It would be better, if nations which can not help you directly, helped you indirectly - either sending you money or hiring mercenaries on your territory.
- 2
What ideas should be buffed?
- Thread starter Vapiritapiri
- Start date
-
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.
It would be better, if nations which can not help you directly, helped you indirectly - either sending you money or hiring mercenaries on your territory.
It's pretty tough to recommend Religious over Humanist for most religions imo. Religious basically guarentees you will still fight at least one stack of rebels for newly conquered territory, which is a drag. Humanist basically removes most rebellions from the game. Catholic might want Religious because the papal influence from converting is very strong, but otherwise the only conceivable reason you would want Religious over Humanist is Deus Vult and MAYBE some policies. Deus Vult is nice depending on your religion (stuff like Orthodox and Coptic loves it) but that's a lot of admin points just for Deus Vult. Either nerf Humanist to be not the clearly better choice usually or buff Religious. The fact that it can't prevent revolts during the initial separatism makes it much worse.
I have taken Religious for some achievement runs recently and it was a stark contrast how much worse it felt than Humanist.
I have taken Religious for some achievement runs recently and it was a stark contrast how much worse it felt than Humanist.
- 12
- 2
- 1
- 1
Say, that reminds me, didn't Deus Vult use to be WAY earlier? Like, the first or second idea, so you could take it for early wars of conquest?
I'm so sure it was. I remember Religious being a viable pick precisely for the early access to a strong CB, which countered the fact that the rest of the group was sub-par by letting you aggressively expand way sooner than most other idea groups for cheaper cost, if you played on religious borders! I wonder why that changed.
- 4
That's exactly correct, Deus Vult used to be the very first idea, which certainly helped make Religious better. I believe it was changed to prevent people from taking the idea group just to unlock the CB, I guess because it was considered gamey? I can't say, but it certainly doesn't help Religious that the best reason to take it is stuffed at the end of the idea group.
- 6
- 1
I used to never take religious. Recently, I’ve been changing up idea groups for a change of pace. Once you finish religious and get a province in Africa and beyond, the idea group really shines. You will never have money problems after deus vaulting your way to a bunch of trade companies and gold. Convert the provinces for a bunch of PI before adding them to trade companies. The rebellions are not a problem like they used to be because you can force them to spawn when you are ready.
- 2
- 2
- 1
- 1
Meanwhile, quantity has 50% MP and 20% MPR as 1 & 2, and Admin has CCR as 2... If they wanted you to commit with Religious and have Deus Vult be, say, #3 or 4, I at least wish we could get missionary strength as #1 so it'd immediately make you significantly better at what the idea group is supposedly for. You know, like most of the other groups. The extra missionary is nice, but honestly, I'd rather have the Missionary Strength to be able to more quickly convert the provinces meaningfully contributing to my RU.
- 8
I agree. And it's not even very good at converting these days. Most provinces you conquer will have -6/7% to conversion by default, not to speak of random 30 dev cities all over the place past midgame. The paltry conversion strength and single extra missionary does not at all cut it if you're actually taking advantage of deus vult. And if you aren't, then why on earth pick it in the first place.
- 7
- 5
- 1
- 1
Yep. Besides Catholicism (for PI) and maybe Orthodoxy and Coptic (Holy War is powerful for these religions), I struggle to think of any religion in the game that wouldn't rather have Humanist.
Non-Abrahamic religions have intentionally gimped conversion power that makes it essentially impossible to convert provinces quickly. This got a bit better with Leviathan but it's still better to just take the rebel-b-gone Humanist ideas.
- 3
Solution: Don't allow crossings in those cases if both provinces are under blockade. That would also make sense as a general rule (relaxed to "at least one province"?) instead of a single cog apparently obstructing the entire Strait of Gibraltar.
Last edited:
- 4
Sub-Par Idea Sets:
Espionage, Naval and Maritime are not good and probably should not be taken by anyone. The reasons are similar, as well -- the mechanics that they support are just not strong.
