/gsg/ - Grand Strategy General

Super Russia and Turks are going to happen a lot earlier now that PLC is non existent to slow them down.

I don't want anyone interfering with my exploitation of Asian and African savages.

PLC barely stopped any of these tho.

He probably got banned already lad

Well lad seems like you need to choose one of them to try and fuck up before they get too strong.

Neither of those should move in Africa and Asia, well, just Siberia.

You are the only one here that should be purged desu

Siberia's worthless

You are worthless.

Catalonian iandependence soon

russian /gsg > 4chgsg

The question then is whether I should add it to mainstream Finnish as well (although not Sami or Karelian), since they also have Baltic access. And, of course, whether anyone else supports granting Estonian/Latvian/Lettgallian sea raiding potential.

Although, thinking of the AAR, it's quite possible that E/L/L cultures will at times be part of Lithuania, and it makes little sense that only the Romuva/Slavic elements of the Kingdom would be able to raid, when there would be other vassals who have the means to. I think I do like the idea of giving at least the E/L/L cultures the ability.

Add it to all of them. A pirates of the northern sea kind of scenario sounds fun though it could be annoying to play in.

t. putin

t. deutschejob

In V2 btw

>and it makes little sense that only the Romuva/Slavic elements of the Kingdom would be able to raid
Why

infinychan/gsg > 4chgsg >>>>>>>>>> slavgsg

>Viking Estonians/Fins

Why are you posting here

What's wrong about that?

Tebe Vjebat' chtoli, pindos ebaniy?

Why are YOU posting here

Well, why not?

Sorry I don`t speak subhuman.
Makes no sense, none of them have the guts to be warriors.

Danes called me into this clusterfuck of a war. I'm about to get split roasted by Savoy and Brabant and lose my army. At least the turks are giving me 6.59 ducats a month for it.

Why the fuck did you join if you know you gonna lose

>-20

I took the picture, i have to know- how do I send it to you? now that i took it, you can see it .;

Whatsapp

i'vve been thinking on been going up and have just posting my doctoral right here.
does anyone else also want to be my editor?

Wew
Why are these disjointed countries at war

Army last like 2 days before stack wiping. Time to ride it out for turkish shekels.

I forgot Austria gets to call his allies which brought 16k from Savoy.

I haven't been warring because of alliance chains and events haven't been very kind.

I Want.

almost done me laddy mates

>fighting against austria
RIP

Nice

Fix the flag though, center the symbols

What the fuck is that

Says the animefag.

Did you hack the game

Is White Horde white?

>I haven't been warring because of alliance chains and events haven't been very kind.
You didn't have high prestige to begin with then.

I'll at least add it to E/L/L cultures, then. I wonder about Finnish, though. They're far northern, very poor, and extremely decentralized. I wonder whether they should have the ability, especially if they take lands toward the North Sea and are able to raid from that direction. Opinions?

Because why would Estonian, Latvian, or Lettgallian characters who were vassal to the Lithuanian King, and thus benefit from his technological understanding and technological spread, not learn the benefits of long-distance raiding, and how to construct vessels for long-distance travel? They live on the coasts and already have native fishing cultures, and there's no real reason why they wouldn't be able to develop raiding under a more technologically advanced kingdom, or indeed on their own if they were eventually able to expand or feudalize. Remember that no Baltic culture begins with vessels of their own, so overseas raiding being enabled doesn't mean it will happen immediately. Only the Norse will be able to accomplish that, which means that there will be a realistic lag while Lithuanians and other cultures/religions develop the technologies and designs to accomplish long-distance voyages.

Yes

No it's yellow.

>not learn the benefits of long-distance raiding
Raiding isnt some hidden knowledge you need to develop you know. Its just stealing.

>very poor, and extremely decentralized.
Sounds like the situations the vikings were in. They should raid.

true

Well got jumped on by the little faggot above me so I had to cede land to brabant to get out of the war.

About to bring hell to the fucker.

Is the blue horde blue?

Very nice
I'd move the map color a bit to the red, resembles byzantine scheme too much

Who the fuck thinks those smears of shit in the middle of the desert looks good anyway.
It's SWMH all over again.

I'm blue Da Ba Dee Da ba Da

>Get in a war you know you are going to lose.
>Lose territory in it.
I applaud you not savescumming this.

A dominant Beylik that is not the Ottomans becoming the Ottoman Empire

I have been trying, tirelessly, to post my soon to be award winning essay, "The Big American Bust", but my ipad, will not load. to take the image of it

haha good one

So the same shit paradox is literally adding the next expansion?
Isn't that a waste of time?

