Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Until then I'd focus mostly on wars outside the Empire. Get footholds in the Americas and Orient, feed provinces to other factions in the Empire (your future vassals and later subjects). And generally gear up for a post-Empire Formation push.
From the looks of your map though, it looks like the biggest threat might come from within. You have relatively little territory to call your own right now and powerful vassals like Hungary tend to like agitating for independence. So try and grab some land of your owna nd build upa military. You WILL need it.
As for Spain or Portugal, I'd suggest PU and try diploannex if maintaining control of the Empire isn't taxing enough on your diplomatic resoruces. Otherwise just eat them, difficult as it may be.
Interesting idea. The issue I have is that each HRE vassal and subject nation can also arm, insult you, and otherwise conspire to break free or otherwise mess with you. They will most likely never be able to do much due to the hordes of loyal ones, but it is still incredibly risky.
By the time you get deep into the rest of the world, even the slight risk of something exploding in the heart of your Empire is something that is often not worth it by any stretch of the imagination.
That post comes across as rather condescending. Certainly more than it is necessary.
I can believe that works a lot- or even most- of times. But it would be even more believable in Hearts of Iron or Vicky where the AI is actually conditioned to make alliances that don't inevitably degenerate into brawling or at least a crack in it.
Especially since Diplo Rep and Diplo Points- are very finite resources, and your reforms- while very very very strong- can be repealed one war at a time (something that is enough of a risk in a WC game or against a coalition dogpile that it is worth noting, *ESPECIALLY* with such a low ratio of Direclty-Controlled-Territory/Troops-to-Vassal Ones).
And that's before we get into the problems A: maintaining that vassal swarm, and B: getting it to that point. Neither of which are exactly cheap on the upkeep even if they might be cheaper than many of the alternatives.
No, I'm sure it is not. People have been assembling the HRE and leading it to uber status pretty much since the system got made.
Problem is that people have also been either trying and failing to accomplish that, or successfully preventing/disassembling it as well. If anything the latest update shave probably made it a lot easier with the reworking of how forts work (or don't).
No, I was arguing that it CAN be fraught with risk. And it is (as you can see many, manya ttempts to form or keep the HRE intact crash and burn through AARs, which I have been reading on the Paradox thread long before I even got the game).
You're arguing that there is absolutely no risk on a strategy that:
A: Is fairly difficult enough to accomplish in the first place (especially if y ou don't know the ins and outs).
B: Makes you dependant on a vassal swarm (which has its' own drawbacks as per the game), which causes
B.1: The associated costs (both concrete and oppertunity) with keeping the buggers in line, which even *you admit to* in a backhanded way (requiring massive Diplomatic Reputation, something that few WC players will EVER have the oppertunity to get).
B. 2: Difficulty controlling them (especially under the lower Reform levels, though in this case that looks like less of an issue).
B. 3: Requires spreading a bunch of AIs that generally (unlike the Dutch, English, Scots, or Scandinavians) aren't equipped for it around the world as extensions of your own power.
and
C: Makes your own personal power and resources *that much less* than they otherwise would be from all those other high development, high tax base profits going into your pockets. Which is especially going to be noticeable in the naval field since Navies are more or less manpower and Monarch Point free if you have the cash to put them in construction and sustain them.
The thing is that you Could argue that all of these problems- and that is exactly what they are- are minor and more than outweighed by the positives. And I think *you can successfully make that argument.* In fact, *I THINK THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOu'D BE RIGHT.*
But that isn't what you were doing. The way you phrased it indicates there is ZERO RISK to any of this.
And that will NEVER be convincing. Because you are not the only person who has debated game mechanics.
Especially since the burden of proof for "Can be Fraught with Risk" is a lot, Lot lower and easier to prove than the absolute "Is Not Fraught with Risk."
Max Diplomatic Rep indicates the bigger problem with this.Simply put, you can expand while keeping good diplo rep (certainly more than you could in earlier games, where "Dishonorable Scum" was a badge of honor), but it is hard and usually requires you move a lot slower than a successful WC allows.
