Paradox Games

I think if I wanted autocracy and ethnostate as options, I would've needed to start getting violent with people much earlier in the campaign. Although, that still runs into the 'run out of pops to do things' problem... maybe if I'd always gone for the pop-saving means of production first and not started to bring them in right at the end (only exacerbating my need to have all the oil and rubber).

They really wanted ethnostate but nobody ever started agitating for it, so why was I going to annoy... I dunno, I think everyone was discriminated against anyway. It just seemed pointless.

Rolling through resistance at the endgame with nearly-maxed military and mobilisation options is great, though. Yes, America, I see that you have trench infantry and shrapnel artillery. May I introduce you to squad infantry, siege artillery, gas attacks, and flamethrowers? The only thing I was missing was tanks.

Edited by RainehDaze on Dec 15th 2023 at 7:41:56 PM

Personally, I tend to veer more towards technocracy rather than one-party state, at least when I'm playing monarchies and intending to keep the monarch.

For example, I did a game as Two Sicilies a while ago and my idea of "liberalising" the country was to replace landowner rule with expert rule (it also meant my Bourbon monarch was now called philosopher-king).

Yeah, it's something you usually want to plan for at the start. My way of doing it is like this.

• Religion: Japan's initial Shinto population is relatively small and easily converted. Theocracy+State Religion with Charity Hospitals and Religious Schools turned up to the max means a really strong Devout IG. Also, Legal Guardianship+Be Fruitful and Multiply means that the Japanese are, contrary to our present world, really good at making babies.
• Autocracy: ...a really strong Devout IG, which easily seizes the dictatorship and maintains a consistent legitimacy between clout and Theocracy+Autocracy. Authority is also through the roof, which has a variety of nice uses (like keeping those filthy Intelligentsia from getting ideas).
• Nationality: The islands are densely populated and almost entirely Japanese, so an Ethnostate still means a very strong core population who are easily placated by virtue of the Ethnostate. As for the rest of the world, I'd rather make it a subject network than rule everything directly, taking colonies when necessary for the rubber and oil.

Yeah, near the end there'll still be a little underpopulation, which may require the use of automation to fix - that's fine, the Japanese proper will have elite qualifications and easily transition away from obsolete labor jobs.

Yeah, making puppets is a great idea, I was just... really late to doing anything other than attacking people. Sure, market members are much better now at building the resources you need, but their tech still lags behind (I doubt spheres of influence is going to change this, though at least we should be able to invest in building then).

I thought be fruitful and multiply was removed? Or, at least, the buddhists don't have it now. I think.

My final war against the USA was also rather comical in how imbalanced the sides were, stacked up against each other. Japan on its own against... the USA, Spain, Qing, and I think Russia or Germany. <_>

Edit: Yeah, Buddhists now have different stuff. Reduction in radicals from So L decreases.

Though now I want to play Japan more aggressively (and with a different mod ) as well as explicitly authoritarian to see how that goes.

Also, I wish the 'your ships are too different to upgrade' thing would instead just do some building thing instead of, uh... if you want to upgrade your navy, you have to destroy it, then rebuild it. Manually.

Edited by RainehDaze on Dec 15th 2023 at 9:27:15 AM

Ah. That changes the calculus a bit, though not too much (I did my last Japan run before the change).

Good luck!

Reposting since I didn't get an answer last page.

Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Dec 16th 2023 at 6:00:16 AM

Sorry, I mostly watch EUIV playthroughs rather than attempting them.

Well the Bosporous is the straight separating Greece from Anatolia, does having both sides under your control not work?

EDIT: Okay, upon looking at the EU 4 wiki, you need to have a bunch of the Aegean provinces, like Crete, Corfu, Cyprus, and Cephalonia?

Yes, but it once completed it without having had done any of them. I feel like I did something re: my relations with Venice?

If you are looking for strategies, the Paradox forums are probably a better place to ask.

I've been playing some Crusader Kings 3 myself, what with the Persina culture pack just having been released. Thought it was a good time to start a Bavandid campaign again.

Still a bit of a difficult start, but you get some good tools to work with. For one, house Bavandid is now part of the Sassanid Dynasty, which starts at a pretty high level of Splendour. Combine this with the "promising Prospects" perk, and the fact that you are now officially Ash'ari (with secret Mazdayan faith) you can marry into some serious high-power alliances. Claim your liege's duchy by scheme, since you control over half his de jure territory, and then just go nuts to control Iran as fast as you can. Hold on to your secret faith, end the Intermezzo by "Iranian Resurgence", and you gain the Empire of Persia and instantly convert 50% of Iranian territory and characters to Mazdayanism.

Resurgence in a single generation, Saoshyant in two. Not a bad run. I even managed to press one of my sons' claim on the Arabian Empire. He didn't hold on to it, of course, but apparently gave in to a faction demand to straight up dissolve the empire. Now there's one way to absolutely destroy your main adversary.

