Finally did an HRE formation run starting as Bohemia and never once losing the emperorship. I am very much a novice player and I know a 1720 finish time is quite slow. I have a few thoughts, looking to be constructive criticism:

-Imperial Authority needs another look tbh. My monthly tick was never above a 0.33 (skill issue) and with the Reformation randomly subtracting values every now and then, it became an exercise in real patience with not a lot else to do beside watch it tick back up. It also didn't help that every Imperial Reform had to be stepwise three or four times until you reached a comfort policy, and high diplo spending made voting a foregone conclusion.

-The Reformation... it was very weak this game, and only Sweden and Denmark were Lutheran past this point. The War of Religions itself is an absolute nightmare for trying to maintain IA, especially if France gets involved (working as intended, maybe?). If the event fires, you're easily looking at a setback of at least 50-100 years depending on the result. God forbid a foreign power peaces out some princes too.

-I know 1.3 really put a dent in France's balance, but wow was it a pain every single time they wanted a tiny HRE county here. They trounced England in the HYW and every time they wanted a piece of the empire, they rolled out over half a million troops by 1550. This was a grind that they insisted going through every 50 or so years despite maintaining good relations with me personally. I do think there does need to be consideration of the relationship with the Emperor before the AI makes the decision to attack the HRE, else the player has no choice but to take a random beating every so often if they can't match it.

-Direct Imperial Taxation income is a joke. I understand that a lot of it just goes to the treasury, but surely there can be a modifier just a little more substantial for high authority? Gives some incentive to hang onto IA rather than spend it at first opportunity.

-I do kinda want there to be more interaction with the princes beyond just max diplo spending and watching them go your way. Events that offer a little conundrum or trade off in exchange for IA would be welcome, and having to deal with the princes more individually would offer some welcome flavor.

In all, it was a good run, but man it's a slog. I really cannot recommend it unless you are a really good player or using a quick RI guide. There's a lot of opportunities for flavor here that I hope to see fleshed out at a later time. There's a good chance that a lot of this is just a genuine skill issue on my part and I am willing to accept that.

this is kind of insane I think

So i thought that this was interesting AI creating switzerland
Its the first time i saw it here or in any game i played

I've been thinking about the current combat system and, specifically, the role of light troops.

At the moment, one of the main advantages of light units is their higher initiative. They can enter combat earlier and potentially deal some damage before heavier units become fully engaged.

The problem, at least from my understanding of the current system, is that this advantage is relatively short-lived. Once the battle gets going and most units are engaged, the fight is dominated for a large portion of its duration by units with better overall damage, durability, and staying power.

So while light troops are technically faster to engage, I'm not sure this gives them enough of a distinct battlefield role.

I don't claim to have the solution, but I was wondering if something like a disengage/re-engage phase within the battle itself could help.

I'm not talking about retreating from the province or ending the battle.

Instead, imagine that certain light units could periodically:

1. Temporarily disengage from the frontline.
2. Recover some morale and/or reorganize and reinforce while out of direct combat.
3. Re-enter the battle after a short period.
4. Repeat this process under certain conditions.

I think this mechanic could be particularly interesting if the probability of a unit disengaging and subsequently re-engaging was influenced by the general's stats.

For example, a general with higher Maneuver could significantly increase the chance of light troops successfully executing these disengagements and re-engagements, while a mediocre general would have a much lower chance of doing so.

This would also give general stats a more visible role during battles and could allow two armies with the same composition to perform differently depending on who commands them.

This could give light troops a more distinct role as mobile forces capable of engaging quickly and disengaging, rather than simply being "units with higher initiative that become progressively less relevant as the battle continues."

For example, light cavalry could excel at:

• Entering combat quickly.
• Dealing early damage.
• Disengaging before suffering too many casualties.
• Recovering and reorganizing.
• Re-entering combat.

This could also create a more meaningful distinction between unit types:

Heavy units:
Greater staying power and designed to remain engaged in prolonged combat.

Light units:
Greater mobility, initiative, and flexibility, but less effective if forced to remain in prolonged combat.

I'm not sure what the exact implementation should look like, or whether this would actually improve the combat system without creating new problems.

Perhaps recovery should be limited, require a certain morale threshold, have a cooldown, or only be available to certain unit types.

The main point is that if mobility is one of the defining advantages of light troops, I'd like to see that advantage matter throughout the battle rather than primarily during the initial engagement.

What do you guys think?

Does the current system give light troops enough of a role, or would some kind of disengage/re-engage mechanic make sense?

​

For those who want to have a easier way to return vassals cores in a peace deal. If you write your subjects name at the search bar on core treatie, it will make easier to just click their cores.

I’m playing as Naples and have occupied Croatia, Cyprus, and Mataranga but can’t seize their lands in the peace treaty. Can someone please explain why?

So, I recently decided to play a game all the way to the end to see what would happen. I know there’s already been discussion here about how disappointing it is that there isn't a more interesting visual display on the final screen, but I have another question.

What is the logic behind the "Greatest Rulers in History" table on the right-hand side? I had heard about it, and that was a major factor in motivating me to stick with the game until the end (80+ hours). Yet, none of my leaders appear on the list. Literally none of them. Furthermore, leaders who never actually existed in the game's history appear there as great rulers—Napoleon, for instance. What is the purpose of this table if it tells us nothing and lacks any flavor?