Especially when you don't have direct control over most of the lands, troops, or ships you are *dependent on* for your big, global wars to come. That isn't as much of a problem on the same continent where you can point the finger at them and let them swarm over it. But it certainly gets to be a problem when it relies on the AI knowing how to launch assaults on-say- Japan.
And it is certainly less effective than using your own personal troops under your own command against it.
Assuming you can take control of the situation and keep it. Which many people can, but this player is not in that situation yet. The sheer number of Non-HRE allies he has is a strong argument to the contrary.
Notably, you only seem to be acknowledging the "facts and math" that suits your argument.
Which does not fly. And is not a sin I have fallen into myself, since I've admitted form the onset it is a possible strategy.
As you notably *haven't* mentioned, people have been trying and failing to do that for as long or longer. Because again, vassal swarm involves trade offs. That itself is not a problem, but refusing to acknowledge that you *might* be losing something at all is. And ultimately it weakens the case.
You also haven't mentioned the many other times when people have led centralized realms (and increasingly centralized ones through vassal annexation) to WC either.
With a more centralized, directly controlled realm you do sacrifice a lot of things, including a dozen or so (for the HRE) autonomous vassals going out, invading a bunch of territory for you, building up their monarch points, building up their territory, and otherwise doing the work the Emperor can't be arsed to deal with.
But you also don't have to deal with constant attempts to build up, slip away, insult you, build up militaries that can trump yours or defend secession attempts, do stupid things that undermine your hegemony or standing against enemy powers (especially major ones like Ming or the Mughals), and the like. And you also get the chance to have more resources flowing into Your coffers (not intermediate vassals), and to personally direct the development of your provinces if you bother to. Something more important than ever with the changes the latest expansions have made to it.
Rarely have I seen such a self-contradicting, self-defeating sentence as this.
"aren't actual issues, just a matter of management?"
In games like Europa Universalis, there *Is no bigger issue* than matters of management. And likewise there is no more powerful tool. With the right management you can neutralize virtually any problem, even the ones that seem overpowering or crippling. And with the wrong one you can squander almost anything.
Because what ultimately matters is the player, how they handle things, and on a far lesser note how some chances or luck "break" for them.
So dismissing the problem as just "a matter of management" is not just barking up the wrong tree, it is Completely Missing The Forest. Presumably because the facts and math you cite are so much better and perfect without those pesky humans (and AI) going around mucking things up by playing the game.
So basically: alost everything is a matter of management to one degree or another. It's about picking the best form of management. Especially for what fits in with the player's style.
And furthermore this is sidestepping the point.
Please try googling "oppertunity cost" or looking at the other mechanics. The problems or tradeoffs don't just go away because you (wisely) adopt strategies to minimize them or compensate. They are still there. What you gain in diplomatic reputaiton, you lose in hte ability to expand your personal empire. What you rely on hordes of vassal armies to do, you lose out in the wonderful tricks and exploits a human player knows how to do (like how you can lock down the entire Japanese home islands with a single naval stack and turn Kyushu into the graveyard of the Samurai with clever use of it).
That and expansion math. As per much of the WCs completed, it doesn't really matter if half the world is about to erupt in nationalist/religious fervor against your empire if on the day before they are all under one banner and the nations/factions have gone the way of the Dodo. As we can see.
The definition of WC recognized by the game is "No other factions exist but you." And this has been proven time and again, imperfect as it may be compared to "total World Conquest" (all cored, all colonize,d or what have you).
That doesn't mean that coring math isn't an important facet to even get that far, it is. It doesn't mean that vassal swarm is not a major help with reducing coring time and cost, it often is. But inability to admit any tradeoffs exist is a cripplings flaw in analysis like that.
Agreed, assuming you can keep enough HRE factions in line to avoid half the Empire's independents bolting for the door. Which is a worthwhile strategy and something I'd suggest a WCer use while they can. But which is still-again- an issue.
Funny you mention that. Since I actually read a number of those for fun, and have been for a long time. It's how I learned much of what I know about the games.
And they don't just shun it because it is "the easy way." A number of them also point out the problems.
