DP Sliders

[unmerged(18418)]

I know this is more of an EU question rather than an MP question, but you MP players are the most active on the boards and also know the game the best, so I figured I'd ask this here.

What, in your opinion are the optimal DP settings? I realize this depends on what kind of country you are, so I will break it into 2 questions:

1. What are the optimal DP settings for a sea-faring, trading country?

2. What are the optimal DP settings for a land-based, militaristic power?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I know this is more of an EU question rather than an MP question, but you MP players are the most active on the boards and also know the game the best, so I figured I'd ask this here.

What, in your opinion are the optimal DP settings? I realize this depends on what kind of country you are, so I will break it into 2 questions:

1. What are the optimal DP settings for a sea-faring, trading country?

2. What are the optimal DP settings for a land-based, militaristic power?

Very simplistic answer, but basically true for a lot of countries:

1. You go: full naval, plutocratic, centralization, quality, offensive, serfdom and innovativeness/narrowmindness (depending on your need for colonists), free trade.

2. You go: full land, aristocratic/plutocratic (depending on your need for CAV and badboy reduction), quality, offensive, serfdom and innovatism/narrowmindness (depending on your religious diversity), mercantilism.

 

[Seen]

I still dont know Damnit! Why O why did we end up with such a mysterious game!







Wenn we return "Mysteries of EU reveiled"

 

[delosandes]

No matter what kind of country you want to be, if you are playing MP you should always focus on trade because if you don’t then the other powers will have less competition in the COTS and they will earn much more money than you...

So I would say always plutocratic and never full mercantilism

 

[unmerged(18425)]

No matter what kind of country you want to be, if you are playing MP you should always focus on trade because if you don’t then the other powers will have less competition in the COTS and they will earn much more money than you...

So I would say always plutocratic and never full mercantilism

However, if you go full pluto you will have troubles winning your MP games as Austria and Russia

 

[delosandes]

Why?

BB points doesn´t count much in MP, neither Diplo skill after 1600 when the ai countries are almost gone... Cavalry becomes usless after LT 26 (yhea you can keep a small amount of cav but anyway armies will be mostly consisted of cannons and infantry)... On the other hand TE is great for making money and cheep ships-of-the-line are always welcome...

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Excuse my ignorance, but Aristocracy affects BB?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Excuse my ignorance, but Aristocracy affects BB?

Yep. Badboy will decrease after a certain amount of time dependant on the current monarch's diplomatic skill, which is modified by Aristocracy DP slider setting.

 

[delosandes]

Diplo skill helps to reduce BB faster, and Aristocracy gives "+ diplo skill", so yes... and It´s also usefull when you want to diplo vassallize or diplo annex another country

 

[unmerged(18425)]

BB points doesn´t count much in MP

Untrue. At start of many games you rack up BB quickly with a nation like Austria, and especially Russia. Especially if a game doesn't allow you to vassalise nations because of the manpower bug.

Cavalry becomes usless after LT 26 (yhea you can keep a small amount of cav but anyway armies will be mostly consisted of cannons and infantry)... On the other hand TE is great for making money and cheep ships-of-the-line are always welcome...

True. However, considering many games start in 1492 or 1520 or earlier, it means you often have at least ~150 years to play with cavalry warfare AND badboy as a factor.

Basically, this means it's foolish to go pluto with Austria before 1700.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Ah. I thought BB just went down by a set amount, like 1 per year. It's hard to keep up with all the intricacies of the game with all the patches.

Okay, now I have some follow up questions.

The 4 settings that seem to be agreed on by everyone are centralization, offensive, quality, and serfdom. Centralization is a no-brainer, but I think I recall that when I played before defensive was quite in vogue, especially for Russia, as was quantity. In fact, quantity was almost as sacred as centralization back then if I recall correctly. Why is now believed that offensive and quality are the ways to go?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

The 4 settings that seem to be agreed on by everyone are centralization, offensive, quality, and serfdom. Centralization is a no-brainer, but I think I recall that when I played before defensive was quite in vogue, especially for Russia, as was quantity. In fact, quantity was almost as sacred as centralization back then if I recall correctly. Why is now believed that offensive and quality are the ways to go?