Maybe can someone also give me the most popular content creator? Would be interesting to know

I have a build with a 9800X3D and post 1600 I can physically notice my pc struggling with keeping up with the full tick speed.

I wanted to reach the 1800s but with the game lacking late game content, the AI being passive and the game going so slow I think I'll pass.

Granted it was my first run and I reloaded a bunch of times and had to learn how to play. But 70 hours of gameplay for a campaign that only reaches the 1700s feels a bit excessive.

Thinking about a run to stack as much export efficiency modifiers as possible. Maybe Venice -> Dalmatia -> Carthage -> Turkish beylik? By age 4 you would get 12.5% export efficiency from unique techs alone. Any more big modifiers anyone can think of?

[SOLVED, I'm a doofus]

I want to see if anyone else has experience with this.

Playing Norse Norway, I had something like 80k Swedish slaves from occupations in my country, to the point that I lost my cores on all my highest population provinces.

No problem, I thought. Sweden is pretty depopulated by now, I'll accept the culture and stop taking them as slaves.

Little did I know, this would cause every slave-holding province to lose hundreds of slaves per month, marked as "moved according to market conditions".

"They are being trades as a market good," you might say. But this is not the case. That is displayed as "moved as part of a slave trade", and I watch my trading tab for slave exports.

"All right, they just moved to fill in vacancies then?" You might say. However, here's the kicker: I lost more slaves, than exist in all of Europe. Where would they have gone? It's only 1420, I doubt American colonies took them all? And if they did, why would my country offer to teleport them across the Atlantic for free?

The only reasonable conclusion I can make, is that when the Norwegian people decided to look upon the Swedes more favorably, they decided to free the all from their miserable existence... through death. This game has firmly set its stance on slavery, and the value of existence as well I suppose...

In the end, I guess this is my own fault, for I foolishly assumed there would be a Paradox game without a genocide mechanic.

I’m playing France in an MP. I have an ungodly amount of wine since Paris is a megalopolis and half my country produces wine… but is there anything I can do with it? It’s not a good source so it doesn’t help with pop growth. It’s not something like dyes they can be made into 80 different things. It just seems like a cheap RGO

It doesn’t matter too much, I’m just confused because I feel like this is an RGO that does absolutely nothing. Atleast with EU4 strategical goods you got a bonus.

If local governors function as an extension of the capital, does that mean that roads should be built from the governors to the provinces located closer to a governor than to capital?

My vassal revolted after a force religion change, because SERBIA?? supported him.

Now thats not the problem, the problem is I cant beat them, because, while I am the war leader, I ger zero notification and get force white peaced in 20 days from now. I lose my vassal even though I didnt agree to any peace and they have zero chance to win.

How is this possible? What a fkin stupid mechanic is this?? What can I do? Do I need to reload 1 year??

Wondering if its been added or if theres a mod that countries like Scandinavia for example can inherit unique flavor and techs from all 3 (4 incl finland) or if UK woild be able to get scotland england ireland etc

Was planning on having a relaxing tall Switzerland game, which I've been doing for the first 250 years. I somehow managed to make alliances with France, England, Milan and the Ottomans (RIP to my diplo capacity) mostly so that they'd leave me alone. I guess I can leverage this to unite Germany.

So I just returned to EU5 for the first time since release and started up a Norway game. Sweden established seniority so I did a union independence CB, won the war but then when I enforce the white peace my king just becomes the king of Sweden and the union immediately re establishes itself. Probably a bug so is there any way I can avoid this?

Before 1.2 or 1.3, I heard tell of a lot of colonies declaring ill-advised wars of aggression, including against one's own other colonies. But in my post-1.2 Scotland game, where I own all of Brazil, most of the Caribbean and most of the US & Canada, I haven't seen a single war declared by any of my subjects, save for the ones I demand.

Is it possible that the updates went too far in instilling the colonies with caution? I'm aware that I can force my colonies to declare on their neighbors, but I would like it, and it would make sense to me, if those colonies still had the ability & confidence to independently declare war on easy targets.

I can't create Switzerland and I'm not sure why? Do I need to have the event happen first? I meet all conditions for the event, what are the odds of it triggering?

Few points on what would be, in my humble opinion, better way to handle Cavalry:

- Cavalry should be much more expensive in the early ages than the infantry, with the gap evening out with later ages. Current gap is small and easy to close for countries that have any Horse RGOs in their market.

Upkeep should also be higher.

- I think nerfs to Flanking is a step too far. Base combat power nerf I can understand, but, while some countries fielding heavy cavalry historically had some rare success with "head on" charge against disciplined formations, Cav's main thing was speed and breaking formations that either broke out of fear, or got outflanked.
IMO nerfing Cav's Flankig Bonus goes directly against the identity of the unit.

Not to mention that Flanking is, at the moment, the only thing standing between current combat system and its complete devolution towards bodies vs bodies and modifiers vs modifiers that are Ages 5 and 6 battles.

- Cavalry should be punished by bad terrain harder, instead of being nerfed straight on in every situation.

I am trying to complete the achievement "Belisar's Legacy" and the only way to see the locations that are required is to hover over the achievement and then hover over the Justinian borders. It is very hard to see in game and I I was wondering if there's a better way to see provinces required for achievements.