• 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.
@Laurent1944 - do you leave Ming largely intact so cash remains high?

Yes, I take only 1 or 2 provinces of Ming at each war usually, except two of them where I carved a path inside Ming to reach new tributaries. On one hand I don't plan a WC, on the other hand, remember that at each war Ming is just an ally of the defender so its province are worth twice the usual cost in WS and DIP, and at almost each war I will take provinces from the attacked tributary.

So, as horde (never played them) we should raze a lot. Does this continue all game or is there a time when you change government and strategies?
Yes, razing is a very useful tool for horde. It gives you many MP points (20 for each razed point, and you raze 1 in any category if size is above 1 and another 1 for each 5 points in this category), some money (not much as your armies probably already looted the province, and also horde unity (the equivalent of legitimacy for the hordes. 100 horde unity = +5% discipline and -2 unrest). The MP points gained are reduced by 1 for each mil tech above 8, and eventually will turn negative in end game for MIL tech 29 or above, but at least to this date razing is still interesting for one other reason: it reduces the size of the province and so its coring cost.
The main idea in my own opinion when you conquer an area is to ask if you want to state it some day or not. If not, raze it and either raise automony to 100% to decrease unrest (before absolutism turns in) or give it to a vassal, or sell it to a tributary.
By the way the tributary mechanism is also useful as a horde, especially when you have close to 100% OE. Take states as tributaries and they will probably not be attacked, continue to conquer around them, isolating them, then in the last century stop the tribute and conquer them when you have the time. In the meantime they will still give you a lot of MP, money or manpower depending of what you need.

As for changing strategy, it is hard to remain a steppe all the way to the end of a WC as horde unity will decrease monthly faster as you grow while razing gives you less MP. Still with constant warfare and razing I was able to maintain it to the end.

I also started as Great Horde->Golden Horde, and was allied to the Ottos for a long time, then punching all other powers in the area (to be sure they don't grow, especially Muscovy into Russia or Timurids into Mughals). I waited to be over size 1000 before having a frontier with Ming whose mandate quickly fell. One big advantage Great Horde has over other hordes is that its capital starts in Europe and so you can created trade companies everywhere. By the way you can roughly ignore Western Europe and America until 1700.
 
Is it truly so low?

I'm currently attempting my first WC with the Mughals and I was kind of doubtful I could pull i off with ~2200 dev.
iirc it was 700 dev before, but now with all the extra dev added in the game. But this number you'll need to truce break and go over 100% OE a lot of this, but doable.

Your expansion rate will increase dramaticly after you got 100 absolutism, have the admin tech that increase admin eff and dip tech 23 (for imperialism). If you think your still lagging behind, there is always revolutionary to pull off. But that can only be done if your capital is in europe.

Also you're mughals, one of the country that has lots of ccr. With lots of ccr you can core faster than other countries, so that number would go even lower.
 
1. Let us say in an area I could always decide: do I take the provinces myself or do I give them to my vasall.

I do not really have interest in owning the area, but it would feed into my main trade node. So I am thinking about just owning the Trade Centers directly and giving the rest to my vasall.
Is that better than giving everything to the vasall and make them cede their trade power to me?
What is the best trade income generating way to split the area between me and my vasall?


2. Also, in a peace deal I want to take a province, which is not even occupied. I can choose it, but it would automatically give it to my vasall. I dont even have the option to take it for myself.. can i somehow take it for myself?
 
Last edited:
1. Let us say in an area I could always decide: do I take the provinces myself or do I give them to my vasall.

I do not really have interest in owning the area, but it would feed into my main trade node. So I am thinking about just owning the Trade Centers directly and giving the rest to my vasall.
Is that better than giving everything to the vasall and make them cede their trade power to me?
What is the best trade income generating way to split the area between me and my vasall?


2. Also, in a peace deal I want to take a province, which is not even occupied. I can choose it, but it would automatically give it to my vasall. I dont even have the option to take it for myself.. can i somehow take it for myself?

1. It really depends on your vassal's economy. If they can get by without their trade money, it's simpler and more locally efficient for them to own everything and for you to divert trade power. I dunno if divvying everything up like you suggest is worthwhile.

2. If that happens, your vassal must have a core on the province, and a core owner gets first dibs on such peace deals. The only way for you to take it directly is to occupy it before demanding it.
 
1. how mad will a vasall be, if I take a 1/1/1 province from them?

2. do vasalls intelligently give Centers of trade to their burghers? (and if I make them cede Trade Power to me, do I get their burghers bonus?

3. I plan to take provinces for myself, not core them, but build a manufactury and then give it to my vasall. Could it happen that the vasall is an idiot and deletes the manufacties to build something else or to build nothing ?
 
1. how mad will a vasall be, if I take a 1/1/1 province from them?

2. do vasalls intelligently give Centers of trade to their burghers? (and if I make them cede Trade Power to me, do I get their burghers bonus?

3. I plan to take provinces for myself, not core them, but build a manufactury and then give it to my vasall. Could it happen that the vasall is an idiot and deletes the manufacties to build something else or to build nothing ?
1. +15% Liberty Desire. It's +5% per development of the seized province.

2. I don't know how the AI handles their estates. When you divert trade power, you take whatever trade power is generated under their control and act as if it's you owning the province,

3. I've never seen the AI delete anything but forts. That manufactury is safe. But instead of sitting around with overextension for five years why don't you give the province to the vassal and then build it? You can build/upgrade buildings in your subjects.
 
3. I plan to take provinces for myself, not core them, but build a manufactury and then give it to my vasall. Could it happen that the vasall is an idiot and deletes the manufacties to build something else or to build nothing ?

