. I got some of the neat achievements, like the Great Khan, Jihad, Re-Reconquista, etcetera, but I don't think I'd be able to do any of them today. These days, the game just is infinitely more difficult to play for us regulars.

So. Bye.

I'll probably be back someday, but for now, this is just way too frustrating and tiresome. I play to relax and enjoy myself for a few hours (or days, or months), but when the game just makes my throbbing bulgevein go berserk, it's time for me to find something else to do. Cheers.

- OrKonkel

1000 hours? Don´t you have to do other things?

 

[WeissRaben]

I'd just point out that appealing to the "great, historical wars" makes little sense - up to Napoleon, wars saw little border changes in Western Europe. The rest was inheritances, mostly.

 

[Sunspawn]

I'd just point out that appealing to the "great, historical wars" makes little sense - up to Napoleon, wars saw little border changes in Western Europe. The rest was inheritances, mostly.

I think he meant wars like the Italian Wars (territories switched hands constantly every treaty) and The War of Spanish Succession (several duchies changed hands to and fro in the final treaty).

 

[WeissRaben]

I think he meant wars like the Italian Wars (territories switched hands constantly every treaty) and The War of Spanish Succession (several duchies changed hands to and fro in the final treaty).

Yes, but in EU terms, a couple of province moved per treaty - there were no great wars with sweeping territorial changes in the period, up to Napoleon and arguing if 1683 wasn't Austria pressing Hungary's cores. I'm not sure many of those who cry for less AE really have in mind the scale of gains in the Early Modern era.

 

[Sunspawn]

Yes, but in EU terms, a couple of province moved per treaty - there were no great wars with sweeping territorial changes in the period, up to Napoleon and arguing if 1683 wasn't Austria pressing Hungary's cores. I'm not sure many of those who cry for less AE really have in mind the scale of gains in the Early Modern era.

At the height of French successes in the Italian wars, France occupied (portrayed and fully-conquered and cored in the relevant start date) Savoy, chunks of Milan and all of Naples. I dare you to try replicating that. I double-dog-dare you.

 

[WeissRaben]

At the height of French successes in the Italian wars, France occupied (portrayed and fully-conquered and cored in the relevant start date) Savoy, chunks of Milan and all of Naples. I dare you to try replicating that. I double-dog-dare you.

I don't need to, because it makes no sense. It was occupation on the way to Milan and Naples - history files are wonky as hell in Vanilla.

 

[pdstanbridge]

Low prestige doesn't help either, doesn't that give you negative army morale etc?

 

[Orkonkel]

I'd just point out that appealing to the "great, historical wars" makes little sense - up to Napoleon, wars saw little border changes in Western Europe. The rest was inheritances, mostly.

I'd just point out that if Austria and Venice attacked the Ottomans in a joint war effort, and the Ottomans defended themselves against the aggression and then took one unclaimed province from Austria, there wouldn't be a coalition of 7-8 different nations attacking the Ottoman Empire within a few weeks. This wasn't massive conquest, it literally the minimum amount of expansion as restitution from a defensive war.

Another example:
Swedish conquest of Pommerania. Please do this in EU4 today without getting repeatedly hammered by a gazillion angry Germans, Dutchs, and Czechs.

In one of my Ottoman attempts, I literally only went for my cores back, then waged war against Georgia. The result? Coalition war from Circassia, Mameluks, and Venice. I lost the sea war and my army got stranded. I can repeat all of this and make some altercations to my strategy and probably win the Mediterranean, head up to Russia/Lithuania, east towards India, and south into Africa. The Ottomans are one of the strongest nations in the game, with only a few contenders in terms of sheer potential. What bothers me is that, at least in my opinion, AE and coalition patterns make no sense to me. I can't declare war and have an idea of 'oh, if I take provinces from Hungary, Burgundy will probably coalition me'. And even if I knew they would beforehand, I still think it's a dumb situation. And rebels? Gee. If they spawn in mountain zones, you're going to pay with blood, sweat, and coins.

To me, the challenge of Europa Universalis (both III and IV) was to overcome your enemies in war and diplomacy. I guess I preferred the earlier versions where, if you wanted to, you could take a province or two without claims and the world wouldn't collapse. If you took huge swathes of lands, people got pissed off. To me, there's just no sense of balance between the transgression you've made (i.e taking Görz from Austria) and the punishment (huge coalition war where you can't make any gains because by doing so, you would earn more AE and the cycle continues).

I rant and complain because I no longer find the game enjoyable as enjoyable as I did in previous patches. It's as simple as that. Many of you feel otherwise, and I don't have a problem with that. I still want to voice my concerns because they're important to me.

Low prestige doesn't help either, doesn't that give you negative army morale etc?

Yes. But you're not going to earn any prestige as Sweden during your war of independence. Stackwiping the Danish army is like 1,3 prestige won.

 

[TheRingisHot]

I personally find it more interesting that you have rebel issues that early, even with a craptacular legitimacy, which at worst is an annoyance as you have a smaller supply of negative unrest.

