1781

Argh, I just noticed AOW is not part of the mega bundle, nor is it on discount.

1782

That’s too bad! It’s their latest expansion and came out only fairly recently, so that would follow their usual sale model. Grabbing the others will give you ridiculous amounts of content to play with and as with all Paradox DLCs, a ton of the goodies in AoW you get for free anyway. It shouldn’t hurt to wait for another sale. Alternatively, I’ve felt all the EU4 expansion DLCs have been worth the initial asking price so if you’ve got the money to burn it’s not a bad deal.

1783

Can you turn off the DLC/expansions you don’t like? Say I decide I don’t like CoP… can I disable it?

1784

Yea, unless something has changed recently you can choose which DLC is enabled, but there’s not much reason to. The reason I say that is because the bulk of the changes are distributed to everyone via the associated patch that comes with a DLC release. The majority of Art of War, for instance, is available to all in the 1.9 patch. So to completely disable everything that came with that, you’d need to roll back to version 1.8 (which Paradox has set up for you to do via Steam if that’s your thing, FYI).

For something like Conquest of Paradise, most of the improvements are available in the 1.4 patch. For the DLC portion, they added new features and mechanics for the Native American nations as well as randomized New World. In the case of CoP, it’s not necessary to disable the DLC to avoid either of those. Randomization of the New World is a game option and if you don’t want to play Natives you just play someone else.

Hopefully the above rambling made some sort of sense. Realistically, I don’t think you’ll be in a scenario where you’d feel the need to disable a specific DLC (even in multiplayer), but the capability of doing so does exist.

1785

“I used to do some modeling but it got in the way of my studies at university,” she said, looking at me across her martini glass, eyebrow flirtatiously cocked.

Two could play at this flirting game. “Oh yeah?” I began. “Well, I almost totally understand how trade works in vanilla Europa Universalis 4.”

#BadPickupLines

Ok, I quietly made it my New Year’s nerd resolution to learn to play EU4 and CK2 for more than a week. What do I mean by that? Well, for two weeks in 2014, I knew how to play CK2, mostly. Then I got distracted and played something else, came back to CK2, realized I’d forgotten everything. Same way with EU4, only I think my brief, pretend-understanding of the game lasted more like 2 days.

EU4 looks like my best bet to start off with. It feels more streamlined than EU3 (which I knew how to play for at least two months in 2010!) I also am trusting in folks like Popehat Patrick who’ve pronounced EU4 with the expansions to be pretty much as awesome a grand strategy game as exists.

Learning things, from scratch–again–I think I can see why that would be.

Late to the party, but in case anyone cares I’ll be posting up my impressions as I go. I’m going to start with fairly vanilla EU4, and then add the expansions as I get comfortable. Any other tips to crest the learning curve? I think I mostly have the basic constructs of the game down right now–at least as far as the systems when the game came out.

1786

Unless it’s for financial reasons – you might not want to buy them until you’re sure EU4 is going to “take” – there’s really no reason not to start with the expansions. They don’t necessarily add more complexity, and in some cases, they make the game easier to manage.

Looking forward to reading your impressions!

-Tom

1787

I look forward to hearing your experiences. I want to pick up EU4 but I just don’t think I have the time. So I’m eager to live vicariously though your forum posts.

1788

Suggestions:

  • pick a nation big enough to absorb some losses, as well as project their power. While the idea of playing as Norway, breaking from the Kalmar Union, and the forming the great globe conquering colonial navy may sound exciting, you’re going to have a rough go of it. France? Spain? Austria? Much more forgiving, and you have more choices in what you can do.

  • Don’t play iron man, and experiment. What I did was look at options, and play around with how they could shake out. Think going to war with France is a good idea? Save, try it, and learn why no it really really isn’t. It’ll help you to learn what kind of preparedness you really need, as well as see how things like alliance chaining can really mess with plans.

  • Set a goal, and don’t worry about what other nations are doing.

