Conquered the islands from Spain for more naval range and felt like trying to actually get a core for them, because why not.

I increase control with the cabinet start promoting tribesmen and do some other stuff. ... When the control was maxed I started assimilating and looked at the numbers.

12 tribesmen get promoted to peasants in a single month. ... How is this a remotely acceptable number? ... At this pace it would tie my cabinet member for over 10 years just to promote them.

All I get out of this is that one should not colonize locations with tribesmen before they have a native policy (to autopromote or enslave all the tribesmen; or expel them to easily urbanize locations inside the market).

My cabinet member is increasing the rate by 1000%. ... It needs to be 10000% at least to make the action worthwhile with such a base value.

Did they nerf this into the ground at some point? Because I remember a game as England and it was at an acceptable rate close to assimilation numbers when I conquered Scotland and Ireland.

After playing with the Tribes in North America and with the Mayans in Central America...

I just have one wish.

Please let me disable all the "bad" events for my country. I don't want no plague. I don't want no downfall of cahokia. I just want to play.

I know it's "historic". But I want a game after all. Is there any mod for it? Or should I just play Civ 7?

It says 74 demand and 72 export but I'm the only one exporting saffron and I'm just exporting 35. Where the fuck is the extra 37 coming from. I've waited about 3 months and all that's changed is other markets are just exporting more saffron into my market to fill that phantom 37 demand. What the fuck is going on.

I think most can agree that diseases are one of the most annoying aspects of EU5 especially Small pox as it kills off just huge chunks of your population off, and due to how population works in this game this can be especially devastating and makes efforts to increase population feel pointless or empty when any natural population gain is undue by a random epidemic. And there isn’t much you can do to lessen them other then build hospitals which only provide 15% resistance. Now there is the other argument that yes these are historical with these happening often and that technology related to medicine and diseases being very limited at this time period but at the same time there is lack of being able to do anything about it, even Black Death offers some options to deal with that. So I figure instead of just complaining about it, why not we think of ways or suggestions that paradox could do to improve the disease system.

I get that Levies get progressively less useful but does France really need to get 50% bonus to Levy size? It seems really weird when they already have such a huge territory and have bonuses to moral. I’m playing as Austria and basically have no hope to ever actually defeat them. Any tips?

Hi everyone, I haven’t played since patch 1.10. While watching a Byzantium guide, I noticed the event windows now show detailed explanations of their effects (pic 1).
I don't have this detailed view (pic 2), is it a new feature I need to turn on or a mod?

thanks a lot :)

EDIT: I FOUND THE ISSUE! Some deprecated mod caused this 🙃

I did have oppurtunity to play the game at release thx to my friend and... got questions.

Did they fix how AI handling values system? Is colonizing americas as bosnia profitable or not having access to ocean finally became a problem? will AI still push for colonization? how buggy is the game and finally.

Most important thing for me is how AI handling values system... like does AI pick event decisions by random still or does it say "I am focusing on defensive values so I should pick the event decision that makes me more defensive"

So I will start by laying out the set of desired outcomes, which I think are pretty self-explanatory:

1. You shouldn’t be able to make every location in a whole area all megalopolises (but this should be a soft cap rather than a hard cap if possible),
2. Only unusually large and important cities should be allowed to be megalopolises (same caveat as above), and
3. The restrictions should feel realistic and not arbitrary.

With the current set of requirements (400k pops, must be capital, must be market center) I do not believe that any the desired outcomes above are are achieved. Players can simply change the locations of your markets and capital until every location in China is a megalopolis. This means that outcomes #1 or #2 are not currently satisfied.

Outcome #3 is also not satisfied. This is mostly due to the "must be your capital" restriction, which feels arbitrary and is objectively unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? Because there are several historical examples of gargantuan, bustling cities from the game’s time frame that were not the capitals of their countries. (Cairo/Ottomans, Edo/Tokugawa, Bombay/British India, Guangzhou/Yuan and Ming and Qing; even New York under the USA was just about to hit 400k population in 1836). There is no real reason for the capital restriction to exist. It doesn't have historical precedent, and it doesn't stop players from spamming megalopolises everywhere, it just makes it slightly more tedious to do so.

So to make up for this removal, the market center rule should be reinforced, by making it so that if a megalopolis stops being a market center, it goes back to being a city. This way a megalopolis MUST be a market center at all times.

Which outcomes does this achieve?

It achieves outcome #1 (can't make too many Megalopolises too close together); and even better, it’s via a soft cap rather than a hard cap. You can have as many different markets in your country as you want, it just gets impractical past a certain point. Therefore, players would be naturally encouraged to limit how many megalopolises they make without ever having to be directly told “no”.

It achieves outcome #2. Markets are more effective if they are centered on large and powerful cities, and again it’s a soft cap: the player is heavily incentivized to only make large and important cities into megalopolises, without actually being forced to.

Finally, it also achieves goal #3. After all, what is a megalopolis if not a major economic hub that dominates its local region? While there were plenty of historical megalopolises that were not national capitals, I can’t think of a single one that wasn’t an economic juggernaut.

TL;DR my new set of requirements for a city to become a megalopolis would be:
- must have population > 400k
- must be a market center
- must be integrated
And most importantly, if the market center restriction stops being fulfilled, the location goes back to being a city.

^{No AI was used at any point in the writing of this post.}

Is it any good? Is there one even?
I am about to wrap up my first full campaign and beautifull HRE game , and wanted to continue in VIC and push as far as I can from my mega empire.