I need to be wary of the mechanics here, and enabling it for Turks/Arabs would just add to the expansion spiral which the Abbasids and Seljuks often already experience; it would be the same thing were it added to the Mongols. As historic as it would be, I have to balance what I'm adding and where with how strong that would actually make those nations, and the Abbasids as they are need nerfs, not buffs.

>Raiding isnt some hidden knowledge you need to develop you know.
Concepts aren't universally transmitted, user. There's a difference between raiding a neighbor's territory, which Finns can already do, and raiding overseas, which takes a great deal more innovation and conceptualization. You must understand vessel design sufficiently well to construct seaworthy vessels capable of long voyages, with enough space to carry provisions and loot, and moreover you must be willing to conceptualize the benefit of taking vast quantities of troops from your native lands and move them elsewhere, a short-term risk for a long-term reward. Not all cultures, nor all governmental structures, and especially not all circumstances, would allow for such a concept.

>Sounds like the situations the vikings were in.
A far, far more extreme version of it: more decentralized, more poor, with a much worse climate and infrastructure to support the gathering of men and raiding of foreign lands. I'm still not sold upon it. Nations like Sweden and Norway are able to raid because their southern territories, which are more hospitable and prosperous, can support it; you rarely see northern Sweden or Jamtland mounting any serious raids, and for good reason. I think anything but a united Finland would be an extension of that, and I doubt Finland would unite.

That said, these modifications are something I can add mid-game, as I discovered in my previous testing, so giving overseas raiding to a strong Finland mid-game (if one forms) is an option.

No, because based Gigau refused to add this and added some half-assed "Turkish Empire" for all of them

What did he mean by this

Paradox is adding that in the next expansion
Stop hacking eu4

If you're adding raiding mechanics just to simulate short term over the border raids than you need to enable raiding for all Arab cultures and all Turkic cultures as well since they historically raided extremely often over the border, stealing loot and kidnapping people to sell them into slavery.

Hell the Ottomans were still doing across the border raiding as late as the 17th century and Berbery Arab states as late as the beginning of the 19th century.

Raiding is actually one of the mechanics I wish Eu4 would implement since historically it did happen and most of the time it happened without any declaration of war or anything like that.

Thats a lot of white

Fuck off, Johan

>That said, these modifications are something I can add mid-game, as I discovered in my previous testing, so giving overseas raiding to a strong Finland mid-game (if one forms) is an option.
Can you tie it to tech or some shit like that

It's Ironman and I forgot Austria gets to call in his buddies too.

>Raiding is actually one of the mechanics I wish Eu4 would implement
It already exists
Pirates

It will take the M&T team at least two months to integrate the next expansion, plus I'm going to work further on it like adding events for the Mamluks to counter a dominant Beylik, Bulgarian/Serbian Empires through similar mechanics and so on. I've also been promising to add it since last patch so why not just do it

So it was more of a fuckup than you having the balls

>why not just do it
Fair enough, I just think its redundant with what paradox is doing and whatnot.
>You must understand vessel design sufficiently well to construct seaworthy vessels capable of long voyages
To be fair they aren't exactly crossing the ocean lad, if you can navigate the northern sea to trade you can do it to raid.

>I need to be wary of the mechanics here, and enabling it for Turks/Arabs would just add to the expansion spiral which the Abbasids and Seljuks often already experience
Even if you don`t add it they will just blob. How do you plan to deal with that?

>still no released date for JD
FUCK
FUCK YOU SWEDES

>I need to be wary of the mechanics here, and enabling it for Turks/Arabs would just add to the expansion spiral which the Abbasids and Seljuks often already experience; it would be the same thing were it added to the Mongols. As historic as it would be, I have to balance what I'm adding and where with how strong that would actually make those nations, and the Abbasids as they are need nerfs, not buffs.
Raiding mechanics for Turks and Arabs would actually work well alongside some nerfs, most likely long term decay and decentralization of the Arab empires, since it did historically happen and it happened quite a lot among each other but especially towards infidel lands for loot and slaves.

Like I said, Maghrebis and Ottomans were doing it as late as the 19th century so it should definitely be a thing in CK. Hell, even the famous battle of Tours/Poitiers started out as a raiding expedition, albeit a large one, before becoming an invasion. Part of the reason the Arabs turned tail there is because they had so much loot.

Should I buy HoI3 or HoI4?

Vic2

>most likely long term decay and decentralization of the Arab empires, since it did historically happen and it happened quite a lot among each other
So decadence with another name

>buying games

Well decadence but not abstracted and actually functioning like intended.

>Can you tie it to tech or some shit like that
In CK2? Not so far as I know, it's a simple yes/no in the religious/culture files. It might be possible, but I have no basis to assume it's so.