Namely
A: The problems with keeping your Dip Rep that high. Though some of this is probably residual "Dishonorable Scum" pride, it also comes at the expense of expanding faster. Which is what WC ultimately is about even more than the logistics of coring.
B: The Monarch Point and Diplomatic Slot investments that can go off the rails quite painfully in the early stages.
C: The fact that there is Nobody- and I mean nobody- in the world as well equipped to do the Vassal Swarm as the Emperor (or able-to-easily-become-HRE) of the Holy Roman Empire. Meaning everybody else in general has to be more clever to one degree or another (though there are systems that come close, like balkanized early game France's vassal herd, Denmark's Kalmar Union, or the easy-to-prey-on Dutch minors for Superpower Burgundy).
D: The issues most vassals have with naval warfare and colonial expansion,which disproportionately fall on the mother country with few exceptions.
And
E: The fact that it tends to leave you with a rather small personal empire and military that is the bedrock of your entire system. And which will bring everything else down if it falls due to RNG or- more likely- bad planning.
All of which are valid points and tradeoffs. All of which can be dwarfed or negated by correct management of the vassal swarm and your personal empire. All of which I learned through a number of EUIV (or even before in some cases) AARs.
None of which I have seen you even care to mention- let alone analyhze- inthis case.
I already know the basic concept, the HRE is just something I tend to pass over for other reasons.
But you would be far more convincing if you did not write the way you do to other people. Equal players on a game thread.
I was about to write another analysis and rebuttal of your post ("wall of text" as you said).
But then I saw something that made me tear it up and discard it. Because regardless of your merits in game there are far more important things than what happens in game, and you are clearly not cut out for this.
And what led me to this conclusion?
Get this through your head before you act even more ignorant and git-ish than you already are.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS THREAD.
I DID NOT ASK FOR ADVICE (on this thread, in here, or even on this game, though obviously I have elsewhere.
I AM NOT MUMBLERINO USERINO.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE HE HAS NOT REPLIED TO THIS THREAD SINCE.
Even a *CASUAL* look at our profiles- or even my text- would reveal that we are two different users.
The fact that for *Whatever* reason you assumed otherwise with zero- and I repeat, Zero- actual proof does not bode well. For you, for your conduct (and claims thereof), or for the credibility of the rest of your argument.
And in the process you managed to INSULT a completely innocent and different user.
So in other words, you managed to prove the accusations that you were condescending and needlessly hostile true., And make a mockery of both yourself, your claims to superiority, and your claims that my reading of condescencion in your post was just "in my head". All in one fell swoop.
Well done there. Truly you are a shining example of humanity.
You are probably right that I don't have quite the knowledge on the mechanics as you, I don't have as many recorded achievements as you (mostly because I don't care about playing Ironman), and I don't have as much game time as you (by an order of magnitude at least).
But a couple of other things i don't have?
A downright foolish belief in my own infallibility.
The hair trigger rage of a rabid gnat.
And the willingness to falsely, unapologetically insult and abandon someone only asking for help.
And I am sure that there are many, many other people who can do a far better job than either of us in helping him.
No need to thank us.
When you're Austria that's true (with other HREs- especially minors- becoming Emperor it can be bigger). The main issue in this case is if you have one or two large/equal vassals to you (Hungary and Bohemia are especially problematic for early game Austria), or get badly hit in a war that makes the others recalculate their odds and come closer to thinking they have a go for it.
This is a big one.
In that case you have to burn whatever calories you need in order to A: Hold the Emperorship (or if absolutely necessary retake it ASAP), and B:lock down hereditary succession ASAP.
It would royally suck if you spend your game strengthening the Empire's central authority only to have the Elector of Emptywald steal the last election just before you can make your title (basically) permanent. As a few players have suffered from.
That's your main priority. But you should keep expanding, strengthening your ties with the future vassal swarm, and generally getting closer to painting the map.