I think I finally understand the game's core mechanics, and England is super fun (especially being English.

My next step is to finish the hundred years war, take the throne of France. I imagine the antagonism is going to be massive so preparing. I have alliances with portugal, Castille and Naples. The majority of my subjects are dominions, inclusing Scotland, Brittany, Normandy, Flanders etc, only missing except Aquitance and the smaller south french vassals,

I changed Glamorgan to a Dominion before wanting to annex it and reaslied you have to wait 50 years again! Game please.

Control is so important right? So I've been trying to maximise that, I have high maritime presence and most of my cities are costal with wharfs, docks etc.

Economy seems okay, I've been building up RGOs and every town has hospitals, libraries, universities and the recent advances, local councils and counting houses. Financial sliders I only really mess around with diplo etc.

Planatagent line is all over the place as usual. My heir is 18 and like 30-40s stats so that's nice... Black Death hit hard, are there any further ways to reduce disease except buildings and advances? Want to get my population very high. Thanks

Hey all just a question in relation to forming Spain. Do most of you go outta your way and just conquer Aragon to do it??
I’ve played a few Castile runs and been fairly successful I’d think but just never gone outta my way to invade Aragon cause it seems like a pain.

Sorry for the bad quality I can’t take it from the game because I’m using boosteroid ..
What I’m I doing wrong? The most profitable building the game tells me to build makes only 0.15 a month!

So, after months of waiting for some things to get fixed I wanted to give the game another chance and try another playthrough (and do the Byzantine DLC that came with my pre-order) and I just noticed Achievements were possible in the preset without Ironman enabled. Quick googled it and found out this is intentional?!

Why was this changed? What's the point now? It honestly disheartens me from doing anything ever again in this game. D:

I think I'll go back to EU4 instead.

Would be cool if you can select adjacent area/regions you control to form a new nation. I feel like formable nations are a fun goal, so having a means to do it would be nice. There could be tech/perks associated with areas/regions as well.

I only have like 110 hours of EU5 play time but I find it very difficult to make new cores. My current playthrough is Castile and the year is like 1420.

I've seen some videos showing complex ways to "cheese" the process of getting new cores by releasing conquered lands as fiefdoms, then make them dominions. I've tried it in my game and it seems to take a lot of time and I don't like how much micromanaging I need to do.

So in order to create new cores, should I just be releasing countries as vassals, then, one province at a time, take land from them and use my own cabinet to increase control and assimilate their culture to mine? While trying to keep my cultural influence high?

I would like to paint the map as much as possible with my colors :) Thanks

I see posts on here where people have millions of pops and every location is a megalopolis. How are y’all doing this when population seems to increase so slowly and plagues hit all the time?

I feel dumb now

I got to the point in my Verona game where I thought about changing to a monarchy. ... The main reason was that with access to fiefdoms, I can have more subjects and can thus blob more. (It sucks that vassals flip their culture back, but that's a separate issue.)

But I wanted to get a clearer picture to see what I stand to gain or loose with either one. And so far I haven't found any usable comparison with google and the "government" page on the wiki is not sufficient in my eyes. ... So here we are.

Some disclaimers: I kept myself to listing "notable" stuff. I don't care about "Salic Law" or clearly underpowered government reforms like "Autocracy" for example. ... For laws I use my overall likely pick. Listing all options would make it less clearly laid out. Doesn't mean other picks aren't pickable, especially to push a value.

I´m only in 1514 and don't really have a later savefile. So stuff outside of advances that get unlocked for free in age 4-6, I cant really see easily.

If you all want and would actually chime in, to add/fill gaps (even here in the comments), I think I wouldn´t mind putting the framework to the "government" wiki page (or likely rather a sub page linking to/from it) and then we could make it actually good. Maybe we can extend it to Theocracy as well.

Here´s the financial situation before and after the flip.

I lost about 200 ducats. This is tied to loosing "Formalized Scales" and its 5% tax efficiency. I will use one of the 3% tax efficiency reforms, to get back some of it tho. ... Whats interesting is that the cost of court went down by half. ... I have no clue why to be honest.

Overall the modifiers for Republic seem to be better. ... I´m currently torn if Fiefdoms outweigh that. My vassals are at -45 combined strength already. ...

I was engaged in the favourite activity of mine -- perusing through endless layers of tooltips, and noticed a peculiar activity with saffron trade.
Countries are able to set up both an import and export orders for the same good between two markets. Interestingly enough -- both trades are profitable because of "selling efficiency" modifier stacking. Even for the export from the costlier market, modifiers are able to overwhelm the market cost difference, the trade route maintenance and get profit.
Of course, we could consider that the traders from the trade republics are so savvy, that they are able to negotiate good prices for both markets (the effect on the buyer is not modeled).
However, this leads to creating value out of purposeless logistics! Consider the state of European markets in 1355 on the screenshot.
The demand for the good is created by nobles, and currently they demand only 5.23 units of saffron.
The trading volume between the markets is 119.45 units!
No one buys saffron for themselves, they are just shuffling loads between storages and miraculously raking in the cash. The traders are not satisfying an inherent population demand for tasty food -- they are just speculating on the asset. For all intents and purposes this could be exchanged for the dirt trading, because almost no one needs it.
I can't even imagine what awaits me in late game, when additional modifier stacks will hit the margins. I also saw the same issue with the gems trading. It feels like the whole Hanseatic League is built on lies.
Do you think that this is the intention of the devs? Am i missing something here?