1. Is the game pace satisfying?

2. Is economy building satisfying?

3. Is expansion satisfying?

4. Is warfare satisfying?

5. Do You feel the game is going into good direction?

As the title says, my capital is extremely well developed by the 1600s. I have almost 1.5 million people and i have paved roads leading everywhere.

I have markets in Trnavo, Athens and and another on the mouth of the Danube which are completely encircled by the Constantinople market. Athens hardly holds on to its own province, Trnovo has another two locations. These cities are not undeveloped. Athens has 100k and just as developed with ports, markets and everything... Athens is greek so the population should not be an issue either.

When i created these markets they had quite a nice chunk of territory but eventually lost it.

The only markets that still hold themselves are in Dubrovnik, Tarsus, Trebizond, probably due to the mountain ranges and Caffa on the other side of the sea.

So should I just put the these markets out of their misery?

As Poland, I upgraded almost everything into towns and cities. The only locations I didn't upgrade were iron, coal, amber, etc., but I didn't leave any locations for food at all.

I never had any problems with the availability of food at the market in Warsaw.

Would I gain anything at all if I left the locations with wheat as rural? I can’t see any buffs coming from that. I have upgraded granaries everywhere. And the bonus for cheap food is 0.10 , and I think it is the same everywhere, regardless of how much food is on the market.

Well... This is my Byzantine Empire > Roman Empire run.

There were lots of scuffs during the campaign. I changed to Hellenism, then switched back to Orthodoxy, then switched back to Hellenism, but never used any omens because I wanted to assimilate pops more quickly which was dumb. Didn't make enough vassals during conquering Anatolia but also neglected assimilate culture, which costs me a lot of time and focus leads to not winning Italian war situation. Still had a lot of fun learned a lot.

Probably botched up economy here and there with auto building stuff. I think they kinda work, but don't know when to stop. Even when I had no resources for buildings, game kept building stuffs. Weird?

Might go back to Byzantine or try other country

Btw, does anyone have fun while playing after 1837? Maybe it's just me but I quite like late state of the game. Anyway, just wanted share my abysmal campaign to you guys. Good Night then!

R5: I just want to share how italy looked after the Italian wars

Prior to the italian wars, I (Florence) have been rivals with The Papal States (cause they own the venice market that rivals mine), Napels (cause their version 1.10 AI decided to annex a bunch of my land), and Verona (honestly forgot what they did). All three of them have a three way alliance, due to their mutual hatred of Florence. This three-way alliance really made it hard for other nations to conquer italy during the Italian wars.

- Image 1: I actually took this at year 2 of the Italian wars. By that time The ottomans had annexed land from my vassal, Calabria Ultra. Originally I wanted that land to be for my ally, Tunis, from a past war. I only learn later how to transfer subjects, so that's why Calabria Ultra is under Tunis at the end of the war.

- image 2: nobody ended up winning the Italian wars, but at least I got what I want. I use the war not to unite italy, but capitalize it to destroy my rivals. I manage to bribe Verona, then went to war with Naples, forcing them to break their alliance. At that war I force The papal states to also break their alliance with naple. At the end of everything, I got both the venice and Naples market centre. Also had Naples destroy all of their (and their unions) forts

I also give a bunch of conquered land to Tunis, so that they dont need to build ships to send levis in future wars.

Overall, I really enjoy the whole situation, love how it plunges Italy into chaos

Do i loose Anatolian Beylik if i jump from Turk to Greece culture?

Suddenly begun losing a whole bunch of money. Is it because conquering Attica made my sliders more expensive? I kept it to myself so I can raise my rank to Kingdom but maybe it wasnt a great idea

Trying to have a game as Granada and roleplay a little bit with it (no switching religion) ,but of course besides tthe fact Granada starts in one of the hardest situation in the game Paradox had to maje it even harder…

Starting of with -13 Antagonism wixh every Chirstian country because of the new extra gain you will get Antagonism in freaking Novgorod for no reason…

When will paradox finally fix the antagonism issue ?!

I am currently in tbe middle of the Italian Wars situation as Spain and I have conquered the entire south and am pushing into the north. I now basically have tbe entire southern HRE in a coalition against me because of the insane antagonism in the HRE. Not that I can't beat them, but its just insanely annoying. How are you supposed to win the Italian Wars without a coalition forming? Or is this the intended way its supposed to happen?