I would probably suggest cashing in the free CBs on any non-Imperial state that has Imperial land, chugging at Italy or towards Central Asia, and building up a Med navy for when the time comes. Though that's just me. And remember: keep your powder dry for any wars the Usual Suspects might try to launch against Imperial states. It's now more important than ever to answer the call and prevail, so keep some good reserves of manpower, troops,a nd gold you can us e.
Best of luck with that. Though in my experience even with the optimal chances there is the risk that they might have a significantly different dynasty or rulers when you need them to. So you might have to plan on absorbing them (and their probably extensive colonail empires).
Sounds enviable, and good sense.
A couple questions that come to mind:
How're your naval assets doing?
And
What plans do you have for expansion into the Middle East, India, and the Americas?
Those (couple with a bunch of uncolonized islands) look like they're the m ain areas of the world that you aren't focusing on yet. Which is fine, just plan accordingly.
I can't speak for the OP, but I accept your apology.
As for "you need a tablet", reading and replying on your cell phone had nothing to do with it (I do it too on occasion, as do several I know). Putting it down to the situation or tech is not dealing with the core issue.
What you need is an old trick they'd teach at any firing range. Stop and confirm your target before pulling the trigger.
Simple and easy when you know what you're doing.
Do that and this argument would either not have happened, or it wouldn't have gotten as nasty as it was.
At least when optimally handled by the HRE Player. Or even the rare, lucky AI to pull it off.
Apparently, you didn't realize , where I drew the distinction between HRE and non-HRE vassals (and how the former are so much better equipped for this than the latter, in part- though not only- because of that).
And secondly: that the main reason I pointed out how HRE vassals are still an investment in resources and oppertunity cost is because even without the vassal upkeep costs others have, you still have to pet and feed them enough to make them accepting, productive pets. As opposed to just murdering them if they step out of line and taking their land, or setting up inheritance situations.
Indeed, and well said. Martial law will make a number of hot spots a lot easier to deal with.
Worth noting, though there are a few hard and soft ways around it (most obviously by fundamentaly changing the way the game works with mods). Though if you could find the link I'm sure it would be a useful reference to put up here.
Seconded the analysis and hopes.
As mentioned before, apology accepted on my part; don't know if he will.
Thanks for the feedback! Answering to the questions here:
1- atm my fleet consists only of some transports to move my troops from england PU to mainland or byzantine land/mamluk land foothold to my mainland, about 20 transports. But as soon as I integrate england I will build a 40 or 50 heavy fleet just to sink Spain's navy in case I have to eat them and go for the islands.
2- For middle east, if Najd exists I may exploit this and make them a march and feed them their culture group + eprsian land + some of india because this way they can also convert all of it form me due to their ideas instead of having to convert it myself and selling to HRE vassal with enough coring range. (and patrolling his land since most of them can't convert it right away). Other than that I MAY get some local vassals that I'll keep for like 10 years and annex, and have 1 or 2 in middle east in case Naj isn't available, 2 or 3 india (dutch minors and best for this) and for West Africa I'll feed Scotland (since they took exploration - gonna annex them, core, and release as a HRE vassal) or maybe to other minors like Hansa/Bremen etc. Maybe get a regional vassal just to save too much land exaustion for my vassals. As for Americas, I just plan to annex the colonial nations alongside with their overlords and as for native americans I'll just use imperialism CB on them OR Oversees expansion (since I may get expansion to protectorate Ming/Japan). Also, England will give me some nice colonies in Africa and from them I can just move to India/Asia.
Sounds fair on the whole , though I'd suggest that there are a few other areas where a navy could be quite helpful.
Starting with the fact that there are a select few places where having enough combat vessels in the right place will seriously screw with whatever enemy you're facing. Japan is the example I used (what with how you can lock them onto whatever island they're on just by dominating one sea region), but there are a couple of other ones. Like the Straits of Malacca, the Caribbean, and elsewhere. Not as important or decisive as an army, but something that can help.
Secondly: it's a cheap way of kneeing an enemy (like Ming or Mamluks) in the gonads, War Exhaustion style. Park a few- sometimes as little as one- ship off a coast and you'll hurt their economy and send war exhaustion climbing up that much faster. This can be a major lifesaver against the likes of Ming (or France/Burgundy if you're playing England or one of the other British nations, or the Ottomans if you're playing Byzantium, etc etc etc.), and to others it can be a nice way to speed up a war you'd otherwise winning.
