Will the ottomans keep their preference for snowmen and migrate towards siberia like in half of my games or will they actually try to annex Hungary and the arabian peninsula?
Duchies will seek to unify their primary culture, kingdoms will want to unify the whole culture group and empires will be interested in all bordering cultures. Because the Ottomans can not take all of the Mamluks in one war they will probably still move towards the steppes during truce timers but we will have to see.
IIRC It was in a different group for a time, but the AI loves culture conversion and it made the Ottos less likely to expand as much in the Mid East so they put it in the same group as the Arabic cultures. So to have Ottos actually expand in the mid east (and probably to avoid excessive culture conversion in the mid east) they put them in the same group.
Additionally, while there are significant cultural differences between Turks and Arabs (not to mention language, etc.) the designers (again IIRC) emphasized the cultural ties due to similar religion, many customs, and shared histories within certain cultural groups which is why certain cultures are in one group but not another. This is why you have Welsh, Cornish, and Scottish in the British group, Breton in the French group, and Basque in the Iberian group despite really being its own thing in many ways, and why the Carpathian group exists AT ALL when you have three distinct cultures and languages lumped into a single group (ie Hungarian should be in its own, Romanian either with South Slavic, Latin, or its own, and Slovak in West Slavic).
This just reinforces my belief that EUV needs a better culture system. Personally I’d love to see some of the leasons from Imperator on Pops and Simulation added to EUV but not sure the devs will ever add that. Tldr Culture and religion and language deserve a far more granular treatment in EU especially because mass migration, colonization, and population changes (think columbian exchange for one) are such a big part of the timeframe and it’s kinda sad we are reduced to a single representative culture, religion, and the “development” stat in a given province. It worked for a time but we’ve seen the limits and i hope we can get better representation
People use to thing about culture as an language group, and that is problem with carpathian culture group... cultures arent so different when you remove language from equation.. magyars maybe can have different language but most of their "nomadic" roots were long forgotten and they fully intermixed with Slavs in panonian basin. I was doing some count... and technically current slovaks are combination of 8 different cultures and etc...carpathian groups make a sense actually...just dont forgot it is cultural group and not language group..
I don’t disagree it’s just the strongest example of a mixed group. It’s always funny to me though that the Slovaks don’t get to be with the Czechs despite being West Slavs and there being Czechoslovakia due to the cultural similarities between the two, but I get why they did it on some level because it starts under Hungary…but then if Bohemia takes their mission and captures Slovakia then they make them all Czech!
>So to have Ottos actually expand in the mid east (and probably to avoid excessive culture conversion in the mid east) they put them in the same group.
damn- in my experience the Ottos barely eat Mesopotamia or even all that much of the Levant. did they used to just become russia?
Most of the time in my experience they still take Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Arabia so it WORKS but also Ottos are ottos and they’re so good for most of the game that they just blob everywhere (and the antiquated EUIV version of rebels makes rebellion against big blobs nearly impossible short of a bankruptcy loop and four massive coalitions, so another thing I hope they improve in EUV)
You should be able to choose a stance on how you treat every non primary culture in your country. The base option should be ignored, where all pops of that culture have low revolt risk but also low chance of assimilation. Then you have persecution, where every pop has high revolt risk and medium chance at assimilation. Finally you have accepted which will treat that culture the same as your primary, but at the cost of a temporary unrest modifier for pops of your primary culture.
For a while I remember cultural groups were ethno-linguistic, so as Ottomans same culture was Turcoman in Transoxiana and Azerbaijani. Celtic was also a group so Irish, Welsh and Breton were together. Pretty sure Basque was by itself. I liked it but I remember they changed back to regional for gameplay reasons
lol that's funny bc in the mod i am playing (ante bellum) they made so turkish is a culture of the steps (uzbek region) as if it was from the turkish tribes roots, so i guess with that new ai mindset the "ottomans of the mod" would rush siberia even harder, sad that the mod is still not updated to 1.33
i mean idk, personally that's a bit of history idk much, but as far as i am aware the ottoman empire of 1444 was already distant from the steppe roots
and then again if you do it for the ottomans what about the persians nations and timurids?
I mean, they just want to unite all [Turkic peoples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#/media/File%3ATurkic_Languages_distribution_map.png), is that so weird?
Well that was a consideration under a Young Turks faction in the ending days of the Ottomans who had Pan-Turkic ideals.
Ataturk I think decided this to ditch the idea in favor of focusing on the Anatolian Turks.
Probably a good idea. Making an enemy of Iran, Russia AND China would probably not bode well for Turkey. They had enough enemies in the Balkans already
That's because they put the emphasis on spectacle. Look you can eat the pope! Theres only a couple of events that pop up so you'll be familiar with them after an hour or so of playing but who cares when you can be a cannibal pope eater?
When I was playing Portugal I allied France to beat Castile. They took all of their army to sicilly only to their navy to be completely destroyed by Castile
I love this game
They need to set "home regions" that the AI should be weighted heavily to defend. Colonial and non-homeland areas would be areas the AI sends troops, but will only commit portions of their army to defend/conquer, with the portions decreasing during wars with nations near the homeland and if it's under siege.