In EU4 naval combat is just annoying, not useful.
In EU4 the covert activities are a utterly useless compared to the CK3 intrigue system. A high skill ruler in CK3 with the correct intrigue talents can work absolute miracles. In EU4 picking Espionage will make you marginally quicker and more effective at a half-baked set of mechanics.
Because of the bad mechanics that they support, I don't think that you can conceivably buff these ideas enough to make me take them if you stick to the "theme."
Beyond this, I think honestly all of the ideas need a good polish, because many of them improve mechanics that are not as important. For example, in Espionage ideas there is a -0.10 corruption/year. When we had corruption as an "anti-blobbing" mechanic, this was somewhat useful (as was some religious mechanics and estate mechanics). Now that we have governing capacity, that "power" got moved to Admin, which was always going to be picked by a "play wide or play tall and kind of wide" play style, even without the +25% gov capacity.
On the other hand, Innovative Ideas is not useless, just a bit more situational. You could keep this "in theme" and buff it enough for me to consistently, rather than selectively, select.
Religious has its defenders, but it's objectively weaker than it used to be. While Deus Vault is great, and stab cost is nice, almost everything else is relatively easy to work around. While the culture conversion cost is mandatory in a one-culture run, there is really no need to culture convert. While the different religion penalty is bad, there are easy work arounds -- Burgher priv and/or trade companies and/or humanist. If you are going to play a "rare" religion (e.g., Sikh or Orthodox) or you know you are going with Quantity for certain, then Religion is right for you.
Updated Idea Ideas:
Anyway, here is my suggestion for some re-evaluation of idea groups.
First: We should take Espionage and Maritime and break them up. The good things in both can be spread around and put into Aristo and Naval and we can restore some AE impact to Influence. Naval will still be meh, but all the meh will be in one spot at least.
Second: In place of the now vacant diplo-based idea groups, we can put a Civilization-based idea group that is only available if you are in that civilization group -- just like the government based ones in the military super-group (Horde, Divine, Aristo, Indigenous, Plutocratic). We could break it down how you like, but something roughly like a simplified Huntington's "Clash of Civilization" model (the book, not the game) could have: Western, Islamic, Hindi, Eastern, Tribal.
Third: In place of the somewhat under-performing Religious and/or Innovative ideas, I would have a similar choice based on one's religious group. Here, to mix it up, we can have a Monotheism Group (Christian, Islam, Judaism, Sikh, Zoroastrian), a Polytheism (Hindu, Norse, Fetish, Animist, Natives, etc) and an Eastern (Tengri, Confusion, Shinto, Buddhist, etc).
Espionage, Naval and Maritime are not good and probably should not be taken by anyone. The reasons are similar, as well -- the mechanics that they support are just not strong.
In EU4 naval combat is just annoying, not useful.
In EU4 the covert activities are a utterly useless compared to the CK3 intrigue system. A high skill ruler in CK3 with the correct intrigue talents can work absolute miracles. In EU4 picking Espionage will make you marginally quicker and more effective at a half-baked set of mechanics.
Because of the bad mechanics that they support, I don't think that you can conceivably buff these ideas enough to make me take them if you stick to the "theme."
Beyond this, I think honestly all of the ideas need a good polish, because many of them improve mechanics that are not as important. For example, in Espionage ideas there is a -0.10 corruption/year. When we had corruption as an "anti-blobbing" mechanic, this was somewhat useful (as was some religious mechanics and estate mechanics). Now that we have governing capacity, that "power" got moved to Admin, which was always going to be picked by a "play wide or play tall and kind of wide" play style, even without the +25% gov capacity.
On the other hand, Innovative Ideas is not useless, just a bit more situational. You could keep this "in theme" and buff it enough for me to consistently, rather than selectively, select.