Thirdly- and this is kind of minor- Light ships aid your trade income and fight. So if you are doing any investment in trade nodes (though granted, it isn't anywhere near as important for an Austria/HRE).
Heavy Ships and Galleys are only really useful in times of war or for patrolling to keep piracy/privateering (depending on your version) low. But light ships are useful for either combat or trade. Something to keep in mind.
Alright. Though plan for contingencies:
What's your game plan for if they Don't exist?
Knowing what you'll do in different situations is one of the keys to good planning.
Sounds reasonable on the whole. Do you have exploration though?
That should clean them up nicely, though I'd suggest keeping troops nearby and consider feeding them to Colonail Nations. That way you could set up a large chain of annexations where they eat the Natives (after your troops kill them), and then you eat their owners on down.
Japan's homogenous enough that it probably can go in one gulp. But as for China, I'd suggest thinking carefully about whether you want to try and swallow it in one gulp, or chop it up into smaller statelets and bits of annexed territory. I've often found the latter is key to cutting Ming to death, though that's far truer when I start cloer to them (like-say- Japan) rather than already having Western Eurasia in
Makes sense. Best of luck.
Once again your tendency to "clearly" assume makes an @$$ out of u.
This is a misreading of what I said.
Being Austria has nothing to do with it. Or at least nothing more than having the "Imperial Ambitions", "Habsburg Dominance", and "Austrian Court" unlockable traditions making what you have to do go down easier would.
Already being a medium-sized White/Grey Blob that is a giant compared to most HRE states *does*
The issue isn't that Austria and Austria alone has the potential to get the magic HRE benefits, that clearly isn't how the game is built.
The issue is that Austria the relative giant should have far less of a problem having unruly HRE vassals get rebellious because they think that their medium level HRE state or coalition of One Province Minors is stronger than the Emperor (unlike-say- the fellow Minor of Ansbach or Ulm).
What I was saying was not a commentary on Austria having a unique advantage, it was a commentary on Austria already having the advantage of being a larger state in the HRE controlling equal or smaller ones.
You just Assumed- again- that I thought the Tag of Austria has magic powers and jumped in without carefully reading or imagining alternatives.
(The fact that the Tag of Austria does have limited "magic powers" not shared by several otehr tags- if not by no other tags- in the form of diplomatic and IA buffs is just the icing on the cake)
That and even though the individual calculations for liberty desire don't feature other vassals as a major issue, the other vassals to play a role in.
Say if you're a medium tier power that became the emperor but lost three quarters of their manpower taking on the Turk Rush, you run the risk that an Upper Medium Tier Bavaria or Brandenburg might take a look at things, *might* decide that the liege lord is weak enough to try something, and *might* raise the banner of revolt dragging you into another potentially costly war that will bleed you further.
Which in turn might make weaker powers than Bavaria look at your (apparently weakening) status relative to them from the costs of the war. Which can lead to a cascade if it goes wrong (as it commonly does for the AI, especially with player assistance).
One dimensionally looking at the numbers and calculations alone without imagining how it slams into the rest of the game world misses the bigger picture.
I'll see what I can dig up when I can be arsed to. I have other things on the front burner ahead of it (and in light of that I probably shouldn't have spent this much time and energy on this thread), but it's a pleasure to help.
Though for the record, those wouldn't be the only AARs of reference to my points. But also ones that would talk a bit about the benefit sof centralization v. vassal spam, the methods used to get the latter or former, and so on. I notice you very carefully limited your selection to just one subsection (that is less likely to pop up since most AARs tend not to cover fatal implosions), but I figured I'd clarify it anyway.
In case I haven't made it abundantly clear:
I don't give a damn about what you think or what your opinion is. Why would i?
The experience of this thread has shown and shown repeatedly how rash, hotheaded, arrogant, presumptious, utterly un-self aware you are. Even when you're wrong.