Had to call it quits, though. My main problem with CK 3 is just how easy it is to create a strong, stable empire. My third generation was a sixteen-year old, and my vassals couldn't even be arsed for a good-faith effort at a faction. I considered going for the "Darius' Revenge" achievement, but it's not as if the Byzantines could put up a proper fight either. Heck, I doubt anything less than a Jihad or Crusade could even put a dent in my empire. Honestly kind of dull, so I just declared victory and called it a day.

Edited by Kayeka on Dec 17th 2023 at 9:54:02 PM

"Well done, son, your failure is my greatest achievement yet."

There's an imperial revamp in the works, from what I understand, so the empire game may become more interesting.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 17th 2023 at 8:46:08 PM

I need to get back to my Ghaznavid game at some point.

I've kept my house unity at the highest level, meaning my expansion into India has been very slow, but I value my kingdom not splintering over expanding fast.

The plan is to ultimately move the capital into India (probably to Delhi) and create a hybrid culture there.

Yeah, especially considering that it takes so long for your realm to get out of that "Confederation" inheritance thing.

Clans after Legacy of Persia don't do confederate partitions; their inheritance rules depend on house unity.

Does that include non-clans, too?

No, but he was talking about Ghaznavids.

If you're doing feudal, then yeah, you can look forward to your lands breaking apart for half the game, until you get Royal Prerogative + Heraldry (at which point you designate your heir and use House Seniority as a discount Primogeniture).

Ugh. Really the only way to keep your actual realm from breaking apart instead of just having your personally-owned lands split up is to either only have one son or rush to get a duchy.

Well, yeah, but I've never failed to take my first ruler from count to duke. I usually play tribal starts, though, and tribals who can't carve out a duchy from the soft, weak settler lords are being lazy.

People always say that as if it is a bad thing, but I just don't see it. Pick your core lands for your player heir, and just conquer some stuff for the others. Don't worry about said other heirs becoming independent after, because that is an entirely acceptable result.

• Independent house members will generate dynasty points, getting you those delicious dynasty perks and splendour levels faster.
• Independent house members can be called into wars as allies (without actually being allies), so you will have access to more troops than what they'd provide as a vassal.
• Your player heir has a pressed claim on their lands, so you have no less than two generations to bring those lands back under your banner as soon as you're ready for it, in a very easy war because your player heir got your core lands and men-at-arms.

Confederate partition, when properly managed, is actually stronger than the other options. As long as you can find a duchy for each son to inherit (or just give it to them before you die), you're golden. How many sons you should get depends entirely on how many easy CB's you happen to have access to.

So a feudal Christian duke in any of the Karling lands may want to turn off the tap after, say, three. There is only so many claims you can get from pope-daddy, after all. Tribals and clans can go absolutely nuts, though. "Dynasty of many crowns" in two or three generations? Yes, please.

Or if you're all still tribal, you can reunite your lands the old-fashioned way: prove who's the strongest heir IN THE THUNDERDOME.

I'd favor single-heir or High Partition because I favor intentionally picking religions opposed to the local faith and treating the area as a target-rich environment (my game originating in Gotland went to a custom Dualist faith when I migrated to the Med). Or: "Allies are just people you can't kill. Who would want that?" But I'll have to try intentionally keeping Confederate for a while and going for Dynasty of Many Crowns in my next game.

Edited by Ramidel on Dec 19th 2023 at 3:22:40 AM

It does get tedious, though. Plus the hassle of trying not to box your own expansion in because whoops all the surroundings of your core holdings keep going to more idiotic AI children.

The main problem with Confederate Partition is the same one Elective Gavelkind had in CK2:

It will create uncreated titles on succession and split those among your heirs.

That includes kingdoms and empires, too, meaning that when playing pre-rework Ghaznavids, you had to either rush for an empire title before dying or keep disinheriting everyone until you got rid of Confederate Partition; otherwise your realm would just immediately split in two upon succession.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Dec 20th 2023 at 5:21:41 PM

It'd not as if it isn't exactly what's meant to happen (hi the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire), but it is tedious.

Honestly, I'd like it more if it'd not stick to de jure borders constantly. The entire de jure system regarding kingdoms is way too rigid for like half the time frame.

If my kingdom blows up on succession, I want to see my heirs' stats and popularity coming into it. Or, hell, relations with me (somehow). My powerful and beloved second son shouldn't be getting pawned off with Wales just because "kingdom title". Sure, maybe he should be getting Wales... and possibly a big chunk of the midlands too.

Confederate partition is annoying as hell because it doesn't even make the borders fluid like you'd expect.

Picked up Victoria 3 recently.

After trying a few options, I'm currently playing Brazil with a goal of simply making it to the end of the game without my country completely imploding, everything else is a bonus.

So far so good. Won the opening wars, got a defensive pact with Peru-Bolivia and thus far kept anything from spiraling out of control internally.

While I had nothing to do with it, somehow the Mexican-American war ended without the Republic of Texas from being annexed (but Mexico-held Texas was), and Mexico bizarrely managed to hold onto Colorado as an enclave. ...paradox should probably tweak the script there so Mexico will prefer to hold on to a boarder state if they manage to put up a bigger fight.