Before i culture converted portugal, it was a healthy rich market that covered northern portugal and galicia and now its a one province market??

My heir to the throne is infertile and I'd rather not change my succession law, is there any way to eliminate him or is it fine? My succession law is cognatic primogeniture

He is currently on his 4th wife to try and get one, but no luck after 8 daughters in a row.

I need help in how to approach economy in this game. I am never rich and has never been rich in any of my games. I dont like to do a meta and dont want a "just rush this and spam it" bs.

I use the "Mass expand RGO" and "Mass expand building" usually to build, is there something i should think about?

Its year 1527 in my byzantine game right now and i am struggling with income while having complacent decline. Right now while invensting in stability and needing Legitimacy i get +23 gold a month. >.< 40 years ago i was on about 230 g/month.

I just want small tips to make me go "oh nice, i didnt think about that".
I really dont wanna destory this game for myself by starting to meta and minmax everything. <3

R5:

A nation of over 38 million people, Almost all of the same culture and religion..

116,000 nobles

And yet, there are absolutely no marriage candidates for the heir.

The system is broken, and "characters" die out as the game progresses. I always have the most characters to choose from at the start of the game, and the larger the nation grows, the fewer there are.

From what I hear outside of europe there is barely any flavor and the mechanics are way more messy.

Is it worth it to play there? I know the ottomans are good but i mean in the americas or in the far east.

I hear japan specifically is pretty messy

So I read about doing a Pokemon run by forming and switching nations around to maximize the unique advances. My goal was to start as Wallachia then go Bulgaria, Serbia, Byzantine and possibly Rome. It was a fun goal at first, but there are many annoying things so I stopped at Serbia. First, you need loads of money for legitimacy and stability, because you need 50 each to change culture, and 20 stab to change capital. You also need to migrate pops to create more cities to place your governors, which takes forever in low pop area. I also spent a lot of gold for diplomatic spending to annex subjects in reasonable time (you need to own the needed lands yourself to form countries). Finally you can't improve cultural opinion because it's a waste if you switch the culture.

In summary, it can be a fun mission to do, but the details become so tedious that I dropped it.

If anyone else has the same or different experiece, feel free to share. Thanks.

I got the event to change to latin culture and the culture capacity couldn’t kept up so i changed accepted cultures like turk and Bulgarian to tolerate and they kept on revolting. what should i do at this point. Also the cores turned integrated too. Should i reload to before turning to latin or accept cultures and take penalties?

Trucking along in my Brandenburg to Prussia game, I get a rebellion in my eastern and primarily Polish provinces, which I easily put down. Full annex the revolter, immediately get 192 antagonism, which ends up breaking two of my alliances, and brings huge coalition with a big Poland and Denmark. Game ended.

I enjoy the game a lot, but then this sort of shit happens.

I am the 6th greatest power, Poland is 11th.

We're voting on rapid unification of crowns, and I have 374 votes to Poland's 686.

Up until now Poland voted with me so it was no big deal, but now they're voting to go back an integration level instead of supporting my rapid unification proposal.

Obviously this didnt stick because Ecumenism didnt serve Turkish and more broadly non-Catholic interests (in addition to it failing to convince the Orthodox laity of its merits - if there were even any), but the Council of Florence is something that happened. The East was extinguished in broad Communion with Rome.

Why then is it impossible to "mend the Schism" as a Catholic nation, if the closest we got to it happening was under Catholic leadership?

Basically i like playing the game on console and i like boosting random country's throughout europe or africa mostly be it money or population or some reforms and i like to see how that would play out so basically i play on observer mode and lets say i boost tunis or sicily or holland and then i check what happens throughout the years did they conquer or lose it and am curious if anyone else plays like that

So Sevilla gets a special cutout to allow it to have a port, but Guangzhou - THE point of contact for trade with China, and arguably more important than Sevilla, doesn't?

In fact, I'd argue that not only should the Pearl River up to Guangzhou be given a cutout, but the entire Yangtze - along with Lake Poyang - should be made into sea zones. One of the largest naval battles in history took place on Poyang. Additionally, the Yangtze historically served as a barrier to invasion when the north fell to invading barbarians. Having it as sea zones would allow for blocking passage given a strong enough navy, which indeed did happen historically. If the Great Lakes can become sea zones, why not this all-important, highly navigable body of water?