And I mean demonstrably, confirmably, admitted-even-by-yourself wrong. As you were when you thought the OP and I were the same person, and didn't hesitate to throw accusations of "trolling" at them. Again, because you couldn't imagine you were wrong or jumping the gun. And only apologized and came back to this thread after the REAL OP came back, and I called you out for acting like trash and publically rubbed your face in your own stink like a bad dog.
I am Not going to pay a great deal of mind to somebody who blames *their using a phone* for their going off the handle to attack an innocent party, and if God pleases I hope I never am in a the position where I have to.
I will still look for the links where possible. For the sake of helping (the OP and whoever else might benefit from it, even you). Not because of what you think (when you see fit to do).
For once, we agree.
This would be a lot more convincing if you had not made a public stink of wrongly blaming them and then *unsubscribing.* Something I have never done on here even at its' worst.
But you did. So it's not. And you're still resorting to @$$-of-u assumptions of other people that paints them in the worst possible light and yours in the best. No matter how much you have to omit for the latter.
Once again: I never doubted that you actually wanted to help him (outside of a few points where you- Foolishly- thought he and I were the same). I can appreciate that it takes time and effort out of doing whatever else you'd do to make a post here, responding to someone who you will almost certainly never meet in real life.
The reason why you would think it is somehow different for a person other than you befuddles me. Though that is probably for the best, because I don't Want to know what kind of mind would automatically think oof possibilities like that.
In general, I find I act like a decent sounding board on the whole. The fact that I have a fair bit of expereince with Paradox games in general (including EUIV, though not as much) helps.
And I also find that the ability to have welcome counsel- even if it's not necessarily expert or star studded- can help a lot of people. Myself included. Hence why I talk to my Steam friends a lot even on stuff more important than games.
Like I said: I'll see what I can do.
Once again proving that a number of recorded hours in a game is not a substitute for real world logic. Or reason. Or common human decency.I already looked at your profile (you see, unlike you, I actually do some cursory research of who I'm talking to. That way I don't go ♥♥♥♥ up and insult the wrong person. Like you did by your own admission).
I already admitted you had at least an order of magnitude more time sunk into the game than I did (though far less than that difference seems, for reasons I will get into later):
But funny that with all that experience, you still made the mistake of choosing to try and gloat now. Because I had just managed to find perhaps The quintessential WC AAR for EUIV, even after all this time and a lot of massive patching turning it partially obsolete (probably specifically to patch some of the blatant exploits and the like it used).
I of course speak of https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-three-mountains-a-ryukyu-aar.709144/
Now, to head off the kind of inevitable attempt at a gotcha, I'll take a quote from someone who said it even better than I did.
A lot of the specific mechanics that the AAR writer used did indeed get patched out (probably in response to them being publicized there). But it is still informative.
Partially because even with Common Sense a lot hasn't changed since then, and partially because a lot of the same methods of thinking- like the minimaxing useful in WC- are still very useful in how you're planning it.
So with that first link aside and its' continued interest explained: Are you in some kind of twisted bet where you try and make yourself look like a buffoon? Or does this come naturally to you?
So now you're telling us that you are functionally illiterate and lack knowledge of what "nothing" means.
Or are you saying that I was not even remotely right when I wrote this?
No, I'm sure it is not (new). People have been assembling the HRE and leading it to uber status pretty much since the system got made."
In other words, *agreeing with you*? (More or less)? Thus meaning that if that wasn't "remotely right", neither was what you said?
This is what you get when you're stupid enough to make brash overstatements and absolutes.
Ah yes. The wonders of somebody else who doesn't get it.
I realize you don't know what "nothing" means, so I'll try to use small words.
The reason I have zero achievements is that I don't play on Iron Man. Never have felt the need to. Probably should since my friends' list is bulging.
The 16 hours only shows the (admittedly majority) of the time that I was playing online, as opposed to offline.
It also only shows the time I played since I got the full game, as opposed to the literally couple of hundred I sank into the Demo (as obsolete as it is).
Ditto the amount of EUIII I played, since *I got it before Steam* and still have the disk.
