So much hyperbole in this thread. I still see Portugal eating all of Morocco more often than the other way around. Perhaps the answer is to relax the amount that the two countries are encouraged to go to war through missions.
When will Portugal get a much needed buff?
- Thread starter Ryanneo
- 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.
Is it a new thing? I still play 1.19.2, but I generally see a rather accurate Portugal. Sure, they not always keep their province/expand in North Africa, but they generally colonize Brazil, sometimes the Caribbeans, a part of Africa (West, Central or South) and some islands in Asia. And they stay alive until the end (if the player does not interfere). They often loose their colonies after 1750, because they become independent, but on the whole, this is one of the countries that seem to have a general evolution that is, on average, not very different from what happened in reality.
Did this change since 1.19.2?
Did this change since 1.19.2?
If the mechanic works I'd welcome it, but if that's the real complaint this thread wouldn't have been titled as such or arguing the way it was. Trade companies are pretty broken when used well, but it's true that they're another output of land conquest. If feitorias are something any naval-dominant nation could do it would help...naval dominance has little meaning right now. That will change a little bit next patch I suppose.
I am quite willing to make a case that some of the choices made for EU 4 are irrational. When it comes to complaints where it's relatively obvious a coherent rationale for a given mechanic or implementation doesn't exist, Pdox tends to avoid addressing or mentioning anything about it whatsoever. This includes multiple things that are necessarily bugged, favorite examples being offensive coalition war functionality (pre war screen vs declaration consequences) and "can't take because can't core". In fact the reasoning stated years ago for the latter wasn't consistent with the game state even then.
The "logic" behind luck is similarly screwed up. There's no clear reason to stop at the number they did, nor can any self-consistent criteria allow present lucky nations to be given the bonus without also giving luck to a considerable amount of other nations (which don't have it).
An incoherent case is not accurate, even if the devs are the ones making it. The game goes on as there's no rule they have to be made with coherent logic, but it does suffer a little for it.
its not like they will write a completely new game code. What they do is copy eu4 and build on that and call it eu5. Same limitations will apply.
Studies have shown that 96.3% of figures are made up or exaggerated 47.21% of the time.
All jokes aside, I agree that Portugal should do better. The whole of Iberia could use a buff. Spain should be a terrifying nation to go to war with unless they lose their colonies and go bankrupt.
One problem that i always see when Morocco or France has not taken over is the plain stupid colonising. Why does Castile, for example, colonise east coast america? They cannot bring trade back that way. Why does England colonise brazil over East coast / canada? Or England colonising the Caribbean? The ai needs to be taught the best places for them to colonise. If they learn how to colonise efficiently they will become rich therefore in theory more powerful.
However if the ai could simply use their navies, they would likely never lose their iberian holdings to the africans as they sgould be able to stop them coming across the strait.
In my 80% of games Portugal crashes Morocco and then builds half continent CN in south america. Care to explain?
Especially with the upcoming janissaries, it will force the player to play efficiently with the ottomans and keep balance between an effective force and reinforcements.
I based that number off of my last 5 playthroughs and in 4 of them Portugal got eaten by Morocco.
I think its more the problem that centralization is modeled poorly in game- Portugal was THE most centralized state in Europe at the time of the games start, and thus was roughly on-par with Castile when it comes to strength, and there's certainly an argument that Portugal should be able to PU Castile in the Iberian wedding (and that a well-off AI Aragon should be able to PU Castile instead of the other way around on occassion, but I digress). Portugal needs some kind of modifier to reflect how centralized it was, or centralization needs to be better incorporated into the game. Also, colonization needs work. Alas, not many historically valid buffs can be given to Portugal without railroading it in Eu4 as-is.
The problem I found with Portugal is that it, along with Castile, don't just colonize along the fringes of Africa. They tend to go deep inland, often turning west Africa mostly or completely green or yellow. It's odd to see Timbuktu held by a European power. I mean, I know Morocco gets there in the 16th Century, but France doesn't take Timbuktu until 1901.
It's just very odd to see a 16th Century "Scramble for Africa" the way the game is currently set up.
I do like the idea of simply having 'trade posts' in a territory, rather than having to conquer it outright. That's really what much of the African and Asian (even North/South American) colonial system was about during this time. For instance, in 1664 the tip of Manhattan, along with a few scattered hamlets up the Hudson Valley, is all that comprised "New Holland" when it was taken over by the British.
In Africa, there should only be a few coastal forts during most of the period.
This concept of a deep inland empire held by Europeans and converting the natives to Christianity is just simply and grossly ahistorical.
But making smaller, lighter frontier-forts for a colonial network would make the achievements of trade in India, the Spice Islands and China far more achievable, and would feel far more realistic.
I also believe that the far eastern trade companies, like the British East India Company, should have been the ones to create autonomous colonies.
A few years ago, before any of the Colonial Nations came along, I had proposed that players should be able to choose which of their colonies should be autonomous colonial companies, and which should remain "Crown Colonies" -- parts of the main country.
The Portuguese, in particular, kept their colonies under the crown. Unlike the Dutch VOC, or the British EIC, etc., the Portuguese colonies in Asia were not privatized (at least, as far as I understand).
That sort of player-based choice of what forms an autonomous colonial nation, and what remains under your direct control, is lacking from the current game system. It's pre-zoned by the game developers. It's outside of your control.
My own belief is that, where there are strategic choices to be made, you should support the player making those choices, and not railroad them.
It's just very odd to see a 16th Century "Scramble for Africa" the way the game is currently set up.
I do like the idea of simply having 'trade posts' in a territory, rather than having to conquer it outright. That's really what much of the African and Asian (even North/South American) colonial system was about during this time. For instance, in 1664 the tip of Manhattan, along with a few scattered hamlets up the Hudson Valley, is all that comprised "New Holland" when it was taken over by the British.
In Africa, there should only be a few coastal forts during most of the period.
This concept of a deep inland empire held by Europeans and converting the natives to Christianity is just simply and grossly ahistorical.
But making smaller, lighter frontier-forts for a colonial network would make the achievements of trade in India, the Spice Islands and China far more achievable, and would feel far more realistic.
I also believe that the far eastern trade companies, like the British East India Company, should have been the ones to create autonomous colonies.
A few years ago, before any of the Colonial Nations came along, I had proposed that players should be able to choose which of their colonies should be autonomous colonial companies, and which should remain "Crown Colonies" -- parts of the main country.
The Portuguese, in particular, kept their colonies under the crown. Unlike the Dutch VOC, or the British EIC, etc., the Portuguese colonies in Asia were not privatized (at least, as far as I understand).
That sort of player-based choice of what forms an autonomous colonial nation, and what remains under your direct control, is lacking from the current game system. It's pre-zoned by the game developers. It's outside of your control.
My own belief is that, where there are strategic choices to be made, you should support the player making those choices, and not railroad them.