Is there a reason you are not building in the vassals provinces directly?
 
But instead of sitting around with overextension for five years why don't you give the province to the vassal and then build it? You can build/upgrade buildings in your subjects.

Is there a reason you are not building in the vassals provinces directly?

Yes, I dont have the Addon for building in vasalls lands, because I dont want the other features (I think its rights of men or so?).
 
Is it truly so low?

I'm currently attempting my first WC with the Mughals and I was kind of doubtful I could pull i off with ~2200 dev.

It depends heavily on your situation. It is perfectly possible to do a WC with 5000 dev in 1700, and going from 1000 to 5000 between 1600 and 1700 is doable. I would also say that an European country with access to HRE and PU mechanisms need less development than an Asian or Muslim power.

An issue you have with the Mughals is that if you don't move your capital to Europe, you are missing all trade companies except in Africa, and so losing a lot of income.

Main goal before 1600 is to build your power base, meaning your home states (which will bring you most of your income other than trade) and a trade network (TC land and trade centers). Real expansion can be started after you have high absolutism.
 
Yes, I dont have the Addon for building in vasalls lands, because I dont want the other features (I think its rights of men or so?).
As someone who likes their declare war button to not routinely get disabled in an anti-gameplay, anti-history way for up to 15 years at a stretch multiple times per playthrough with no meaningful counterplay, I can't comprehend not wanting Rights of Man :)
 
As someone who likes their declare war button to not routinely get disabled in an anti-gameplay, anti-history way for up to 15 years at a stretch multiple times per playthrough with no meaningful counterplay, I can't comprehend not wanting Rights of Man :)

What feature are you referring to? I dont get it, answer it in a plain way please.
 
What feature are you referring to? I dont get it, answer it in a plain way please.
When playing a Christian country, it's completely unremarkable to get multiple regencies in the course of the game.

In the base game, if you have a regency, you can't declare war (unless you follow the Nahuatl (Aztec) religion). A regency lasts from the death of your ruler until the maturation of your heir; if your ruler dies when your heir is a babe in arms, you face 15 years of not being able to declare war.

(In certain sufficiently exotic circumstances, it can take more than fifteen years. Some heir death events can potentially fire during regency, so you could get within months of your heir's fifteenth birthday and then get an heir death event, plunging you into the even worse state called 'Interregnum' whose duration you can't predict.)

With Rights of Man, the only time a regency disables the "Declare War" button is if you don't have a consort.
 
Is it just me or does EU4 no longer play music when in background (i.e. minimized)?
 
Is there a way to fix trade flowing in the wrong direction in nodes where you have close to 100% share like here in Bengal and Gujarat?

eu4_364.png
 
No, but you can put your trade capital (where you collect) in Gujarat and steer trade in Coromandel so most of the trade will be routed to Gujarat.

You can also test to collect in the four nodes where you have the max power*trade value. As your screen capture does not show where your merchants are, it is difficult to see what to do, but you certainly have an issue with trade steering out of India.
 
No, but you can put your trade capital (where you collect) in Gujarat and steer trade in Coromandel so most of the trade will be routed to Gujarat.

You can also test to collect in the four nodes where you have the max power*trade value. As your screen capture does not show where your merchants are, it is difficult to see what to do, but you certainly have an issue with trade steering out of India.

I collect in Persia. My merchants are in Samarkand, Lahore, Doab and Basra. Basra is the only merchant I might consider moving. Samarkand is my most important feeder node while both Lahore and Doab are needed to feed towards Persia, if one of those traders goes away the trade will go southward and then towards Africa.

Oh and the problem continues into China. Xi'An and Beijing are fine as their only way out is towards Yumen and then Samarkand, but Hangzhou and Canton send most of their trade value to Malacca. Chengdu sands everything to Canton. And while I still share China with what remains of Ming (to be fixed in 2 years, if I continue this campaign), it's not like they would want the trade flow to Indonesia either.
 
Is there a way to fix trade flowing in the wrong direction in nodes where you have close to 100% share like here in Bengal and Gujarat?
Only by putting a merchant there. How trade is split between outgoing connections is based on the trade power of the countries with a merchant present.

If you want to control trade four merchants just isn't enough you need more. Perhaps you can conquer a bit of Africa for the bonus merchant from trade company(Cape is pretty easy to do that), or steal a 10+ provinces CN from a colonizer if there is one currently weak enough it doesn't take more effort than the payoff.

In the meantime if you have control of Basra then switching your merchants from Lahore and Doab to Guarajat and Coromandel should get you most of the Indian trade currently flowing away, more once you solidify your control over those nodes(especially the latter). You will need two more merchants for China though.
 
Last edited:
In the meantime if you have full control of Basra then switching your merchants from Lahore and Doab to Guarajat

This does not work. If I move the merchant away from Basra, all trade from there will flow to Aleppo. And Gujarat can only flow to Persia through Basra, so I would just start feeding the Italians instead of the English and Iberians.

The matter of fact is that to retain all of India's trade value when collecting in Persia, you'll need at least 5 Merchants: 1 in Basra (steering to Persia), 1 in Samarkand (steering to Persia), 1 in Aden (steering to Hormuz), 1 in Gujarat (steering to Aden), and 1 in Coromandel (steering to Gujarat).

Considering that collecting in Persia is very common for many developed player nations in the region as the node can relatively easily be turned into a pseudo end-node I wonder who in the design team gave the OK for the current trade node setup when there are no easy ways for nations in the regions to gain extra merchants.

Fun fact: With only 8 merchants you steer the entirety up Asia (exluding Aleppo) to Persia. India and Arabia are a huge trade value drain.