So, having given the basics of Steam hour calculation and those blind spots that apply to me....
Let me just say there is something twisted in someone who things the end all to be all of someone's worth is only measured in their hours played and achivements won.
Especially when it leads you (Yes, You!) to violate the terms of service that let you use Steam at all, and generally be a wretched person on the whole.
To quote a friend (yes, one of my Steam Friends, DISCLAIMER) on someone else but which could equally apply to the likes of you:
Does that include when I actually agreed with you?
Or are you still an idiot who thinks "nothing" means "nothing exceptforwhenIchooseit?"
The bottom line is that you're the one on this thread who has been explicitly forced to recant and apologize for something. Not me.
You were the one who admitted to have blown horse dung at someone who did not deserve it.
So you do not have much ground to lecture on here. Least of all because you're hateful enough towards me that you trip over whether what you;'re saying (or parts of it) are.
Ah yes. The old incompetent coward's retreat from a debate.I know this well. From m y own thousands of hours of experience debating. Both online and not.
Translation: this means "I've been caught dead to rights in one rules violation, I've ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up what the meaning of "nothing" is, and my ability to debate civilly is apparently nil. So I'm just going to indiscriminately hurl accusations Without Any Kind Of Proof."
Or, Shorter Translation:
"You Win, Turtler/Opposing Party."
Pot, Meet Kettle.
I'm not the one who started with the personal insults of an innocent party, knave.
Because I can actually do research worth a damn.
As tempting as that is, No, I Really, Really Won't.
For the reasons I mentioned before, plus some.
I don't GAD about Iron Man or Achievement Hunting. I play significant amounts of time offline. I have other games to play. And I don't give a twig about what you think.
*Could* I post a Three Mountains with +3 Stab (or even +6 if somebody made a mod about it)?
Probably. The Ryuks are one of the more interesting necks of the woods IMHO, and if all else failed I could ease my ascent by using Cheat Engine (since I know how to use it).
But the fact that I haven't already says plenty.
I don't feel the need to pad myself up when playing a game.
The question would be better directed at you.
And I quote.
The fact that you had to alone underlines your major malfunction.
You acted like a rude, condescending prat beyond any reason or justification.
You saw my (initially) mild posts, got angry at the lese majeste, and saw the OPs.
And in the process, you Stupidly confused the two. And insulted someone who even by your own twisted standards was innocent.
Nothing else comes even close to that on the scale of "mattering" as to how you behave.
See he is actually experienced and you aren't and I responded thinking he was you.
Yes, I am.
Beyond the basic rules of human decency and the Steam Terms of Service laying out you are wrong (you know, the ToS? The only thing allowing you to keep "your" games or the hours and achievements).
You were wrong to claim I was.
And the apology you gave to the OP is proof of that.
So now I head to bed. I'm not going to conspire with you to derail this topic further. Though rest assured, I actually have shown these threads and your posts to other people who play Europa Univeralis (you know, like those friends you used a bandwagon fallacy for earlier) to see what they thought.
"(Anonymous)This guy sounds like an arse"
"Charles of Tours: From what I've read I'm taking your side - not just because of our chat history, but as a guy who is a decent EU3 and EU4 player (and player of other PDOX games)
Charles of Tours: Currently in an ongoing multiplayer game I am playing as the Ottomans. I have Wallachia as a vassal, and soon I will be able to vassalize Serbia - if I choose to. Problem is that Serbia is being a prick and taking land (with support from the human playing Austria, who is not *directly* allied). That aside, I can forsee problems if I feed the east Balkans to Wallachia-->Romania and the west to Serbia. They'll eventually be getting high independence desires, especially if I'm off fighting an expensive war in the east or south (or even against Austria). Besides, having too many vassals owning certain provinces can block expansion but it can also reduce AE gain (a double edged sword). So my strategy may evolve into getting humanist ideas for the cultural acceptance, diploannex Serbia, and keep Montenegro as a trade vassal and feed them the Adriatic provinces. Then it won't really matter if I need northeastern Hungary to Wallachia.
