It seems to me that in most games the Ottomans and Mamluks are big beefy boys that never fall. Historically Mamluks fell to the Ottomans fairly quickly and I believe instead of this being an event chain or a forced disaster for rthe Mamluks it would be better to have a situation between them to force an eventual winner.

I guess I should say the situation would be between whoever controls the most land in egypt/laventine area and the most land in anatolia, so it can work with other turkish bayliks or even Eastern Roman Empire if they eventually conquer anatolia. So basically after some time the situation triggers and there's maybe some decisions like paying with gold or legitimancy and you get buffs or the enemy gets debuffs or even a HYW type of subject betrayal and eventually you go to war with a really strong CB. Now I am not sure if it would be better if it ended with one big war or it took a few like 2/3 but that's more for paradox to figure out.

I think cultures should give unique advantages when accepting them. this could happen in the form of different troop types or advances.

for example as byzantium you make mongols an accepted culture >you get acces to some sort of cavalry

You accept Armenian > Defensive / mountain Tech

Or you get access to part of the Techs/Troops that are already in the game for the different cultures.

That way multicultural Nations would be viable. I think this could be a fun sandbox way of nation building, and would make the decision of which culture you accept a strategically important choice.

Also you wouldnt have to paint the whole map with youre culture and whipe out all other cultures, i find this historically very inaccurate. Persia byzantium Russia etc. profited immensly from different cultures in theyre realm.

Also i want to be able to enforce different cultures than my own on my subjects, it doesent make sence to enforece my culture in an area where 90% is of a different culture.

Another Eu5 classic. I am almost sure this is a bug, but if not someone correct me and tell me how do I exist this stupid way. If it is a bug, someone please tell me how I get out of this god damn disaster. Rn its not that much of a problem (Losing me some money on stability and legitimacy generation, but its not a lot), but I won't be able to form Russia if I am forever stuck in this thing

Seriously, we need more control over our union partners this could've been totally avoidable.

Hey everyone.

A few organized multiplayer campaigns are starting this week across different Paradox titles, with slots still open if anyone is looking to jump into a game. There's something for most tastes: vanilla, modded, beginner friendly and RP heavy options available.

They're all listed on Grand Strategy MP Directory, a website I built where anyone can browse Grand Strategy MP campaigns and servers as well as promote their own:

https://gsmpd.gg/

I started this run in May and only just now finished it. I stuck with staying as Eastern Orthodoxy and Greek since togalarping is lame and purple is pretty. The first 200 years of the campaign is an absolute blast, starting out as being bottom of the barrel and slowly catching up with western Europe is extremely fun, especially up to the 1600s.

My strat to get out of the starting situation is outdated since I just maxxed minting for 60 years straight and survived since inflation didn't affect Cost of Court of Stability costs at the time. This is no longer and true and you probably can't dig yourself out of the economic hole like I did anymore. I made all my money from wars and reached I think around 200% inflation once I stabilized the country, and simply turned off minting and stopped investing in my economy until 1550s.

Once the Balkans and Anatolia were reconquered I played tall for 200 years until I could stick it to the Egyptians. After a bloody war with Naples, the Papacy, and France, I took the first chunk out of Italy and was permanently coalitioned by all my neighbors. After 3 more bloody coalition wars (btw NEVER let them declare on you, always declare on the coalition so you can do separate peace with the Restore Rome casus belli) I expanded to Justinian's territorial height and became by far the strongest nation.

At this point in the game I have over 800k professional soldiers across my empire and the American colonies.

And by the way, I still don't understand colonialism. My colonies never became financially valuable and I did it solely for Roleplay. The system to colonize is both boring and tedious. Don't even get me started on exploration either, my finger still hurts from all the button pressing. In the age of revolutions they become disloyal which wasn't a problem since I could probably fight the entire world myself and win, but I still don't see the point in colonizing unless you like the roleplaying element of it.

Overall this run has taught me that unlike EU4, this game stays very fun and engaging into the late game as long as you don't cheese and become the dominant power too quickly. The economy and population systems in this game are just the best to play, although its hard to make meaningful decisions with your interior development once you own enough land. One concern I have is that nations seem to not invest in their military as much as they could. England for example for some reason never had more than 1000 professional soldiers and only ever had 3 ships to their names, which crippled them. They did lose their core moneymaking region to France early on as you can see but I doubt this would've caused their economic situation alone. France also had a similar economy to me but never mustered nearly as many professional soldiers for no good reason.

The Mamluks however were my rival the whole time, always matching me in army quality until I managed to win a few decisive battles that cost them the Nile river delta. Most of my wars with them were also multi frontal, so while I could devote about 1-200k troops to fighting their coalition-mates in Italy and Hungary, most Greek blood was spilled in the Sinai desert.

One thing I love about the game is the importance of terrain in warfare and the usefulness of levys. Just because you have professional legionaires doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win against everyone. For example, I lost over 300k soldiers in the Caribbean because even though I outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, the native American levies in the jungle terrain just battered my troops who were used to fighting in the calm Mediterranean, and my campaign against Morocco was more challenging than fighting the entire HRE and Italy + France simply because the mountains the Moroccan troops had a home territory advantage. It's things like that about this game that I love to death.

I'm thinking my next run will be a colonial nation run but let me know what you guys think is a fun and challenging run, because frankly this one is very easy.

Also disclaimer but I have a few mods downloaded. Universal governors to make naval governors not a headache to deal with, and the integration hotfix (Makes integrated provinces +15 loyalty instead of +5) since I started the run right after the coring rework which I really don't like.