Would be nice if war score would be shifted to hit much harder if the home regions are occupied, while decreasing the impact of colonial occupation on their overlords.
The AI has always been ”good” at sending troops to the new world. Attacking Spain or England post-1550 as another European country is way too easy as 2/3 of their troops are always on the other side of the world. The question is if they changed their diplomatic programming to actually enforce peace on the natives.
Meanwhile, when France attacked me (Inca) for the second time, they didn’t send a single regiment through the entire war as I sieged down their Brazil colony.
Didn't it already? Savoy France and all the others help me fight the natives. But 200k allied troops watching my 25k getting wiped out by 50k Spanish troops in Southern France ;) even commonwealth helped me crushing the natives in 1.33
Well yes, I never said that wasn't a problem. What I was saying, if you read the comment, is that it would be reasonable for them to form up and eventually be beaten and colonized.
Yeah, that's great and all, so why are you talking about 1550? I've never seen a federation the size of a continent in 1550 and I never said they should exist.
But I'll try to get back to the point one more time: it is reasonable for the American natives to form up and for the colonizers to have to fight them for the land, and as such having them form up and then be conquered would be just fine.
Great, so if we find some midpoint between that where they do form up somewhat and then get conquered and colonized but it does require some effort, that would be far closer to how it actually happened than what we've got now and how it was before. Which is what I said initially.
The reason most people think native empires last forever is because most people quit around 1650.
I've played 3 full games this patch. In all 3 natives rule all of North America until 1600 after which the Europeans start to wipe them out. By 1750 they're all conquered by AI but many players don't play until 1750.
It's also interesting to note that colonial empires often claimed large swathes of territory without actually controlling much of it. Maps of America from the 1600s and 1700s often show the whole continent divided between European empires, yet were those maps made by indigenous inhabitants they probably would have looked a little different.
What is historical is natives fairly regularly raiding the colonies because the colonies intruded on their territory, and the colonizers (or specifically the Brits with the Thirteen) enforcing peace on *their own colonies* because they didn’t want to go to war with the natives.
Yeah. The other thing that would be needed for historical accuracy is allowing those massive federations to represent the natives that were actually trading with the Europeans. EU4 is not set up for international trade agreements like that, but without it, the natives represent only an obstacle, rather than what they were historically, which is powerful regional allies and lucrative trading partners
It would be cool if wiping out the natives had a big immediate trading impact as the whole market collapses, but eventually it will make more money if you set up good trading colonies. The natives should generate more trade money period I think
It's more historically plausible than the revival of the Mongolian Khanate.
Actually I would argue that it almost did happen under Tecumseh who managed to unite the entire Great Lakes Region in a tribal confederation.
There was also King Phillip's war (Metacom's War) where the North Eastern Native Americans almost conquered the colonies.
King Philip’s war, considering it was only waged in NE and amongst only related tribes, would be more than adequately represented through the original system
When you mean only related tribes, what do you mean? Like the fighting was between tribes or just limited in scale?
I do think this war is a good example of natives beating a colonial nation like they would in EU4, even going as far as demanding war reperations and tribute from the colonial nation. This war wouldn't be able to be accurtely representing under the "orginal system" by which I assume you mean vanilla EU4?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678)
The difference is that the Mongol Khanate is only ever formed by a player. Native federations of huge proportions should be rare at most when you aren't playing as a native yourself.
Yeah it's worth noting too that western map makers had a vested interest in downplaying the native tribes vs giving them an optimistic portayal of the scale of their territory, and historical maps are the source people point too usually to say EU4 isn't accurate
Exactly. Honestly, the main problem historically accuracy wise is that they’re big and United (something tecumseh could only do briefly) and dominate that coasts
Yeah the united part its def a compromise I think, and I agree they should dominate the coasts less. They did capture western ships and gained naval superiority over western nations in King Phillips War at least, I would like a cheeky event to give natives an early carrack or something to balance out little coastline meaning no sailors etc
I don't know, I usually play until 1820 and in most of my games in 1.33 colonial eastern and Louisiana were controlled by natives.
The only case in which this didn't happen was when I played Portugal and destroyed several natives tag.
How about this
**The Gold Curse**
Treasure ships have brought unimaginable wealth to Spain, but over the years the crown has grown overly reliant the gold from treasure ships, neglecting other parts of the economy. Spanish labor has become outdated and unproductive compared to other countries.
Prereq
- Is after Age of Discovery
- Is Castille, Spain, or Portugal
- Has colonial nation subjects
Monthly Progress
- +0.5 has received > 100 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income
- +0.5 has received > 200 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income
- +0.5 has received > 300 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income
- +0.5 has received > 400 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income
- +0.5 if Inflation > 2%
- +0.5 if Inflation > 4%
- +0.5 if Inflation > 6%
- +0.5 if Inflation > 8%
- +0.5 has 5 loans
- +0.5 has 10 loans
- -0.5 if Taxation income / month > 25
- -0.5 if Taxation income / month > 50
- -0.5 if Production income / month > 25
- -0.5 if Production income / month > 50
While the disaster is ongoing the country gets:
- +0.2 inflation per month
- +2% Interest per year
- -25% taxation efficiency
- -25% production efficiency
- +25% land upkeep
- +25% naval upkeep
Disaster ends when income from taxation and production surpass 100/month.