Charles of Tours: As you mention, EU4 is about the balance of power. If the combined strength of my vassals is more powerful than my own strength then it's a sense of false security. All it takes is one war lost before it all comes crumbling down
Turtler: Interesting....
Turtler: But yeah, one of the key things I had an issue with was less the talk on the gameplay balance (if you're careful you can avoid losing any war or having it break apart) and more his conduct
Turtler: Especially the arrogance in assuming he's the only one who knows jack all about the gameplay mechanics
Charles of Tours: Yeah, I saw that too"
So while you enjoy being reported, please show this thread to some of your fellow EUIV fan friends and have them weigh in on how much you liked helping or who should straighten up.
I'd say I'll be holding my breath, but then I'd actually be lying.
I think you are too late. You have to pass enough reforms by 1550 to avoid religious league formation (I believe that Ewiger stops the religious leagues and you may not have to go to Erbkaisertum as mentioned above). That 30 year delay from religious strife is just too much for a WC.
I revoked priveledges as Bohemia around 1565, and probably could have done it sooner had I not ventured into ireland for the Bohemians achievement (Ireland cannot be added to the HRE so it is a waste of effort for a WC by vassal swarm).
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=500619079
In some ways, Bohemia or Brandenburg is easier than Austria since you can capture much territory from Poland, TO, and LO in the early game. These provinces can be added to the Empire to pass the next reform quicker.
Austria, however, can grab Hungarian land if you do not go for the PU instead. I have not tried that so I cannot say if it works just as well.
Yep, I think i may restart. Just sucks because I got lucky at game start with the PU on England and later on with Sweden, Hungary was forced. But having the swarm 50 years earlier compensates for that by far. So I may just restart and do the same strat, just amrry every major power at start (except muscovy and ottomans of course, for these I use byzantium/novgorod) and pray for dynasty spread. Also, the "Shadow Kingdom" event that removes all of Italy states from the HRE is kinda misleading... I though the "Kingdom of Italy" area were all the italian states already in the HRE, and I thought I had to conquer them (Savoy, Milan..) or at least feed them to german HRE members, but the AE/work was so much I just let go and lost valuable votes/members. Apparently to prevent that I have to conquer the venetian + pope land and add it to the HRE according to the wiki. Also this time I think I'll have byzantium as a much more short term vassal (will only feed 2/3 wars and then annex), mainly to seal off anatolian coast and the ottomans from expanding into mamluks, same with muscovy, since I will take religious ideas as my 2nd one, and this way I'll get waaaay more manpower from buildings in the balkans/russia proper. My biggest concern so far... about colonizers AKA Portugal Castile and England. Do I marry and hope for same dynasty/PU or do I take them out ASAP even without vassal swarm, near game start? Also, is forcing Burgundian inheritance worth it, to get more IA from adding land and power in general, + possibility of landlocking France early on and hopping to the british isles?
WC for people outside of HRE now is way harder to do with greyskin, because of the whole "vassalizing electors malus" on IA. Best way to do it would be allying said electors (preferably the bishop electors since these will NEVER vote for themselves and they're opm's mostly so they will vote in some1 big like you. Also according to the wiki, the leagues war CAN trigger with landfriede, but CANNOT trigger with Erbkaisertum (6th reform if i'm not mistaken). So passing it before 1550 is a must. Also religious ideas for Deus Vult and just stronger missionary strenght in general will help a LOT to remove centers of protestantism/reformation. These usually spawn in north/central germany and scandinavia and occasionally in Italy/France/british isles. You may think you're safe if you kill all of them except one in Norway for example, but it WILL spread it's heresy, and one of the big setbacks of my campaign was exactly that. I killed all of them except one in sweden. I was already going to invade sweden and destroy it but they fell in a PU under me, so heretic princes kept popping up anyways.
Also imho if you manage to get the swarm before 1600 (and doing some work yourself before that of course, like 1 or 2 lucky PU's and removing kebab + muscovy with byz and novgorod vassals respectively, and PU'ing/killing off at least the big colonizers (Spain/England) and France landlocked, you're pretty much gonna achieve WC.