PDOX Games VIII: Communism Will Win

[Bralia]

CHAD, STOP RESISTING. COMPLY!

[Grenartia]

CHAD, STOP RESISTING. COMPLY!

Virgin invaders vs the Chad resistance.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

CHAD, STOP RESISTING. COMPLY!

Virgin invaders vs the Chad resistance.

New HOI4 achievement: Conquer Chad as the Virgin Islands

[Valrifell]

Virgin invaders vs the Chad resistance.

New HOI4 achievement: Conquer Chad as the Virgin Islands

Gamers Rise Up: Conquer Chad as the Virgin Islands

[Impaled Nazarene]

Virgin invaders vs the Chad resistance.

New HOI4 achievement: Conquer Chad as the Virgin Islands

Smells like new thread title.

[Genivaria]

CHAD, STOP RESISTING. COMPLY!

The implications of manpower bonuses from compliance....

[Impaled Nazarene]

I had a thought about warfare in CK2, and I figured I should share it.
So, you know how sieging down every single holding your enemy has gives you 125% warscore (i.e. you only have to siege down 80% of their holdings to have 100% warscore)?
What if killing armies worked the same way, so that wiping out 80% of the enemy army gives you 100% warscore? The way I see it, if you manage to obliterate the other guy's army, then him continuing to fight is just delaying the inevitable, and it's not especially fun to have to siege down a bunch of counties to win a war you've already won just because warscore from battles caps at 75% for most CBs.

Corollary to this: What if the target's traits affected how much warscore you need to force their surrender, sort of like how some civics in Stellaris reduce war exhaustion gain? Like, if your enemy is brave, then you might need 110% warscore (that is, it takes a lot more to force them to surrender - also yes, this means it would be tracked above 100%, but plot power does that too so it's not without precedent), while craven characters would only need 90% or so. And maybe it could also be changed for certain CBs, like zealous characters would be much less likely to surrender to holy wars or crusades.

And perhaps martial could also directly affect army performance, like giving the flank +1% morale damage and defense per point of martial. The AI loves assigning commanders based purely on martial without considering traits, so that might also make it more competitive on the battlefield.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that CK2's warfare system is the most robotic part of the game (as there's not much difference between different realms except for army size and composition - really, what's the big difference between the feudal HI-based 10k English army and the feudal HI-based 10k Swedish army?) and accounting for traits and stats might make it a bit less robotic and more adaptive. Having to account for the other guy's traits when fighting - even if they aren't directly relevant to the individual battles - might make you reconsider a war that you could otherwise win.

I admit that this is very bare bones and it's definitely not even fleshed out enough for a mod, much less the base game, but I thought I'd ask what y'all think.

It needs an entire overhaul. Unless you're waging a major claim, holy war, invasion etc. You should not need 99-100% warscore to enforce demands. It's annoying having to siege down half of France and defeat their stack a few times just to acquire a 1 county claim from Flanders.
Say nothing of an empire.

Aside from the AI being stubborn and otherwise unreasonable EUIV beats CK2 in this matter. I'm shocked to say that.

[Ifreann]

I had a thought about warfare in CK2, and I figured I should share it.
So, you know how sieging down every single holding your enemy has gives you 125% warscore (i.e. you only have to siege down 80% of their holdings to have 100% warscore)?
What if killing armies worked the same way, so that wiping out 80% of the enemy army gives you 100% warscore? The way I see it, if you manage to obliterate the other guy's army, then him continuing to fight is just delaying the inevitable, and it's not especially fun to have to siege down a bunch of counties to win a war you've already won just because warscore from battles caps at 75% for most CBs.

Corollary to this: What if the target's traits affected how much warscore you need to force their surrender, sort of like how some civics in Stellaris reduce war exhaustion gain? Like, if your enemy is brave, then you might need 110% warscore (that is, it takes a lot more to force them to surrender - also yes, this means it would be tracked above 100%, but plot power does that too so it's not without precedent), while craven characters would only need 90% or so. And maybe it could also be changed for certain CBs, like zealous characters would be much less likely to surrender to holy wars or crusades.

And perhaps martial could also directly affect army performance, like giving the flank +1% morale damage and defense per point of martial. The AI loves assigning commanders based purely on martial without considering traits, so that might also make it more competitive on the battlefield.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that CK2's warfare system is the most robotic part of the game (as there's not much difference between different realms except for army size and composition - really, what's the big difference between the feudal HI-based 10k English army and the feudal HI-based 10k Swedish army?) and accounting for traits and stats might make it a bit less robotic and more adaptive. Having to account for the other guy's traits when fighting - even if they aren't directly relevant to the individual battles - might make you reconsider a war that you could otherwise win.