Spain has been pretty dominant in my last few games, at least mid-late game. I think that's pretty normal- huge Ottomans and Spain is one of the most common endgame states.
Is not that bad. Historically spain controlled Lusiana, is not that far from reality.
Alaska was colonized really late into our timeline. I wish the devs added modifiers to make it harder to colonize it thou.
Having some way for the tribes to coexist within the obstensible territory of these nations would be interesting. They claimed huge swathes of land while de-facto native life continued outside the metropole
They should change the Ottos to stop making useless alliances with Tunis once they take over the Mamluks. I think most of the time, they don't advance in that direction since they only have allies there who are blocking expansion.
It’s a bad and ad hoc design philosophy that often ends up badly damaging games. Obviously a different game but with Warhammer 2 they constantly nerf shit in response to MP players whining and it results in piss poor factions and/or completely useless units
When is the release date on this. Havnt played eu4 in a while because i like to wait for updates so when the updates do come out i do not feel burnt out.
huge. declares war on your colony, which can't defend itself. You dont get drawn into the war immediatly and the notification that zour colony is at war is the same as if two nations you dont have to do with go into war.
They get way too big and strong. I even had them pop out as great powers several times. While it would be a neat thing if it happened rarely, right now it's just annoying because it happens in half of my games.
Feel like we need a nerf on manpower+force limit sources for bigger nations. And also remove or nerf the stupid AE reduction for lucky nations so we can actually join coalitions.
Ohh ok. I feel like they have to let natives get powerful somehow or else not a lot of people would play them… but historically yes natives didn’t “win out”
Looks interesting. I personally would like colonization to go a lot slower for everyone so that the world isn't fully colonized every game unless multiple nations focus very hard on it. So slower colonization around the board and leaning heavier on naval aspects to ensure loyalty/power of colonies but that might just be me. Also I wish at least one of these would show a European power trying to colonize mainland Asia. I miss when the AI would make an attempt to do so.
the giga federation that spans from Alaska to Newyork and Mexico kinda sucks for late game, and they make ai colonising really slow so america is never colonised, and if the player colonies they have to be in 5 wars every 15 years because the natives keep attacking and losing
Because they are stupid aggressive and instantly attack your colonies even though you are 10 techs ahead of them. Forcing you to always station troops in the colonies and watching over them while they grow so that you can enforce peace and make sure they aren't annexed while you look away
If you have the DLC where you pick a colony type you can pick the type that gives your colony +10 base forcelimits. That's usually enough to scare off natives by making the colony look more formidable.
Yeah. The crown colonies are completely dependent on their overlords. Private enterprise give them better trade power and I guess better navies through naval tradition. Self Governing are in theory able to attack natives and expand on their own by having bigger armies.
I actually use self governing a lot if my navy isn't that strong so they can defend themselves better during wartime.
Well my game always notify me when my colonial nation get attacked, so I don't really get why people complains about this. The only noticable thing is that you can't easily notice your vassal's colony being attacked and enforce peace, and federation annexed colonized tribal land when formed
Yeah most people have warnings like that turned off or are flooded with other notifications and things that needs their attention so it slips by. It's also the fact that they won't stop even attacking you even after losing wars and having lost 50% of their territory. They are an annoyance
ah no you dont understand, the european nations need to micro everything everywhere but the natives must have mechanics where they dont actually declare war on you when they take territory you control.
It's not about protecting your colony, that's fairly easy, the problem is the AI being incapable of doing that, so any AI colonies are just eaten up by federations.
Isn't that exactly accurate to the border wars and raids that happened? Having no help needed from the colonies master would be even more historically innacurate and boring really
Totally agree. And, it's like people think that the natives were somehow entirely annihilated by 1821. Colonial powers put claims on much of the new world by then, but they certainly didn't have control. Even now, there is still a lot of tribal land. In EU4 terms, the USA is littered with small vassal states. Basically all of Alaska (the biggest US state) is tribal territory. Many northern and western states have large Indian reservations and tribes retain their sovereignty. So, I don't get the "tribes are still on my map. Too strong" thing. IRL, tribes are still around and still control territory.
No, but EU4 in general doesn't have very realistic army sizes, and crucially, they're not meant to be. Overall, there's just way more army in the game than there should be, at every stage of the game.
ik, but i feel like the solution isnt to let both sides have 100K for balence.
especially when the AI is horrible at naval landings (although theyre supposedly getting better)
How else do you balance against the giga death stack armies colonizers can send over though? The numbers need to be somewhat similar with a tech disadvantage they will never win a naval landing defense if the numbers aren't comparible. And natives did stop landings from happening and even captured western ships to gain naval superiority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678)
They did capture modern European naval flotillas and defeated colonial nations in wars, demanding tribute. A native tribe was the key naval power in the region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678)
Overall I don't think they should kick them off easily but they should have a decent shot at it!
Could someone recommend me which DLC to avoid using and which version to stay on to avoid all this mess?
I'm a new player and I'd rather have an easy colonization without heavy resistance, thanks.
I've stayed back at version 1.30.6 because of all the complaints about newer versions. I've heard there is a lot of slow down in the late game in this version. I haven't noticed any, but I have an i7. You may find you don't play into the late game very often anyway, as it gets kind of tedious.