Religious has its defenders, but it's objectively weaker than it used to be. While Deus Vault is great, and stab cost is nice, almost everything else is relatively easy to work around. While the culture conversion cost is mandatory in a one-culture run, there is really no need to culture convert. While the different religion penalty is bad, there are easy work arounds -- Burgher priv and/or trade companies and/or humanist. If you are going to play a "rare" religion (e.g., Sikh or Orthodox) or you know you are going with Quantity for certain, then Religion is right for you.
Updated Idea Ideas:
Anyway, here is my suggestion for some re-evaluation of idea groups.
First: We should take Espionage and Maritime and break them up. The good things in both can be spread around and put into Aristo and Naval and we can restore some AE impact to Influence. Naval will still be meh, but all the meh will be in one spot at least.
Second: In place of the now vacant diplo-based idea groups, we can put a Civilization-based idea group that is only available if you are in that civilization group -- just like the government based ones in the military super-group (Horde, Divine, Aristo, Indigenous, Plutocratic). We could break it down how you like, but something roughly like a simplified Huntington's "Clash of Civilization" model (the book, not the game) could have: Western, Islamic, Hindi, Eastern, Tribal.
Third: In place of the somewhat under-performing Religious and/or Innovative ideas, I would have a similar choice based on one's religious group. Here, to mix it up, we can have a Monotheism Group (Christian, Islam, Judaism, Sikh, Zoroastrian), a Polytheism (Hindu, Norse, Fetish, Animist, Natives, etc) and an Eastern (Tengri, Confusion, Shinto, Buddhist, etc).
- 3
- 1
I agree, naval and espionage mechanics in EU4 are so half-baked that there would need to be radical overhauls of both systems to make the related Idea sets competitive. What’s the point of incrementally improving modifiers that don’t make much difference anyway? These idea sets are the video game equivalent of “polishing a turd”.
- 1
- 1
More specifically, people were unlocking thr CB with the first idea and not filling out any further before dropping the group when Imperialism unlocked. There was an opportunity cost have not having an idea group, but that hardly mattered when you were playing Muscovy in the 1480s
- 1
For me taking religious is trading dip points for admin. I can use admin for idea or dip to pay for unjustified demands. Because now it is possible to add almost whole world to TCs humanist isn't neceserry anymore. The two groups are equal in my opinion, many people take humanist not because it is stronger but because they always did it and they don't want to change anything
- 4
When I was a fairly new player I took religious every time
As I got more experience I realized Humanist gives you a much easier time - especially coupled with diplomatic for the improve relations policy - which makes AE go down super fast
Now I usually take religious again simply because it's more fun and engaging, it gives you things to do, more ways to engage with the game - be it the awesome CB that let's you expand in TC land very easily, or extra missionaries and being able to convert territories easily, up to extra papal influence meaning more curia powers or easier time getting Papal Control which is super strong
I do still take humanist sometimes, in some specific, diplomatic focused runs but I find it just very boring group. It makes the game easier, yes, but not necessarily more interesting in any way.
As I got more experience I realized Humanist gives you a much easier time - especially coupled with diplomatic for the improve relations policy - which makes AE go down super fast
Now I usually take religious again simply because it's more fun and engaging, it gives you things to do, more ways to engage with the game - be it the awesome CB that let's you expand in TC land very easily, or extra missionaries and being able to convert territories easily, up to extra papal influence meaning more curia powers or easier time getting Papal Control which is super strong
I do still take humanist sometimes, in some specific, diplomatic focused runs but I find it just very boring group. It makes the game easier, yes, but not necessarily more interesting in any way.
- 2
- 1
Amusing. I had the opposite development with the same end result. At first I thought Humanist was OP, then I realised that with a good religion, religious ideas is significantly better at reducing unrest due to huge true faith bonuses some religions offer. Even if it came with a delay between conquest and zero rebels, being immune to the effects of massive overextension, rebel sentiment, autonomy decreased, etc was very huge. Nowadays, I've reached the enlightenment that they both kinda suck and most religions already offer tools to deal with wrong religion that don't need either idea group to assist them.