I admit that this is very bare bones and it's definitely not even fleshed out enough for a mod, much less the base game, but I thought I'd ask what y'all think.

It needs an entire overhaul. Unless you're waging a major claim, holy war, invasion etc. You should not need 99-100% warscore to enforce demands. It's annoying having to siege down half of France and defeat their stack a few times just to get acquire a 1 county claim from Flanders.
Say nothing of an empire.

Stupid stubborn Flanders.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I had a thought about warfare in CK2, and I figured I should share it.
So, you know how sieging down every single holding your enemy has gives you 125% warscore (i.e. you only have to siege down 80% of their holdings to have 100% warscore)?
What if killing armies worked the same way, so that wiping out 80% of the enemy army gives you 100% warscore? The way I see it, if you manage to obliterate the other guy's army, then him continuing to fight is just delaying the inevitable, and it's not especially fun to have to siege down a bunch of counties to win a war you've already won just because warscore from battles caps at 75% for most CBs.

Corollary to this: What if the target's traits affected how much warscore you need to force their surrender, sort of like how some civics in Stellaris reduce war exhaustion gain? Like, if your enemy is brave, then you might need 110% warscore (that is, it takes a lot more to force them to surrender - also yes, this means it would be tracked above 100%, but plot power does that too so it's not without precedent), while craven characters would only need 90% or so. And maybe it could also be changed for certain CBs, like zealous characters would be much less likely to surrender to holy wars or crusades.

And perhaps martial could also directly affect army performance, like giving the flank +1% morale damage and defense per point of martial. The AI loves assigning commanders based purely on martial without considering traits, so that might also make it more competitive on the battlefield.

The reason I bring this up is because I think that CK2's warfare system is the most robotic part of the game (as there's not much difference between different realms except for army size and composition - really, what's the big difference between the feudal HI-based 10k English army and the feudal HI-based 10k Swedish army?) and accounting for traits and stats might make it a bit less robotic and more adaptive. Having to account for the other guy's traits when fighting - even if they aren't directly relevant to the individual battles - might make you reconsider a war that you could otherwise win.

I admit that this is very bare bones and it's definitely not even fleshed out enough for a mod, much less the base game, but I thought I'd ask what y'all think.

It needs an entire overhaul. Unless you're waging a major claim, holy war, invasion etc. You should not need 99-100% warscore to enforce demands. It's annoying having to siege down half of France and defeat their stack a few times just to acquire a 1 county claim from Flanders.
Say nothing of an empire.

Aside from the AI being stubborn and otherwise unreasonable EUIV beats CK2 in this matter. I'm shocked to say that.

The mideval general strategy was to pretty much turtle. I think it's mainly diplomacy that really needs that most improvement. Ai is simply to stubborn to surrender even facing like 5 wars all at once. I also get what their going for too by warfare being down by county by county/duchy by duchy, because the majority of wars in that period were done in that way, but I can't see why you can't make additional demands or even try to compromise.

[Impaled Nazarene]

It needs an entire overhaul. Unless you're waging a major claim, holy war, invasion etc. You should not need 99-100% warscore to enforce demands. It's annoying having to siege down half of France and defeat their stack a few times just to acquire a 1 county claim from Flanders.
Say nothing of an empire.

Aside from the AI being stubborn and otherwise unreasonable EUIV beats CK2 in this matter. I'm shocked to say that.

The mideval general strategy was to pretty much turtle. I think it's mainly diplomacy that really needs that most improvement. Ai is simply to stubborn to surrender even facing like 5 wars all at once. I also get what their going for too by warfare being down by county by county/duchy by duchy, because the majority of wars in that period were done in that way, but I can't see why you can't make additional demands or even try to compromise.

Peace conferences where you can add or modify demands would make the wars a lot less bothersome. If I siege half of France I'm gonna want a little more than a small county.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gonna do a Castille game in Eu4.

Aims for opening;

Vassalize Navarra diplomatically, ally france and rush Labourd during their war with England, seperate peace for Labourd and release it as a Gasconese vassal (For eating Gascony cores in France.). Once Gascone is vassalized, break alliance with france, deal with Granada and that shit. At some point before 1490, invade France for the Gascone cores.

If possible, Diplovassalize Britanny. Basically expand into Italy with admin points, into france with diplo points, into north africa with both, and colonize new world.

Meanwhile use my missions to seize portugal, aragon, England, Austria in personal unions and muscle my way into the Emperorship.