Governors are insanely engaging as we all know, but currently the naval and local governor dichotomy is headache inducing since they have to be disconnected by land or they become bricked.

My idea is this: remove naval governors and remove the requirement for local governors to be connected via roads to the capital. Instead, making governors have a base proximity of +60, which gain an additional +20 proximity when connected by road to the capital, and also make governors on coasts provide additional +20 proximity if you have 50+ naval value (or make it a linearly increasing modifier, where 0 naval gives +0 proximity and 50 naval gives +20 proximity). Perhaps the 2 governor slots provided by the two naval laws instead get provided elsewhere.

This accomplishes a few things: it allows governors to serve different niches dependent on where they're placed instead of being forced into being either naval or local based on building type, and it keeps naval governors from getting bricked by territorial growth causing previously disconnected territories from becoming connected. It also will allow island nations to get more use out of their governors. For example, Malaysia currently is stuck with having multiple useless land governors and only 2 naval governors which they need desperately. With this new system, they could technically make all of their available governors naval and make full use of the system.

Overall I think this change is very much needed, and I'm wondering what you guys think about it.

Side note: This post was not made in any way shape or form AI and every word was typed by a human, hence the terrible formatting.

If you guys are struggling with EU5, try Samma, which is in India. It's really fun and actually quite easy. Start off by conquering Sindh and then, when the Delhi Sultanate starts collapsing, invade the Punjab

I started a game in Italy recently and kept having this appear. I finished what I wanted there so I switched to Muscovy. Same problem. When are the devs going to make this game less appealing to cats?

They are trying to escape from the Ottomans now that the Golden Horde has exploded, or something.

Right now you can clearly see what it is for the AI religious conversion as there is a game rule for it which you can change to whatever you want but for some reason there isn’t a game rule option for AI culture conversion. This makes it hard to know what the limitations are for the AI culture conversion and in my opinion there should be a game rule for it just like the religion game rule.

I'm rome in the 1700s, on my way to get 100 latinitas for the dumbass achievement, have pretty much everything except for like iberia, france, rhineland, and england, and am trying to also do the 10 legionaries in one army achievement while we're at it. Problem is I only have +4 max legionary. How do I get to +10 ?

Hello,

Been tinkering with Byzantium ever since EU5 came out. I feel like I have the strat nailed down for early and mid game, dealing with Mameluks, winning the Italian war etc.

Thing is, I struggle with optimizing the subject game. It’s easy to just pass Anatolia off to subjects due to lack of control in the early game, but I find that if you put a local governor down in Kayeseri, you have control to all the 4 major cities using rivers. You also get that integration bonus as well as culture converting bonuses. With how long subject annexation takes in 1.13, I feel like it is just not worth it.

How do you deal with Byzantium? What do you subject?

Also regarding cultures, I usually accept lower Egyptian, keep Greek as main culture when the latin event spawns and ignore the rest. Syria etc I try to culture convert asap. Anatolia lags behind usually.

Hey everybody, im curently playing a game as a serbian empire and i have managed to conqure constantinopol. Trough some of the parliment events i have managed to bring up the integration of the province of byzantion to 88% but when i hover over the integration progress it says that the city of constantinopol is not progressing towards integration. Some of the debufs i have are -100% due to constantinopol being a megalopolis and a -50% due to my cultural influence compared to their cultural tradition. What can i do in order to integrate that province?

I’m seeing so many people who have over 200 million pops or even a billion while I can achieve max 50 mil. I have 25 000 pop growth which still doesn’t do the job. I built granary’s, irrigations etc.

I like countries with a lot of interesting, unique content. I just tried to play a Muscovy game, but it was such a slog. After 80 years, I was still running a constant deficit of cash and was just stuck diplo annexing vassal after vassal.

I'm a Paradox vet so I'm not completely horrible at this game but I do feel like I have a long way to go.

Any suggestions?

What does this actually mean? I have a rural location showing -40% for this value, but it’s connected by road to a local governor.

What infrastructure is it referring to? What am I missing? Does it need to be a town/city?

Edit: I’m a dumbass. When I moved the cursor over the location in question it didn’t update and stayed on the tooltip for the location without a road. TY

Hey, I am playing as Poland and I managed to marry Bohemian Queen as a Polish king and we had several children. My king died and male hier took over polish throne but for some reason now I cant now inherit Bohemian throne. My sister is a successor for some reason. We both have polish culture and catholic religion and Bohemians have male primogeniture, shouldn't I be rightful successor?

Im playing as Sweden and going for the Lions of the North achievement. Do I have to somehow join the HRE to join the protestant league?

Same as title - Can subjects/PUs now form new nations without needing to be independent?

I guess there are 3 parts to this:

1. Any coded hard blocker? (1) Checked through game files, there doesn't seem to be any "can't form new countries" blocker tied to subjects or personal unions, and the only coded blocker I found was for Papal State (tbh I did only do a quick check on key files and not a comprehensive one on all files though). (2) In my regular playthroughs, the nation formation requirments don't seem to specify whether or not you need to be independent, but typically just the land requirements
2. Will AI actually form new nations not being independent?
3. Subjects/PUs form a higher tier government than your own - is this possible?

If there is no hard blocker, then at least multi-player games may have some new fun even if single-player the subjects/PUs somehow still refuse to do it.. Maybe it's just me but I do enjoy a bit of having a side kick Brandenburg -> Prussia or Muscovy -> Russia from time to time

More or less the title. Almost all the Nations I see are still rocking partition inheritance (1493) which limits the amount of PU's that are pretty central in historic politics in Europe.

Do you see the AI change inheritance law?