  • Stability should really be above 0, but don’t worry if you’re not at 3. In fact don’t go to 3 initially. You can burn a lot of monarch points to stay there, when 0-2 is perfectly fine.

  • Try and make friends with a big hitter if you can. Playing as Savoy and want to go after France? Hit up Austria and Spain for friends.

  • Good luck! If you have any questions there are several people here who can give you detailed advice. A screenshot, or even better a save game, and an idea of your goals and we can push you into the right direction. Or ignore us, and do whatever you feel like! I look forward to hearing your experience.

EDIT: Tom adds a good point. If you have expansions, use them. No reason not to.

1789

Ooh, and I did think of one question about trade, straight off the bat.

Let’s say that I’m a smaller country, in the general trade area of the Venice trade hub.

There are two reasonably close trade hubs to Venice that both have arrows lines heading towards it–let’s say Alexandria and Constantinople.

Now, I’m not playing as Venice. I’m a minor country within its trade hub sphere. I have two merchants. I obviously send one to Venice to collect trade, because duh, income.

I then look at the other two hubs. I see that at Alexandria, a Venetian merchant is exerting considerable trade power to steer tons of trade from it to Venice. Am I correct in assuming that my merchant in Venice collecting trade benefits from this, sort of leeching onto that trade that another country is steering there from Alexandria? Thus, I’d be better off putting my second merchant at Constantinople to steer trade from there to Venice so that even more trade heads there?

So basically, I guess I’m asking–it doesn’t matter who steers the trade to a trade hub. Once it gets there, it all goes into a common pool to be divided up based upon percentage of trade power there on collection duty and merchants steering to the next, etc. That’s the gist though, right?

1790

Because a lot of the Let’s Plays I’m watching on Youtube involve the Ottomans, I think that’s how I’ll start. The notion of basically playing a political/diplomatic/trade game to the West and a conquer/military game to the East not only is appealing, I think it’ll be a good way to learn the game and how war, peace, trade, tech, and diplomacy all mesh.

Craig, they seem to fit the notion of a country that can absorb losses, yes?

1791

This is… a fairly complex answer. Short answer: you want to pick the node where you can have the most impact, and push the most money to where you are collecting. Constantinople would probably be a poor choice actually. You aren’t going to have enough impact, and that is a highly contested node. Without adding a bunch of naval power you probably wouldn’t do much. That said sending to Ragusa may not be better, if it is a node where almost all trade goes to Venice already. So look at connecting branches, and look to see how much total trade power is there, and how much total trade value is staying, and getting forwarded. If most trade already moves on, then you’re not going to do much anyhow. No need fighting Venice to send goods forward, better to improve local trade power and collect off the back of their fleet.

Really until you have a grasp of how trade works just send the merchant one place, wait a month, see the effect, then move them elsewhere. See how shifting them around alters 1) how much trade stays local versus gets sent forward 2) how that increase in the node you are collecting gets distributed. There is very little downside to just randomly experimenting here, other than lost money. Generally the best course of option is to improve trade strength % in the node you are collecting first. There is some trade power propagation, so improving one node can help in attached nodes.

Here are two posts earlier where I went into more detail. They’re a few patches old, but the general advice still is solid.


1792

If you’re playing as the Ottomans you’re in luck! Try to keep the Crimean Khanate alive whilst moving north. It would probably be a good idea to crush Muscovy before it forms Russia.

…

1793

Uh-oh, he’s asking intricate questions about trade. I thought we were going to get a triggercut-as-n00b write-up. Now I’m worried he’s going to be one of those guys who’s too hardcore for me.

-Tom, who's never even played as France
1794

Honest question since I haven’t played in ages: Is that actually important for someone just starting with the game?