The best way to win against Rebels is not getting them unless you're certain that you can handle them while keeping an enemy occupied

Rebellions often fire by event, though

 

[Aries666]

I'd just point out that if Austria and Venice attacked the Ottomans in a joint war effort, and the Ottomans defended themselves against the aggression and then took one unclaimed province from Austria, there wouldn't be a coalition of 7-8 different nations attacking the Ottoman Empire within a few weeks. This wasn't massive conquest, it literally the minimum amount of expansion as restitution from a defensive war.

Another example:
Swedish conquest of Pommerania. Please do this in EU4 today without getting repeatedly hammered by a gazillion angry Germans, Dutchs, and Czechs.

In one of my Ottoman attempts, I literally only went for my cores back, then waged war against Georgia. The result? Coalition war from Circassia, Mameluks, and Venice. I lost the sea war and my army got stranded. I can repeat all of this and make some altercations to my strategy and probably win the Mediterranean, head up to Russia/Lithuania, east towards India, and south into Africa. The Ottomans are one of the strongest nations in the game, with only a few contenders in terms of sheer potential. What bothers me is that, at least in my opinion, AE and coalition patterns make no sense to me. I can't declare war and have an idea of 'oh, if I take provinces from Hungary, Burgundy will probably coalition me'. And even if I knew they would beforehand, I still think it's a dumb situation. And rebels? Gee. If they spawn in mountain zones, you're going to pay with blood, sweat, and coins.

To me, the challenge of Europa Universalis (both III and IV) was to overcome your enemies in war and diplomacy. I guess I preferred the earlier versions where, if you wanted to, you could take a province or two without claims and the world wouldn't collapse. If you took huge swathes of lands, people got pissed off. To me, there's just no sense of balance between the transgression you've made (i.e taking Görz from Austria) and the punishment (huge coalition war where you can't make any gains because by doing so, you would earn more AE and the cycle continues).

I rant and complain because I no longer find the game enjoyable as enjoyable as I did in previous patches. It's as simple as that. Many of you feel otherwise, and I don't have a problem with that. I still want to voice my concerns because they're important to me.

Yes. But you're not going to earn any prestige as Sweden during your war of independence. Stackwiping the Danish army is like 1,3 prestige won.

In the case of Austria and Venice attacking the Ottomans, you would do far more damage to Austria making them release Tirol or Styria than you ever could taking unclaimed provinces from them, the former gives no AE, the latter lots.

Conquering Pomerania as Sweden is simply a case of improving relations with Pomerania's neighbours before and during the war.

A coalition of Orthodox Circassia, Sunni Mamluk and Catholic Venice is not possible in response to a conquest of Orthodox Georgia unless you had previously done something to incite AE with other Sunni and Catholic nations. AE gain is highest with nations that share religion and culture with the target and is also increased by taking unclaimed provinces. Once you understand this it is trivial to spread your AE gain as a nation such as the Ottomans as they have such varied targets. A good example is that they can hammer Shia QQ early and no one cares as there are very few nearby Shia nations.

You don't have to attack rebels when they are in the mountains let them win their siege and move off to an easier province. Another good tip is to send a group of mercs with your general to arrive the day before your main army this way the mercs will end up in the centre and soak up the majority of the damage you receive, disband them afterwards.

In a previous post you said you did some tough achievements in 1.4. If you try to use methods that worked in 1.4 now you will lose as 1.4 was probably the easiest iteration of the game as both coalitions and rebels were effectively non-existent. Whilst I have some sympathy for the sentiment that it sucks that the game changes so often, if it didn't it would get stale and people wouldn't play. Rather than relying on old tactics you need to learn to adapt if you can do this you will find the game far more rewarding.

 

[Beagá]

Tons of nations are weakened more by making them release nations, but it´s pointless if it makes them weaker for 10 years then you allow reconquest.

Once you lock on an enemy you have to kick him until he is dead.

 

[Mafiabrett]

I did a Spain game right after El Dorado came out, lost TWO major wars with France ended up giving them all of Aragon, Navarra, and provinces touching Madrid.
I never gave up, about 50-100 years later I was able to get alliances with Dutch, Prussia, and Austria and we destroyed France in 3 wars.

Sometimes patience is a virtue and don't be so aggressive. Split your wars on different fronts, never do back to back wars on the same front unless you want Coalitions to form against you, especially as Ottomans where you have 3 major fronts to go after (Europe, Asia, Africa).

 

[Sunspawn]

Tons of nations are weakened more by making them release nations, but it´s pointless if it makes them weaker for 10 years then you allow reconquest.

Once you lock on an enemy you have to kick him until he is dead.

What reconquest? Releasing removes cores now.

 

[LikeNothing]

At least 60% of this game is about Diplomacy and it always has been. The "great, historical, European wars (and the following peace treaties)" that you seem to like have always depended vitally on Diplomacy (in particular Coalitions), or else Europe would have been unified long ago like China.

If you don't like that, you should indeed take a break.