In MP you want any morale bonus you can get. The advantages of the quality morale bonus outweight the disadvantages of the extra manpower you get with quantity. The morale became more a factor since the 1.08 patch. And since European powers can afford the more expensive troops coming with quality too, going quality has become more or less a standard. Sometimes you still see a country like Russia going quantity though.

The siege bonus coming with defensive '9' isn't as useful as the shock bonus coming with offensive '9'. That's why many countries tend to go offensive quickly at start of the campaign, to get the shock bonus for the CAV warfare that mark the early century of the game.
The disadvantage is that fortresses become more expensive, but often you only want to upgrade fortresses after the LT 18 period. And often you can afford the higher price of them by then.

 

[delosandes]

Untrue. At start of many games you rack op BB quickly with a nation like Austria, and especially Russia. Especially if a game doesn't allow you to vassalise nations because of the manpower bug.

Yhea all nations rack up a lot of BB at game start, but that doesn´t mean that you should go aristocracy, its much better to spend the DP click in more important things like centralization, innovation, quality or offensive and then when the time is right, go plutocracy as all the ai nations would have been eaten by the majors...

True. However, considering many games start in 1492 or 1520, it means you often have ~150 years to go with cavalry warfare AND badboy as a factor.

Basically, this means it's foolish to go pluto with Austria before 1700.

Im not saying you should spend your first DP click in going pluto with austria or Russia, my advice is to go centra, inno, quality or offensive first... dont spend any click in aristocracy, and then when the cavalry is useless and the ai nations are gone, go pluto, make money and buy ships.

Basically I think it`s foolish to spend a single dp click in aristocracy at any age with any country.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Yhea all nations rack up a lot of BB at game start, but that doesn´t mean that you should go aristocracy, its much better to spend the DP click in more important things like centralization, innovation, quality or offensive and then when the time is right, go plutocracy as all the ai nations would have been eaten by the majors...

Well, countries like Austria start as almost full aristo. It all means you won't touch that slider before 1700. With England you want to eliminate aristo pretty much immediately. Because of the ships mainly.

Anyway, my response was a basic one. It still differs from nation to nation and from game to game of course.

Basically I think it`s foolish to spend a single dp click in aristocracy at any age with any country.

Bah, you should have played my Ottoman Empire in ROTS with 110 badboy, just after Johan introduced the beta patch change that increased civil war odds with high badboy

 

[delosandes]

The 4 settings that seem to be agreed on by everyone are centralization, offensive, quality, and serfdom. Centralization is a no-brainer, but I think I recall that when I played before defensive was quite in vogue, especially for Russia, as was quantity. In fact, quantity was almost as sacred as centralization back then if I recall correctly. Why is now believed that offensive and quality are the ways to go?

I prefer free subjects, as later on in the game you can spare expensive soldiers and the moral bonus is great... you also get a production bonus which gives you more money to spend in better soldiers.
Anyway I would never go full FS as the stab cost will surely grow a lot and its dangerous, specially for non-catholic countries.

 

[delosandes]

Bah, you should have played my Ottoman Empire in ROTS with 110 badboy, just after Johan introduced the beta patch change that increased civil war odds with high badboy

LOL, If you are planning to turbo-annex Asia then I would recommend aristocracy, but that’s just one in a million

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If you want an exact answer you need to define

- SP/MP
- nation
- campaign (for example 1419 scenario)
- year of the game
- if MP then ability/willingness in avoiding human to human wars for a specified number of years

Very few sliders are independent of your answer to these questions.

I have even played in one game where two players (of some experience) preferred to be maximally decentralised.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

LOL, If you are planning to turbo-annex Asia then I would recommend aristocracy, but that’s just one in a million

I'd say one in a few hundreds only... as I did exactly that as OE in Conflicts and Converts 1 when after DAin Persia I then firstDAed a very big mughals and then China were DAed. Of course I did not own all of Asia though. But most of it. I went to full Aristo some 100 years before the end when I realised that this was possible to achieve.