- 6
I disagree with and detest this idea purely because the popup showing policies for idea group combinations already extends off the borders of my screen if I'm looking at an admin or diplomatic idea due to the new military ideas that were added, and I don't want to exacerbate this problem by making it so I can't even read the policy combos by looking at it from the appropriate military idea instead.
- 1
- 1
No, people take humanist because diplo is almost never the bottleneck. For what do you want to save up diplo points? After integrating vassals there aren't many uses for dip point. For maximal expansion devving is even a bad use of dip points because of governing costs. Admin points have way more use with coring and stability.
- 1
Instead of coring you can always give land to vassal or client state and integrate them. That way you can go over overextension and don't need admin for coring. You can enable scuttage, truce break and take more land or use their alliances to reset truce time. While at war with the same nation you can't core but subject with scuttage enabled can.
For me client states or vassals in the late game are very useful. I create subject few years before the war so after the war it has enough admin to core new provinces and I can start integration without waiting. Vassals aren't only for reconquest CB and have other uses too - you use their admin and your dip to get the cores.
Good idea groups need their niche so their are times you want them. Exploration and Colonization are the only way to colonisation, admin is great for simple conquering with ccr and gc. I normally take one of religion and humanist with pros and cons of each, trade can be vital for the economy of a big nation without trade companies and influence / diplomatic can be vital for the diplomatic game. Similarly with the army mil techs.
That leaves innovative and economic from the admin group - both look cool but with admin points being short, money often not the most critical resource and a couple of ideas I really want I just struggle to find a use for them.
In the diplo group - esponage I liked the agressive expansion, corruption and extra diplomate, it was just slightly underpowered too often. It suffers a little from CBs being so easy to get that spy networks arn't as important as they should be. With the rebalence and AI building more forts it might in some situations replace diplo/influece.
Maritime I struggle with - it just feels like a worse naval and doesn't do anything well. I would love to see it get some of the naval trade buffs and a merchant to be a rival for trade. Also +1 leader now admerals and generals take different slots is a lot weaker.
Naval is different - I just find it rare that navy matters and is close - normally one side is dominant. Costal defense I think were intended to do a start but don't seem to make a big difference. If attrition for navies next to enemy forts/defences was more a thing or some of the ideas helped you take naval forts it might be different. It may also be how easy it is to just have enough ships to blockade 100% - sizes are more about not wanting to be attacked than what you need.
That leaves innovative and economic from the admin group - both look cool but with admin points being short, money often not the most critical resource and a couple of ideas I really want I just struggle to find a use for them.
In the diplo group - esponage I liked the agressive expansion, corruption and extra diplomate, it was just slightly underpowered too often. It suffers a little from CBs being so easy to get that spy networks arn't as important as they should be. With the rebalence and AI building more forts it might in some situations replace diplo/influece.
Maritime I struggle with - it just feels like a worse naval and doesn't do anything well. I would love to see it get some of the naval trade buffs and a merchant to be a rival for trade. Also +1 leader now admerals and generals take different slots is a lot weaker.
Naval is different - I just find it rare that navy matters and is close - normally one side is dominant. Costal defense I think were intended to do a start but don't seem to make a big difference. If attrition for navies next to enemy forts/defences was more a thing or some of the ideas helped you take naval forts it might be different. It may also be how easy it is to just have enough ships to blockade 100% - sizes are more about not wanting to be attacked than what you need.
I won't deny the usefulness of vassals/client states for expanding. I'm just saying that even with constant vassalizing, giving lands to vassals and annexing them, you will overflow on diplo points. Furthermore, vassal feeding is considerably weaker to expand than coring yourself. Since the subject AI is worse, so a lot more rebels to crush for you, and the won't have the admin/admin efficiency/absolutism to core fast enough.
vassal feeding is a good addition and extra way to expand, everybody should use it massively, but it's no reason to take religious ideas, especially since the CB is void after Imperialism.
- 1