Your dip rep appears to be quite low (it's giving you a -6 modifier). If that is a temporary thing (annexed vassal, perhaps) then when it wears off you might be able to boost your dip rep with a mission and an advisor to get over the line but it does look that easy.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Your dip rep appears to be quite low (it's giving you a -6 modifier). If that is a temporary thing (annexed vassal, perhaps) then when it wears off you might be able to boost your dip rep with a mission and an advisor to get over the line but it does look that easy.
Yeah it's from annexing. It's already gone but still not close enough to the line.
I would say high development for the increased bonuses to production especially. The only thing I don't understand is how you convince provinces to pass your resolutions and if development plays a part in that.
@Tom D. Looks right.
What is your development, out of curiosity? And more importantly, how much of it is stated, and how much of that is in the hands of estates? I did some testing last night, and it appears that what really matters is autonomy-modified development, so if you've still got some areas you can state, or that can still go to lower autonomy, that might make a bit of difference to how much more you'll need to conquer.
Multan is only -15 and you can still get another 8 from army (are you at your force limit already?), so with diplomatic or influence and an advisor or mission (as suggested above), you should be able to pull it off. I agree that Yarkand is probably impossible without growing your development by, as a very rough estimate, around 40%. (Note: This also may be less, considering that a higher development would allow for a higher force limit, and you do not presently appear to have any bonus for army size as compared to theirs. You might also consider dragging them into a war against a target that you know you can win or white peace with minimal casualties, and letting the target beat up their troops.)
What is your development, out of curiosity? And more importantly, how much of it is stated, and how much of that is in the hands of estates? I did some testing last night, and it appears that what really matters is autonomy-modified development, so if you've still got some areas you can state, or that can still go to lower autonomy, that might make a bit of difference to how much more you'll need to conquer.
- 1
In the mean time the difference is 37
No I am not but I don't know how I can support such a huge army. I spend some cash on advisors to get more monarch points. And I didn't need a bigger army till now.
I developed some provinces and the 'Timurid economic base...' modifier got bigger not smaller.
This is also one thing I don't really get in EUIV. My allies rarely joining my wars.
513
Please look here for more info and post your answer there. thx very much
I'm not 100% sure if you need a DLC for this, but you can promise land to allies in return for joining your wars. You don't need to actually give them the land, though dishonoring promises like that will reduce Trust and end up breaking your alliance. (Which can be a good thing)
For example, as Ming I always ally Korea at the start and use them in my wars against the Manchu horde factions, I promise land so they are willing to join the war. Once the hordes are sufficiently beaten up, I peace out and take the land for myself. Korea gets mad and breaks our alliance, which allows me to attack Korea.
Question regarding "outlook" of my armies on map.
I have an army of 10 infantry and 3 cavalery.
On map it is shown as a pikeman.
My question is - when it will be visible as a cavalery unit?
Only when cavalery will be greater than inafntry?
If yes, it doesnt make any sense because having more cavalery is a disaster for an army.
Is there any way to switch beetwen visual model of an army from infantry guy to cavalery man?
I have an army of 10 infantry and 3 cavalery.
On map it is shown as a pikeman.
My question is - when it will be visible as a cavalery unit?
Only when cavalery will be greater than inafntry?
If yes, it doesnt make any sense because having more cavalery is a disaster for an army.
Is there any way to switch beetwen visual model of an army from infantry guy to cavalery man?
Armies are, indeed, only shown using the cavalry model when they are >=50% cavalry.
However, this is only a disaster for some armies. If you're in the Eastern tech group, you can have up to 60% cavalry; Muslim, 80%; and Nomads can have 100% cavalry armies if they can afford the maintenance implications.
I'll reply there, but that should not be happening. Are they developing their provinces? Did you de-state a bunch of stuff?
Considering that (last time I checked) the "broke promise to give land" modifier applies to future alliance acceptances with other countries, I would be very, very wary of doing that. It's possible that was fixed, but I honestly don't know.
You do actually need Cossacks to promise land, which he doesn't have; without it, your allies will only come to your offensive wars once every 10 years.
I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this question, so I hope someone could redirect me if otherwise.
In short, I was playing as the Ottomans not that long ago and I'd stretched my empire from Morocco to Bengal and decided that Iberia looked pretty tasty before the game ended. It was in the last few decades of the campaign and my Mil tech was equal to or greater than Spain and Portugal. I also easily outnumbered them about 4 to 1 and I could drown them in money if I needed to.