[This is a pretty good guide on which DLC to consider](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/cfayvp/128_dlc_tier_list_a_guide_to_help_inform_dlc/)
Honestly the community has been dramatic about changes since 1.30.6, I wouldn't not even give it a try just because the circlejerk is against the Tinto changes. I am having more fun with the new updates than I ever have with EU4 but that is just me
Yes but it's so annoying when you play as a Native and europeans colonized all of South America by 1480-1485. They're not even supposed to be here yet!
I do not doubt that. I mean in what universe is all of South America colonized by 1480 by ai. That just isn’t possible. If it is it’s from a mod, not base game.
me too, except i never see that since i play in australia.
by the way, in 1812 irl, many parts of africa, interiors of americas and australia remain uncolonized
in 1700 in game, the whole world is colonized, even with dlc that disables conquest of natives.
I think that the ai colonizing most of Africa before age of revolutions is just shit. Especially since irl Europeans couldn't conquer inland Africa until 1860s because of all the diseases.
The 3rd slide here got me confused. With Austria/PLC actually prevent Muscovy from forming Russia by taking St. Petersburg. May e there was an early war where Austria-Hungary was allied to PLC and they walled Muscovy right away. Also is that Super Ming? Don’t forget central Asian border gore. This is an interesting map
Thank God in my bavaria not planed to HRE run I had one federatiom having whole central and north america, they had only two forts and 100k troops but MAN THE WAR AGAINST THEM WAS PAINand as soon as the new aquired provinces were cored and form the colony they took back almost half of what they lost because ofcourse new colonies don't have any truces ehh
Look at this chunky Morrocco in two playthroughs. Seems like the AI is better at following their mission trees now
That's one of the main changes announced, now AI will put more importance to their mission and historucal ambitions.
Will the ottomans keep their preference for snowmen and migrate towards siberia like in half of my games or will they actually try to annex Hungary and the arabian peninsula?
Duchies will seek to unify their primary culture, kingdoms will want to unify the whole culture group and empires will be interested in all bordering cultures. Because the Ottomans can not take all of the Mamluks in one war they will probably still move towards the steppes during truce timers but we will have to see.
The game considers Turkish as the same culture group as Arabic so they’ll probably focus harder on the Arabian peninsula
There are a ton of people still pissed at this. Even after all this time.
well, there are other similar - Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian - 3 different cultures, one group
I believe that Turkish should be a different culture group to make them snowball less because they would earn less from the levant.
IIRC It was in a different group for a time, but the AI loves culture conversion and it made the Ottos less likely to expand as much in the Mid East so they put it in the same group as the Arabic cultures. So to have Ottos actually expand in the mid east (and probably to avoid excessive culture conversion in the mid east) they put them in the same group. Additionally, while there are significant cultural differences between Turks and Arabs (not to mention language, etc.) the designers (again IIRC) emphasized the cultural ties due to similar religion, many customs, and shared histories within certain cultural groups which is why certain cultures are in one group but not another. This is why you have Welsh, Cornish, and Scottish in the British group, Breton in the French group, and Basque in the Iberian group despite really being its own thing in many ways, and why the Carpathian group exists AT ALL when you have three distinct cultures and languages lumped into a single group (ie Hungarian should be in its own, Romanian either with South Slavic, Latin, or its own, and Slovak in West Slavic). This just reinforces my belief that EUV needs a better culture system. Personally I’d love to see some of the leasons from Imperator on Pops and Simulation added to EUV but not sure the devs will ever add that. Tldr Culture and religion and language deserve a far more granular treatment in EU especially because mass migration, colonization, and population changes (think columbian exchange for one) are such a big part of the timeframe and it’s kinda sad we are reduced to a single representative culture, religion, and the “development” stat in a given province. It worked for a time but we’ve seen the limits and i hope we can get better representation
People use to thing about culture as an language group, and that is problem with carpathian culture group... cultures arent so different when you remove language from equation.. magyars maybe can have different language but most of their "nomadic" roots were long forgotten and they fully intermixed with Slavs in panonian basin. I was doing some count... and technically current slovaks are combination of 8 different cultures and etc...carpathian groups make a sense actually...just dont forgot it is cultural group and not language group..
I don’t disagree it’s just the strongest example of a mixed group. It’s always funny to me though that the Slovaks don’t get to be with the Czechs despite being West Slavs and there being Czechoslovakia due to the cultural similarities between the two, but I get why they did it on some level because it starts under Hungary…but then if Bohemia takes their mission and captures Slovakia then they make them all Czech!
>So to have Ottos actually expand in the mid east (and probably to avoid excessive culture conversion in the mid east) they put them in the same group. damn- in my experience the Ottos barely eat Mesopotamia or even all that much of the Levant. did they used to just become russia?
Most of the time in my experience they still take Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Arabia so it WORKS but also Ottos are ottos and they’re so good for most of the game that they just blob everywhere (and the antiquated EUIV version of rebels makes rebellion against big blobs nearly impossible short of a bankruptcy loop and four massive coalitions, so another thing I hope they improve in EUV)
You should be able to choose a stance on how you treat every non primary culture in your country. The base option should be ignored, where all pops of that culture have low revolt risk but also low chance of assimilation. Then you have persecution, where every pop has high revolt risk and medium chance at assimilation. Finally you have accepted which will treat that culture the same as your primary, but at the cost of a temporary unrest modifier for pops of your primary culture.
