Seriously how do you even defeat this.

This is like my 20th campaign as ottomans, i might not be that good but this shouldnt be that hard. We need an event where the mamluks should be idk like byzantine disaster type shi chaos.

I started my game as taking as building my control, doing roads, bridges, RGOS, trying to make a standing army, trying to be technologically advanced by building libraries, universities and so forth.

This is like the Dark souls of Grand startegy games.

168K regulars at 1496 by mamluks is straight up crazy.

I just got this ad on Reddit, what in the world is this AI slop? Who pays for this??

Title. In general, I think the game is in a much improved state relative to 1.2, and I'm having a good time. However, I think a core gameplay problem is pretty clear, in that major powers tend to be far too stable relative to historical performance, leading to grindy repeat wars to bite off chunk after chunk of major powers and a lack of dynamism in the map. In one sense this makes some early game playthroughs too hard, as certain powers will just be these obdurate powerhouses you have to grind against for forever, but in another sense, this makes lategame too easy, as once you outrgrow france/spain/hungary there's basically nobody who can fight you. In a game where Hungary or the Mamluks collapse, the Ottomans would be far far stronger in the late game than any power currently is.

This is also a historical simulation problem. If we look at powers like Bohemia and the Mamluks, they're some of the most consistently powerful factions in the game despite both getting wrecked fairly early on in the time period covered by the game. Historically, these powers fell to disease and infighting as much as to outside powers.

Why does this happen? Well in the first place, rebels are weak, only having a few levies scattered in a small number of locations. I think they should be able to hire mercs with their money.

Another problem is that the death of large numbers of pops just doesn't matter for the empire, and is potentially even a positive. So in 1.4 there's talk of sending a bunch of plagues at the mamluks in Egypt (which was historical) but I question what this will really do. You'll have a lower RGO cap and it will be harder to promote people, but this isn't a huge issue for the mamluks. You'll have fewer levies, but the problem is actually their absurd wealth, not their raw levies.

My opinion: Losing a large amount of pops to disease OR war should impact stability via some mechanism. Marginal economic losses don't reflect reality here. People who are dying will have little to lose and will be more prone to revolting, and a plague or a costly war can easily be taken as wrath from god, or a loss of the 'mandate of heaven.' The stability hit also creates the potential for a negative cycle with lower estate satisfaction cap, which also means more chances for revolts.

Imagine a situation where the mamluks take lots of land with separatism, but lose lots of troops, and then face multiple revolts in which lots of people die, leading to a vicious cycle of revolts that the ottomans can capitalize on to expand quickly. Imagine killing a ton of frenchmen in a big war, resulting in a huge amount of instability that wrecks them and causes them to cease being such a strong power (but leading to Castille or England rapidly expanding.) That's the kind of dynamic we should have.

A big part of why 1.3 feels so much better is that battles are much more consequential due to the changes to warscore and war exhaustion, and this would reinforce that trend. (OFC, having a great combat AI would also help a lot but I'm trying to be realistic)

Additionally, this would make stability a more scarce resource, when in the next patch a lot of things that cost stability are no longer going to cost stability but "political power". This means that keeping low stability to get positive stability decay would be more risky than it currently is. That risk in turn would force people to play more strategically, and would be a good thing.

Why, you might ask? Because the game did this. Prior to this war and taking over of Genoa, the Venexia market controlled all of eastern and northern Italy, valuing at ~6700 ducats of trade, where I had ~680 trade advantage and 900 trade capacity. Now it barely hits 1200 ducats, 250 trade advantage, and 290 trade capacity, because the game decided to throw literally all of it into Genoa, which is now at a whopping 15k ducates, 1400 trade advantage, and 1600 trade capacity.

Which seems great. Except since it just dragged all of that money out of my capital, my income dropped from >1k ducats/month to 190.

Genoa has 70 development, 170k people, and an entrepot, and I took away its market charter to reduce access to try to help mitigate this.

Venexia has 81 development, only 40k people (I have been colonizing a bit and built a TON of starbucks around the world for a bit), and every single beneficial-to-market building there is.

Why did this happen? Should I destroy the Genoa trade port? Should I move my capital to Genoa (boo! BOOOO!)? I am not sure why it did this or what the best path forward is.

Also - I had balanced out venice's trade so well that man that hurt.

Any help would be lovely. Or at least an explanation of what I did wrong.

I can't find a clear answer to this question and I don't want to start digging into the game files to find out, at least not if I can help it.

When a banking nation builds a bank in one of your cities, the only effects on the building seem to be detriments to the host nation, so why the hell would I ever let banks build in my territory? Does each bank actually steal 2.5% of your tax base, or does it simply generate wealth equivalent to 2.5% of the city's tax base?

Any advice for ethiopia?

I don't want to convert is there anyway to survive. My heir was 40 and just died then my second heir 16 died and i got in regency and civil War. Already Khans are dying at 50. How i am supposed to survive. Maybe you should reduce -50 Horde unitiy on new khan. Do it 40-35. Now it is unplayable. I raided whole europe in one Campaign and then i returned home filhy rich but then my 2 heir died and then my khan died and one of only 2 advisor character in my country rebelled and rebelled with everyone around me. Thats just stupid

Trying to understand the implications of the coinage law here...

If I am not mistaken, higher production of gold or silver causes uptick in the inflation rate, which hinders your minting slider (or am I wrong?).

So if I had a lot of locations that are gold RGO, wouldn't I want to switch to silver coins only coinage law so that I can produce as much gold as I want without worrying about inflation?

What are your thoughts? Ty in advance.

I've learned my lesson. I'll only appoint for head of cabinet if the character already have a cabinet trait. But getting the deceitful trait two times in a run is kind of crazy. I think my ruler also got it at one time. I've also got like 3 other characters with that trait that I had to get out of the cabinet. I think the chance of characters getting this trait is too overtuned.

Hello guys, I am confused about the location wealth. In the images, you can see one location (Klatovy) in Bohemia, controlled by the AI that has 14 levels of gold RGO as a rural location with 257.01 Ducats of wealth. The other image shows my own location (Korbach) which is a city with 24 levels of gold RGO and many profitable buildings but only barely trumps it with 270.55 ducats of wealth.

Unfortunately I don't see any way to inspect the location wealth in any more detail, but my own city should have significantly more wealth then location in Bohemia. Can anyone tell me why this is not the case?

I am interested in running a Sweden - norse pagan game. Currently I seem to running into the problem that I can't convert because I need 40% following the religion. I see comments around the internet that people a re changing a vanilla setting somewhere to enable this. Do I have to change a setting to "overrule" the 40 presence? Or is there another way?

Screenshot of my current holdings in the eastern Med. All vassals atm, but with long term plans to annex. https://i.imgur.com/WwWlUTG.png

Im thinking somewhere on Crete to get a port on one of the ends so it can cover stuff down to Egypt, but also my soon-to-be-annexed holdings in Greece, and future conquests of western Anatolia. Any good ideas?

Playing as scotland and assimilation is blocked, it says that it is due to the speed modifiers. I have a dominion in Ireland that is also not assimilating though and it will have control etc. Any tips?

r5 You can see me trying to increase control and assimilate in Derry, while I have highlighted my dominion that for years also haven't been converting any pops into scots. Thanks!

At release I bought the game. My 2020 hp omen with ssd, 16gb ddr4, i5 10300H & 1660ti didn't manage to run the game properly. I tried with online services like nvidia ge force and boosteroid, but didn't end up well after the first 100 years in game.

My question are : did the performances increased? Is there a good option for remote playing/streaming?