So, why exactly were they able to repeatedly kick my teeth in whenever I tried to invade? I mean, it was mostly defensive battles while I was sieging their fortresses, but surely they shouldn't be able to utterly shatter 200-300K armies with maybe half that amount, right?
I checked the combat stats and they didn't have any overwhelming advantages over me. Unless Anatolian units are just that shit compared to Europeans at that point, but I never noticed when it was the Ottomans carpeting the floor with me.
So, am I missing something, or what?
In short, I was playing as the Ottomans not that long ago and I'd stretched my empire from Morocco to Bengal and decided that Iberia looked pretty tasty before the game ended. It was in the last few decades of the campaign and my Mil tech was equal to or greater than Spain and Portugal. I also easily outnumbered them about 4 to 1 and I could drown them in money if I needed to.
So, why exactly were they able to repeatedly kick my teeth in whenever I tried to invade? I mean, it was mostly defensive battles while I was sieging their fortresses, but surely they shouldn't be able to utterly shatter 200-300K armies with maybe half that amount, right?
I checked the combat stats and they didn't have any overwhelming advantages over me. Unless Anatolian units are just that shit compared to Europeans at that point, but I never noticed when it was the Ottomans carpeting the floor with me.
So, am I missing something, or what?
Last edited by a moderator:
welcome to forum @Anonemuss14
were those fights on their mountain forts of Granada and the like? You get less combat width and -2 to combat rolls..
but you know about those I suppose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most of my armies got stuck in Gibraltar and Sevilla since I couldn't naval invade or march in through the Pyrenees. Is Gibraltar mountains though? Still, I know that numbers aren't everything in a battle or even the most important if you factor in discipline and generals and such, but our stats were nearly equal and they didn't out tech me. Would a terrain penalty really be all that they needed?
it is usually a combination of factors.
Did they have a good fire general, and you not? Did you send in too few infantry, causing artillery to get on front line? Do they have infantry combat ability from quality ideas? Did you use too much cavalry, causing insufficient support for them after infantry had many casualties in the fights? Did you consolidate regiments between fights?
Point being, it is hard to pinpoint the reason, it is better to make screenshots and post them. Especially battle screen screenshots. Those can give better idea of what was going on.
A bit late for it in any case, but thanks for the advice. I'll try to be more optimized the next time I try to crush the Iberians.
How can I conquer new province when playing as an Indian nation in NA?
I can only see migration option but it is just changing my main province to different one.
I can only see migration option but it is just changing my main province to different one.
do a no cb war. You can vassalise tribes on the other side of the continent with this, and then ask for provinces NEXT to their cores. You can always core provinces next to same continent vassal cores.
Read my Haida AAR (first chapters) to see how to do this.. Think I did like 8 no cb wars before 1500, to expand in Mexico and North America
How do alliance CTAs work in this scenario?
I want to DOW Castile. Castile is allied to both Portugal and France, both of whom will answer the CTA. However France is at war with Portugal in a separate war (neither are war leaders). Since France cannot be fighting Portugal in one war and fighting alongside them in another war simultaneously, what will happen with the CTAs? My instinct is to say that whichever nation has the lower tag number will receive & answer the CTA first but that's just a guess and then I don't know if that means the second nation denies the CTA and breaks the alliance or if they just don't get a CTA until they can join the war.
I want to DOW Castile. Castile is allied to both Portugal and France, both of whom will answer the CTA. However France is at war with Portugal in a separate war (neither are war leaders). Since France cannot be fighting Portugal in one war and fighting alongside them in another war simultaneously, what will happen with the CTAs? My instinct is to say that whichever nation has the lower tag number will receive & answer the CTA first but that's just a guess and then I don't know if that means the second nation denies the CTA and breaks the alliance or if they just don't get a CTA until they can join the war.
Since the calls go out on the same day, I'm reasonably positive both France and Portugal are going to get called. At the time of the call, they are not involved in a war with a party that is in the war they are being called to (since neither one of them is in the war yet).
I can definitively answer the second part, though: They simply don't get a call until the other war is finished, at which point (assuming the modifiers don't change significantly, which given that it's a defensive war, is a safe bet), the other party will come to the defense of their ally.