I think the major thing is the Labourd part. If you day 1 relationship boost navarrra, month 2 ally them, and then stack all the relationship boosters before giving them a gift at 165 relations, you can vassalize them before Aragon PU's them.

You can always rush to seize Labourd easily enough, the problem comes with waiting for England to peace out seperately with you, as France might win the war too quickly.

France can eat my accepted culture slots. (Mostly), with Italy gaining a few too.

With an early rush to cripple france and begin eating it, missions will take care of the other major european powers. (Except Russia/Ottomans I guess.).

If all that goes well i'll have a Spanish empire in Europe right up to Scandinavia/Poland in the north and east, and up to the Balkans in the south and east. (Religious ideas to holy war and link up the north african part with the balkan part with routine fights against ottomans.).

Poland and Scandinavia will be a pickle. If Scandinavia goes protestant, all good, we'll carve through there too. Poland though isn't likely to. I guess I just gotta spam that thing to put a spaniard on the polish throne and hope that event triggers to give me a PU casus belli. (I think it's if you get your dynasty on the commonwealth throne 3 times in a row there's a chance it'll proc each succession from then on.).

[Bralia]

Gonna do a Castille game in Eu4.

Aims for opening;

Vassalize Navarra diplomatically, ally france and rush Labourd during their war with England, seperate peace for Labourd and release it as a Gasconese vassal (For eating Gascony cores in France.). Once Gascone is vassalized, break alliance with france, deal with Granada and that shit. At some point before 1490, invade France for the Gascone cores.

If possible, Diplovassalize Britanny. Basically expand into Italy with admin points, into france with diplo points, into north africa with both, and colonize new world.

Meanwhile use my missions to seize portugal, aragon, England, Austria in personal unions and muscle my way into the Emperorship.

I think the major thing is the Labourd part. If you day 1 relationship boost navarrra, month 2 ally them, and then stack all the relationship boosters before giving them a gift at 165 relations, you can vassalize them before Aragon PU's them.

You can always rush to seize Labourd easily enough, the problem comes with waiting for England to peace out seperately with you, as France might win the war too quickly.

France can eat my accepted culture slots. (Mostly), with Italy gaining a few too.

With an early rush to cripple france and begin eating it, missions will take care of the other major european powers. (Except Russia/Ottomans I guess.).

If all that goes well i'll have a Spanish empire in Europe right up to Scandinavia/Poland in the north and east, and up to the Balkans in the south and east. (Religious ideas to holy war and link up the north african part with the balkan part with routine fights against ottomans.).

Poland and Scandinavia will be a pickle. If Scandinavia goes protestant, all good, we'll carve through there too. Poland though isn't likely to. I guess I just gotta spam that thing to put a spaniard on the polish throne and hope that event triggers to give me a PU casus belli. (I think it's if you get your dynasty on the commonwealth throne 3 times in a row there's a chance it'll proc each succession from then on.).

Suffer not the Portuguese to live. Exterminate the Portuguese, don't get in bed with them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gonna do a Castille game in Eu4.

Aims for opening;

Vassalize Navarra diplomatically, ally france and rush Labourd during their war with England, seperate peace for Labourd and release it as a Gasconese vassal (For eating Gascony cores in France.). Once Gascone is vassalized, break alliance with france, deal with Granada and that shit. At some point before 1490, invade France for the Gascone cores.

If possible, Diplovassalize Britanny. Basically expand into Italy with admin points, into france with diplo points, into north africa with both, and colonize new world.

Meanwhile use my missions to seize portugal, aragon, England, Austria in personal unions and muscle my way into the Emperorship.

I think the major thing is the Labourd part. If you day 1 relationship boost navarrra, month 2 ally them, and then stack all the relationship boosters before giving them a gift at 165 relations, you can vassalize them before Aragon PU's them.

You can always rush to seize Labourd easily enough, the problem comes with waiting for England to peace out seperately with you, as France might win the war too quickly.

France can eat my accepted culture slots. (Mostly), with Italy gaining a few too.

With an early rush to cripple france and begin eating it, missions will take care of the other major european powers. (Except Russia/Ottomans I guess.).

If all that goes well i'll have a Spanish empire in Europe right up to Scandinavia/Poland in the north and east, and up to the Balkans in the south and east. (Religious ideas to holy war and link up the north african part with the balkan part with routine fights against ottomans.).

Poland and Scandinavia will be a pickle. If Scandinavia goes protestant, all good, we'll carve through there too. Poland though isn't likely to. I guess I just gotta spam that thing to put a spaniard on the polish throne and hope that event triggers to give me a PU casus belli. (I think it's if you get your dynasty on the commonwealth throne 3 times in a row there's a chance it'll proc each succession from then on.).