For a while I remember cultural groups were ethno-linguistic, so as Ottomans same culture was Turcoman in Transoxiana and Azerbaijani. Celtic was also a group so Irish, Welsh and Breton were together. Pretty sure Basque was by itself. I liked it but I remember they changed back to regional for gameplay reasons
I do like how some mods fix it but for mechanical reasons I'm fine with it being how it is
lol that's funny bc in the mod i am playing (ante bellum) they made so turkish is a culture of the steps (uzbek region) as if it was from the turkish tribes roots, so i guess with that new ai mindset the "ottomans of the mod" would rush siberia even harder, sad that the mod is still not updated to 1.33
Yess that is way more accurate but I wonder if they'll be forced to change that again. Or maybe it can be fixed by the mission tree.
i mean idk, personally that's a bit of history idk much, but as far as i am aware the ottoman empire of 1444 was already distant from the steppe roots and then again if you do it for the ottomans what about the persians nations and timurids?
I mean, they just want to unite all [Turkic peoples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#/media/File%3ATurkic_Languages_distribution_map.png), is that so weird?
Yes, it's as hideous as the hoi4 turan focus tree
But as the all knowing EU4 says, Turks are actually Arabs.
Well that was a consideration under a Young Turks faction in the ending days of the Ottomans who had Pan-Turkic ideals. Ataturk I think decided this to ditch the idea in favor of focusing on the Anatolian Turks.
Probably a good idea. Making an enemy of Iran, Russia AND China would probably not bode well for Turkey. They had enough enemies in the Balkans already
If only we had that for ck3
Within 10 years ck3 is far too far gone to be able to keep and semblance of historical accuracy
That's because they put the emphasis on spectacle. Look you can eat the pope! Theres only a couple of events that pop up so you'll be familiar with them after an hour or so of playing but who cares when you can be a cannibal pope eater?
Honestly this was my problem with ck3. So thanks for noting it.
[удалено]
Too much. Fucken France took half of its army to attack the Crees while Tuscany invaded it.
When I was playing Portugal I allied France to beat Castile. They took all of their army to sicilly only to their navy to be completely destroyed by Castile I love this game
That's why I like to make a strong Navy. Just in the off chance that I can't decimate some of the enemy armies on the sea.
At least the French weren’t stuck in Egypt
Pff, like that's every happened!
Made me LOL IRL - I needed it. Thanks!!
[удалено]
Are you implying England is no longer a useless ally?
Whoa there friend, sure they are generally useless in war, but the mere presence of a big name as an ally can avoid much coalitions, including England
the beauty of it- the AI doesn't know how bad the other ais are
Please no, that wouldn't be historically accurate.
hey now britain could usually land. they just usually sucked at land warfare against other europeans
Hey, now! Don’t forget the majesty of Dunkirk, where they bravely ran away.
We helped eventually against Napoleon!
They need to set "home regions" that the AI should be weighted heavily to defend. Colonial and non-homeland areas would be areas the AI sends troops, but will only commit portions of their army to defend/conquer, with the portions decreasing during wars with nations near the homeland and if it's under siege. Would be nice if war score would be shifted to hit much harder if the home regions are occupied, while decreasing the impact of colonial occupation on their overlords.
Doesn't France look a little too weak in general? Very little blobbing in any of the examples.
Iirc some of the other pics had massive frances
The AI has always been ”good” at sending troops to the new world. Attacking Spain or England post-1550 as another European country is way too easy as 2/3 of their troops are always on the other side of the world. The question is if they changed their diplomatic programming to actually enforce peace on the natives.
Meanwhile, when France attacked me (Inca) for the second time, they didn’t send a single regiment through the entire war as I sieged down their Brazil colony.
Didn't it already? Savoy France and all the others help me fight the natives. But 200k allied troops watching my 25k getting wiped out by 50k Spanish troops in Southern France ;) even commonwealth helped me crushing the natives in 1.33
Always weirdly satisfying to see Qing forming naturally.
In the second playthrough there’s a natural Germany.
And in number 4
That’s number 5
And there is also what seems to be Ireland with all British Isles un the first one
looks like a Russia inherited gb to me
Yeah now that I look better at the colour I notice, you're right. Sad face
We dont know, they are 1821 maps, maybe the federations were beaten up late but were big when colonizers arrived
[удалено]
Also known as the ones the ai managed to beat
Timelapses would be cool ! But anyway they choose which ones they show so we'll have to wait for release to really notice changes
Wouldn't that be somewhat historically accurate? Many costly wars were fought against the Native Americans by nearly all the colonial powers.
The problem in 1.33 is huge federations as soon as 1550, historically natives were small and split
Well yes, I never said that wasn't a problem. What I was saying, if you read the comment, is that it would be reasonable for them to form up and eventually be beaten and colonized.
