Don't blame the mod for removing the Uzbeks, you did it yourself
o well oo Im an idiot, now aint I :wacko:A momentary lapse of reason, thinking the Uzbeks were the Kazakhs from EU2
o , my apologies -
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.
o well oo Im an idiot, now aint I :wacko:A momentary lapse of reason, thinking the Uzbeks were the Kazakhs from EU2
o , my apologies 
Lots of family troubles indeed. Lets hope you get through the +8 RR-years without any bigger problems. What do you think about the FtG-rebels, btw?
Regarding the conversions there's a little tweak: the chance for success is based on the last day of the conversion, not the first one. Same for colonization.
Regarding the conversions there's a little tweak: the chance for success is based on the last day of the conversion, not the first one. Same for colonization.
So if you have a kickass monarch and start converting the masses like crazy, then he dies and is succeded by a rotten egg, it's the latter who decides if the conversion is successful or not?
Yeah. In that case it is very frustrating. But if you turn it around - you have a crappy monarch and you start a conversion, it is very frustrating to have your monarch die a few days later being replaced by a top notch one.
In that case it is very frustrating. But if you turn it around - you have a crappy monarch and you start a conversion, it is very frustrating to have your monarch die a few days later being replaced by a top notch one.
Yeah.
Agreed, when you put it that way it sounds much better
Rebels = Overpowered. Thats about it, Ive had 35,000 full morale cavalry on plains be defeated by 8000 new rebels just popping up...also they become very dangerous later when they can assault forts well before i can.
I realize there was some changes made to conversions, just those successful conversions I had seemed to be better than EU2 to me.
Well well, makes the game more intriguing?
Whats that? The changes to conversions?
'Only' four? I'd be delighted with such an outcome. Ottomans are strong. Or rather, were strong until you just broke their backbone.
I'd be delighted with such an outcome. Ottomans are strong. Or rather, were strong until you just broke their backbone.
'Only' four?
Yes, "only" four
. They would only accept an offer below 50% of the warscore.Kicking Ottomans out of Asia...
Awesome!
hehe yeah, more of that to come later...
That, coupled with the +8 revolt risk is a recipe for disaster, had to keep building cavalry at every opportunity.
With the size of his empire I bet he'll be at -3 until the next millenniumCores are nice, some stability would be nice too methinks
And finally you've formed the Mughals, now how about another century of conquests and rebel bashing?
I suggest you aim for full serfdom, it does wonders to your BB cost. Keeping a -3 stab too long can eventually end in a horrible, horrible, civil war.With the size of his empire I bet he'll be at -3 until the next millennium
Cores are nice, some stability would be nice too methinks
Indeed it would be, but stability is over rated, costs so much, then is knocked back down with a few random events, Ive never seen the point.
Id rather throw that money into tech and only invest in stab when I want to go to war.
And finally you've formed the Mughals, now how about another century of conquests and rebel bashing?
Things may cool down abit due to rising BB.
Full serfdom would be nice, just I had a couple of those silly event choices (lose infrastructure investment or move towards free subjects) and I just hate to lose investments.
From all my playing of EU2, civil wars only hit when your over the BB limit, well 90 odd % of the time.
Keep spending it on cavalry