Suffer not the Portuguese to live. Exterminate the Portuguese, don't get in bed with them.

There's a mission to PU them after you get Aragon.

I'm now waiting for the Aragonese king to die, if he does within the next 3 years (He's 61) I get a PU on them. (I'm already pre-emptively improving relations with both them and naples.). Then i'll round on Portugal and PU them, then it's a matter of invading france. Game is going very well, managed to snipe Labourd and stuff.

I outnumber France's armies by myself. With Aragon, Naples, and Portugal as subjects, we'll swarm them. Then that's around 1/4th of France just glomped away into a vassal state. Following that i'll do the same with Occitania.

Poor France only has Britanny and Provence as Allies.

[Ostroeuropa]

Aragon and Naples are mine and the portuguese war has begun, as well as colonization. (Snapped up the Canarias during this war.).

Some manpower issues but mostly going alright. (Well, I mean, manpower is zero, but i've stackwiped Portugal and England a few times.) Once portugal is down it'll be a period of recovery in terms of gold and manpower with some light colonizing before striking at France.

Might need to take a loan, which makes me sad, but oh well, we're already getting Inflation from gold mines and that'll need to be dealt with sooner or later. I guess every now and then I can drop some admin on it (boo.).

After France we'll move in to the claims i've got in Italy (Assuming the shadow kingdom event fires by then), and hopefully by then i'll have converted Granada (Went the co-existence route.).

If it's too early for Shadow Kingdom idk. Maybe hit Provence or Britanny or something.

Colonization wise i'm gunning for the historical ones and assuming Portugal will do Brazil, so i'll inherit their colonial nation eventually and expand it myself. Maybe Portugal will tag some of the african provinces for me which would be nice. I'm gonna get the new world on lockdown and focus on European expansion before turning to Africa and the east.

[Serrus]

OK so I was busy trying to reform Suomensko.
Here's what I picked,and here's the glorious reformation event.
Never seen this before.
I know it's a generic holy order, but I felt unreasonably happy seeing this pop up.

[Abserdia]

Thought Bralia might like to see this mod.

I don’t think anyone else cares.

[Harmonic Empire]

Hey Hey!

I need your EU4 tips, im playing as Byzantium. What should i pick in Third ideas slot?

[Bralia]

This Reddit thread makes me want to create a truly vulgar empire in Stellaris.

[Genivaria]

My run with the Commonwealth of America in KR has given me a headcanon of the Commonwealth Minutemen from Fallout in Syndicalist colors leading the charge.
"General, another Reichspakt stronghold is in need of assaulting, I'll mark it on your map."

[Bralia]

The CIcero public release is imminent.

[Renoa]

I'm started a game in CK2 as a Muslim ruler for the first time since getting all the DLC. For the first few years I was thinking that Muslim mechanics were amazing and wondering why anyone would want to play as any other religion, then my ruler died and I had to spend twenty years killing and being killed between his assorted sons and grandsons and then was very well aware of why not. And that was even AFTER a third of them culled each other.

On an unrelated note but from the same game:
Swedish ruler of Norway, which is based in Scotland and doesn't own any land in Scandinavia
Norwegian ruler of Sweden, which is based in Norway

[Harmonic Empire]

I wonder if i can get basileus achievement, please give free ducats to help this poor byzantine

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm started a game in CK2 as a Muslim ruler for the first time since getting all the DLC. For the first few years I was thinking that Muslim mechanics were amazing and wondering why anyone would want to play as any other religion, then my ruler died and I had to spend twenty years killing and being killed between his assorted sons and grandsons and then was very well aware of why not. And that was even AFTER a third of them culled each other.

On an unrelated note but from the same game:
Swedish ruler of Norway, which is based in Scotland and doesn't own any land in Scandinavia
Norwegian ruler of Sweden, which is based in Norway

Play as a custom Sunni Caliph and make your character immortal. Without the problems of succession, the mechanics make it awesome.

[Bralia]

This is the kind of EUIV Dev Diary I like to see. Super large and super dense. I don't actually even have time to read it right now, so I'm just going to make the tagline the release date: 1.29 releases in precisely a week.

[Harmonic Empire]

This is the kind of EUIV Dev Diary I like to see. Super large and super dense. I don't actually even have time to read it right now, so I'm just going to make the tagline the release date: 1.29 releases in precisely a week.

Soo it basically made China less boring and less explosion