We are talking about historical accuracy, historically there were no federations the size of a continent in 1550 :)
Yeah, that's great and all, so why are you talking about 1550? I've never seen a federation the size of a continent in 1550 and I never said they should exist. But I'll try to get back to the point one more time: it is reasonable for the American natives to form up and for the colonizers to have to fight them for the land, and as such having them form up and then be conquered would be just fine.
[удалено]
Great, so if we find some midpoint between that where they do form up somewhat and then get conquered and colonized but it does require some effort, that would be far closer to how it actually happened than what we've got now and how it was before. Which is what I said initially.
The reason most people think native empires last forever is because most people quit around 1650. I've played 3 full games this patch. In all 3 natives rule all of North America until 1600 after which the Europeans start to wipe them out. By 1750 they're all conquered by AI but many players don't play until 1750.
It's also interesting to note that colonial empires often claimed large swathes of territory without actually controlling much of it. Maps of America from the 1600s and 1700s often show the whole continent divided between European empires, yet were those maps made by indigenous inhabitants they probably would have looked a little different.
Yep. I always see Spain initially fail to colonise Mexico then turn up later and curbstomp them
Which is historical. The early colonization was in South America and Mexico and everyone else only got what was left.
What’s not historical though is continent-spanning native empires in North America that conquer and absorb large European colonies.
What is historical is natives fairly regularly raiding the colonies because the colonies intruded on their territory, and the colonizers (or specifically the Brits with the Thirteen) enforcing peace on *their own colonies* because they didn’t want to go to war with the natives.
In general Eu4 is lacking a war type that is "Skirmish" where it would have to force it into a short and limited war.
Yeah. The other thing that would be needed for historical accuracy is allowing those massive federations to represent the natives that were actually trading with the Europeans. EU4 is not set up for international trade agreements like that, but without it, the natives represent only an obstacle, rather than what they were historically, which is powerful regional allies and lucrative trading partners
It would be cool if wiping out the natives had a big immediate trading impact as the whole market collapses, but eventually it will make more money if you set up good trading colonies. The natives should generate more trade money period I think
It's more historically plausible than the revival of the Mongolian Khanate. Actually I would argue that it almost did happen under Tecumseh who managed to unite the entire Great Lakes Region in a tribal confederation. There was also King Phillip's war (Metacom's War) where the North Eastern Native Americans almost conquered the colonies.
King Philip’s war, considering it was only waged in NE and amongst only related tribes, would be more than adequately represented through the original system
When you mean only related tribes, what do you mean? Like the fighting was between tribes or just limited in scale? I do think this war is a good example of natives beating a colonial nation like they would in EU4, even going as far as demanding war reperations and tribute from the colonial nation. This war wouldn't be able to be accurtely representing under the "orginal system" by which I assume you mean vanilla EU4? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678)
The difference is that the Mongol Khanate is only ever formed by a player. Native federations of huge proportions should be rare at most when you aren't playing as a native yourself.
Well, the Iroquois during the beaver wars came pretty close to that size tbf
Yeah it's worth noting too that western map makers had a vested interest in downplaying the native tribes vs giving them an optimistic portayal of the scale of their territory, and historical maps are the source people point too usually to say EU4 isn't accurate
Exactly. Honestly, the main problem historically accuracy wise is that they’re big and United (something tecumseh could only do briefly) and dominate that coasts
Yeah the united part its def a compromise I think, and I agree they should dominate the coasts less. They did capture western ships and gained naval superiority over western nations in King Phillips War at least, I would like a cheeky event to give natives an early carrack or something to balance out little coastline meaning no sailors etc
I don't know, I usually play until 1820 and in most of my games in 1.33 colonial eastern and Louisiana were controlled by natives. The only case in which this didn't happen was when I played Portugal and destroyed several natives tag.
I'm just happy that France is capable of eating Provence and Brittany now.
And it looks like we have a new Castile problem
Honestly Castile/Spain needs a mid/late game disaster regarding their economy.
How about this **The Gold Curse** Treasure ships have brought unimaginable wealth to Spain, but over the years the crown has grown overly reliant the gold from treasure ships, neglecting other parts of the economy. Spanish labor has become outdated and unproductive compared to other countries. Prereq - Is after Age of Discovery - Is Castille, Spain, or Portugal - Has colonial nation subjects Monthly Progress - +0.5 has received > 100 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income - +0.5 has received > 200 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income - +0.5 has received > 300 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income - +0.5 has received > 400 ducats in the past year from tariffs and treasure ship income - +0.5 if Inflation > 2% - +0.5 if Inflation > 4% - +0.5 if Inflation > 6% - +0.5 if Inflation > 8% - +0.5 has 5 loans - +0.5 has 10 loans - -0.5 if Taxation income / month > 25 - -0.5 if Taxation income / month > 50 - -0.5 if Production income / month > 25 - -0.5 if Production income / month > 50 While the disaster is ongoing the country gets: - +0.2 inflation per month - +2% Interest per year - -25% taxation efficiency - -25% production efficiency - +25% land upkeep - +25% naval upkeep Disaster ends when income from taxation and production surpass 100/month.
At least that's historical
Spain has been pretty dominant in my last few games, at least mid-late game. I think that's pretty normal- huge Ottomans and Spain is one of the most common endgame states.