Back when I last played, Russia or the Crimean would only become “important” issues after many centuries, and I wrote important in quotes because if you played a moderately expansionist game, there would be many other places to go instead at this point, and if you played an expansionist game, you’d be up against gargantuan blobs and/or coalitions at that point anyway, no matter where you looked.
(Not to mention that iirc Crimea was never part of Ottoman Empire proper to begin with historically.)

My advice during that time would have been: Don’t try to even match historical Ottoman expansion pace. Because doing so required overstepping quite a few of the games arbitary limitation mechanics…

The #1 question I’m going to ask if I ever figure I have time to play more EU4 would be: Has the issue where a few centuries in, there’s nothing else but blobs in the game been resolved? Besides coalitions, that’s what soured me on the game the most. :-/

rezaf

1795

Ha, no, I just used specific examples which led to more complicated answers that went over my head a bit!

Let me try again.

I guess I’m asking if I need to be the one pushing trade to a hub in order to take advantage of collecting that trade at the hub. So, for instance, say I have just a single merchant. I send him to collect trade at the trade hub in Fredonia. Fredonia, powerful nation that they are, have merchants out pushing torrents of trade into Fredonia–let’s say 200. I don’t need to be the guy pushing that trade to take advantage of it, right? My merchant sent to collect gets to benefit from having all that trade arriving in Fredonia, even though our country isn’t the one funneling the trade action there. I think that’s right, right?

Also, the thing I really like so far is that they seem to have greatly simplified the means by which you accomplish things by creating the three types of Monarch Points. That seems like they’re the thing as important as ducats to being able to do stuff, build stuff, research stuff.

1796

Pretty much. Check the stuff CraigM has linked, because he’s done an excellent job parsing trade. But mostly, you don’t have to worry much about it. Even when you’re playing a nation like Venice or the Hansa, trade it weirdly hands-off once you get it set up. It’s a fascinating system, but sometimes it makes me miss the days of EU3, managing all my merchants indivisually in their various trade centers. Trade in EU4 is just a river that happens around you, and all you do is occasionally throw more light ships into the swirling water.

-Tom

1797

Re: Trade, they discussed “EU4 after numerous expansions” in a recent Three Moves Ahead podcast.
I’m inclined to agree with their notion that it was the weakest area in EU4 - and they say that’s still the case today.

In any event, I think it’s a pretty neat podcast to listen to if you’re contemplating getting (back) into EU4 at this point.

It’s funny, everything Sean Sands is so enthusiastic about in EU4 used to apply to me and EU2. I kinda wish I was so enthralled with EU4 … then again, I’d not have enough time to play it these days, or I’d have to go pretty much EU4 exclusive. ;)

rezaf

1798

Which itself has some interesting knock on effects. One thing about the EU3 system was how wars impacted trade was mostly limited to getting embargoed by the country you are at war with. If you were collecting trade in a French trade node and got into war with England it probably wouldn’t matter. Now though? Well that trade fleet you had patrolling the channel is now a reef, and your trade income just bottomed out.

Personally I never found the old system particularly satisfying, though the global modifiers for things like mercantilism were more impactful. By the late game I may be dominating trade at a full page worth of trade nodes, and by automating the merchant priority I’d never have to worry about it. Trade isn’t a system you need to play around with much in EU4, but it is a system that is good to tinker with every year or two.

But trade is probably always going to struggle to be as engaging as the war making, except in a dedicated trade game. Otherwise it runs the risk of becoming busywork. I’d love to be wrong though. A trade system that is both engaging and not busywork would be amazing.

1799

As they say in the podcast, it would be nice if the trade routes were more dynamic, and trade goods had more impact. It would be cool if you could redirect a trade route through a mission or a triggered event or something like that. But I much prefer the current system to EU3’s.

1800

A good point. I do miss having wine or cloth having an actual impact. Having certain goods tied in to the research was neat, and one more vector to consider when targeting provinces. The current tech system does make that harder to do, though perhaps a reduction in monarch points tech cost could do it. It did make different areas of the world have different impacts beyond pure base tax.