I want to know what happened in that 3rd game no ottomans no Austria... what happened
Yeah but not the Castile & Portugal eat up North-America issue. Eye-bleach is what it is.
Is not that bad. Historically spain controlled Lusiana, is not that far from reality. Alaska was colonized really late into our timeline. I wish the devs added modifiers to make it harder to colonize it thou.
Having some way for the tribes to coexist within the obstensible territory of these nations would be interesting. They claimed huge swathes of land while de-facto native life continued outside the metropole
Victoria II had a great little system where you needed a certain tech that let you colonise regions with a lower life rating.
Iirc the MEIOU mod for EU locked colonization of certain areas behind tech. I loved that system.
whats that green color on british isles? ireland?
I think it is russia which got the pu over gb and annexed it
Might be, but I think Russia got PU and integrated/inherited
[It's definitely Russia](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/917878949827190837/1000438308494643290/unknown.png)
I wish, seeing an ai Ireland destroy Britain and go on to colonize the new world would be a dream come true.
Hope they fix the Otto steppes as well.
[удалено]
They should change the Ottos to stop making useless alliances with Tunis once they take over the Mamluks. I think most of the time, they don't advance in that direction since they only have allies there who are blocking expansion.
It’s a bad and ad hoc design philosophy that often ends up badly damaging games. Obviously a different game but with Warhammer 2 they constantly nerf shit in response to MP players whining and it results in piss poor factions and/or completely useless units
When is the release date on this. Havnt played eu4 in a while because i like to wait for updates so when the updates do come out i do not feel burnt out.
R5: from the latest dev diary it seems that now most of america gets colonized by the end game
It's already the case, Federation start to get fucked by colonizer from 1700, most player just don't play till then or destroyed colonizer before.
I see England/Great Britain still suck at colonizing NA though.
as long as the Ai doesnt go around the whole map to attack their invader on the opposite side of the map while getting sieged
what is the native federation problem?
huge. declares war on your colony, which can't defend itself. You dont get drawn into the war immediatly and the notification that zour colony is at war is the same as if two nations you dont have to do with go into war.
oh yeah i hate that I don't get drawn into war when someone attacks my colony
They get way too big and strong. I even had them pop out as great powers several times. While it would be a neat thing if it happened rarely, right now it's just annoying because it happens in half of my games.
Look at that juicy China
Fix the Spain problem
Feel like we need a nerf on manpower+force limit sources for bigger nations. And also remove or nerf the stupid AE reduction for lucky nations so we can actually join coalitions.
I must have missed it but what is the 'Native Federation' problem??
Native federations are too big and strong. Both a gameplay and historical concern.
Ohh ok. I feel like they have to let natives get powerful somehow or else not a lot of people would play them… but historically yes natives didn’t “win out”
Looks interesting. I personally would like colonization to go a lot slower for everyone so that the world isn't fully colonized every game unless multiple nations focus very hard on it. So slower colonization around the board and leaning heavier on naval aspects to ensure loyalty/power of colonies but that might just be me. Also I wish at least one of these would show a European power trying to colonize mainland Asia. I miss when the AI would make an attempt to do so.
Omfg finally
That Russia w/China looks under its belt looks horrific to fight
But there isnt „down under“ Only „Juan unda“ or „parisa la under“ :(
Now can they fix Portuguese/Spanish Australia and Spanish Cape Colony
But they still cant get Australia to be colonised by the British
TBH, the native federations are really cool, I don't know why people hate it.
the giga federation that spans from Alaska to Newyork and Mexico kinda sucks for late game, and they make ai colonising really slow so america is never colonised, and if the player colonies they have to be in 5 wars every 15 years because the natives keep attacking and losing
Because they are stupid aggressive and instantly attack your colonies even though you are 10 techs ahead of them. Forcing you to always station troops in the colonies and watching over them while they grow so that you can enforce peace and make sure they aren't annexed while you look away
If you have the DLC where you pick a colony type you can pick the type that gives your colony +10 base forcelimits. That's usually enough to scare off natives by making the colony look more formidable.
Yeah, fair enough. Which type would that be? Independent colony ?
Yeah. The crown colonies are completely dependent on their overlords. Private enterprise give them better trade power and I guess better navies through naval tradition. Self Governing are in theory able to attack natives and expand on their own by having bigger armies. I actually use self governing a lot if my navy isn't that strong so they can defend themselves better during wartime.
EU4 player when they actually need to send army to protect their colony:
Right? Colonising is mindnumbingly boring anyway. Atleast the new federations give you something to do in the new world.
Yeah I don't mind that part as much, it's the micro of always having an eye on the new world as your neighbours try and swat you out of existence
Well my game always notify me when my colonial nation get attacked, so I don't really get why people complains about this. The only noticable thing is that you can't easily notice your vassal's colony being attacked and enforce peace, and federation annexed colonized tribal land when formed
Yeah most people have warnings like that turned off or are flooded with other notifications and things that needs their attention so it slips by. It's also the fact that they won't stop even attacking you even after losing wars and having lost 50% of their territory. They are an annoyance
ah no you dont understand, the european nations need to micro everything everywhere but the natives must have mechanics where they dont actually declare war on you when they take territory you control.
It's not about protecting your colony, that's fairly easy, the problem is the AI being incapable of doing that, so any AI colonies are just eaten up by federations.
when 5 wars at once against a foe 100X stronger than they were IRL:
Isn't that exactly accurate to the border wars and raids that happened? Having no help needed from the colonies master would be even more historically innacurate and boring really
I'd be happy if I was automatically called into the war or got a pop-up asking if I wanted to enforce peace
Totally agree. And, it's like people think that the natives were somehow entirely annihilated by 1821. Colonial powers put claims on much of the new world by then, but they certainly didn't have control. Even now, there is still a lot of tribal land. In EU4 terms, the USA is littered with small vassal states. Basically all of Alaska (the biggest US state) is tribal territory. Many northern and western states have large Indian reservations and tribes retain their sovereignty. So, I don't get the "tribes are still on my map. Too strong" thing. IRL, tribes are still around and still control territory.
but they didnt field 100k strong armies and booted the colonizers off the continent.
No, but EU4 in general doesn't have very realistic army sizes, and crucially, they're not meant to be. Overall, there's just way more army in the game than there should be, at every stage of the game.
The colonizers also didn't send 100k troops to the new world though... and in 1821 in real life vast swathes of North America was unsettled.
ik, but i feel like the solution isnt to let both sides have 100K for balence. especially when the AI is horrible at naval landings (although theyre supposedly getting better)
How else do you balance against the giga death stack armies colonizers can send over though? The numbers need to be somewhat similar with a tech disadvantage they will never win a naval landing defense if the numbers aren't comparible. And natives did stop landings from happening and even captured western ships to gain naval superiority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678)
They did capture modern European naval flotillas and defeated colonial nations in wars, demanding tribute. A native tribe was the key naval power in the region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Casco_(1678) Overall I don't think they should kick them off easily but they should have a decent shot at it!
Could someone recommend me which DLC to avoid using and which version to stay on to avoid all this mess? I'm a new player and I'd rather have an easy colonization without heavy resistance, thanks.
conquest of paradise
Thanks, doesn't El Dorado mess with that also?
I've stayed back at version 1.30.6 because of all the complaints about newer versions. I've heard there is a lot of slow down in the late game in this version. I haven't noticed any, but I have an i7. You may find you don't play into the late game very often anyway, as it gets kind of tedious. [This is a pretty good guide on which DLC to consider](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/cfayvp/128_dlc_tier_list_a_guide_to_help_inform_dlc/)
Honestly the community has been dramatic about changes since 1.30.6, I wouldn't not even give it a try just because the circlejerk is against the Tinto changes. I am having more fun with the new updates than I ever have with EU4 but that is just me
dont buy the american dlcs
yaay playing outside of europe will be more impossible
That sucks, I liked watching colonisers getting stabbed
Ummm you know it's a game right?
Yeah I just like sacrificing Cortez, it’s fun
I see...
You guys are obvious euro-centrists.
The game is euro-centric what do you expect?
There it is then, a confession!
What? What are you even trying to say?
And the ottomans still look wtfspooky and impossible to play against
Great... Europeans weren't OP at all already. Now, america will be colonized by 1460, awsome...
a problem in the game is that every patch has fewer and fewer colonizable land, so....
Yes but it's so annoying when you play as a Native and europeans colonized all of South America by 1480-1485. They're not even supposed to be here yet!
Brother what are you smoking
Natives are fun. Reverse colonization is always great
I do not doubt that. I mean in what universe is all of South America colonized by 1480 by ai. That just isn’t possible. If it is it’s from a mod, not base game.
I swear Castille and Portugal colonized insanly quickly. It's just stupid
Well South America was colonized quick irl. But I have never seen the ai conquer Peru before 1540 personally. Perhaps you just got very unlucky.
What? I play OPMs and I usually manage to get mexico by 1600s because the AI fails to colonize it every time.
I have seen this a few times playing around with natives as well. It seems to happen slightly more often if you play in the new world.
Who tf plays natives anyway
I do
me too, except i never see that since i play in australia. by the way, in 1812 irl, many parts of africa, interiors of americas and australia remain uncolonized in 1700 in game, the whole world is colonized, even with dlc that disables conquest of natives.
I think that the ai colonizing most of Africa before age of revolutions is just shit. Especially since irl Europeans couldn't conquer inland Africa until 1860s because of all the diseases.
I hope so!
Finally, they are stupid.
On the first picture, Does russia own England and parts of NA? :o
The 3rd slide here got me confused. With Austria/PLC actually prevent Muscovy from forming Russia by taking St. Petersburg. May e there was an early war where Austria-Hungary was allied to PLC and they walled Muscovy right away. Also is that Super Ming? Don’t forget central Asian border gore. This is an interesting map
Well, that’s nice.
ireland taking over the british isles?
I think that it is more likely that Russia got a PU and annexed them.
When the ottomans border France and China
Thank God in my bavaria not planed to HRE run I had one federatiom having whole central and north america, they had only two forts and 100k troops but MAN THE WAR AGAINST THEM WAS PAINand as soon as the new aquired provinces were cored and form the colony they took back almost half of what they lost because ofcourse new colonies don't have any truces ehh
Ottomans blob 5/6 times
Great now please fix them colonizing half the east coast by 1550