>To be fair they aren't exactly crossing the ocean lad
They may or may not be, depending upon where they choose to raid. If the Finns decided to invade western Germany or Britain they would be in the open sea past Denmark, which is a great deal more treacherous to raid through than the Baltic. Because it's a simple on/off, you're by enabling it you're making it so that they can raid anywhere as soon as they have the vessels to do so, although AI logic will try to restrict it to its diplomatic range.

>Even if you don`t add it they will just blob. How do you plan to deal with that?
A good point, and I don't know. I've been contemplating giving strong AI realms the same sort of penalties I'm going to be having (manufactured civil wars, collapsed, simultaneous adventurer raids, etc.) to help keep them weak, but that was to be a topic for a later time. It can be discussed now, though.

Personally I think I should do so, but in a limited fashion. Allow strong AI realms with reasonable borders and holdings to remain largely untampered with (unless there's an obvious situation where there should be resistance and none is happening, like multiple strong claimaint vassals with low opinions of the liege but no rebellions resulting from it), but any ludicrously stable or expansionist realm should be given some internal and external threats to help keep it in check, both so there isn't mass blobbing and so there's a chance for smaller states to survive gradual incorporation into larger mega-realms, as is the usual result in CK2. This would be a case-by-case basis, but this manual touch would also allow me to divert my attention from Lithuania at times and give an in-depth view of events happening elsewhere, which might make the AAR feel more alive.

>Claim the roman empire
Don't you have a better name for it
Shouldnt they claim the turkish empire

>In CK2? Not so far as I know, it's a simple yes/no in the religious/culture files. It might be possible, but I have no basis to assume it's so.
Why wouldn't it be possible? Technology already opens up new things like new buildings or new laws and shit so there must be a way to tie a trigger to tech.

That sounds like a full mod rather than a AARnon mod for an AAR.

>(manufactured civil wars, collapsed, simultaneous adventurer raids, etc.)
What if they become too weak? desu if you overdo it it will feel cheap. Instead of doing that wouldn't be better to have vassals become more greedy/bloodlusty as the realm expands?

Historically it was the Sultanate of Rum, which translates into the Empire of Romans, and the decision requires Constantinople as capital so why not directly name it like you're usurping the title (which is technically what happens since you also receive their claims)

The title of Roman Empire has worth in it, the "Turkish Empire" doesn't. The whole point of adopting the Qaysar-i-Rum title by Mehmet II was because it literally was cool and nothing more. It wasn't a 'Turkish' empire too, because it wasn't ethnocentric and nationalist in any way; there was zero reason to make empire of savage steppe raiders.

>If the Finns decided to invade western Germany or Britain they would be in the open sea past Denmark, which is a great deal more treacherous to raid through than the Baltic
Fair enough
I suppose that situation is different from the vikings

It wasnt roman either, the title was just fluff and ego stuff, it was just a standard empire.

>Raiding mechanics for Turks and Arabs would actually work well alongside some nerfs, most likely long term decay and decentralization of the Arab empires, since it did historically happen
But, with the exception of the Abbasids, Fatimids, and Seljuks, not definably within the time period of the game. Those are three of the major empires of this period, granted, but there's also not anything which suggests that this is anything other than historical circumstance (Seljuk invasion for the Abbasids, administrative failures for the Seljuks and Fatimids) rather than an innate feature of Muslim governments which should be universally applied. Certain states, like Oman, indeed had long-term stability in many respects.

Anyhow, reaching in and making such broad changes is beyond the scope of what I want to do. I'm not trying to rebalance blobs via mechanics, if I do at all, because that would quite likely quadruple my work and add dozens of hours of testing, if I could do it in a satisfactory way at all. What game rules I have already limit them, and anything else will be a personal touch as detailed here Not all triggers work in all defines, much like other Paradox titles. I don't think you can unlock a religious/cultural feature through technology. It's only tied to legal systems and buildings, so if it were possible it would probably need to be done in a hopelessly convoluted way.

>What if they become too weak? desu if you overdo it it will feel cheap.
A danger, of course, but things are dynamic. Just because the HRE didn't fall apart doesn't mean it couldn't have; the Abbasids, Byzantines, Seljuks, etc. all did. But the goal here wouldn't be total collapse, it would be dynastic overthrow, opportunism, etc. All contextualized with a narrative--for example, a simultaneous bastard's invasion of the HRE and rebellion of its far-flung territories would be described as the far-away vassals taking advantage of the civil war.

CK2 has distance from capital check, right? Couldn't you tie that to effective control of faraway lords by making that control weaker the further away they are? And then that could be increased even more with the power of the lord and culture and religion in addition to how distant they are from the capital while it would be decreased by technology and infrastucture?

That would serve to keep massive continent sized empire organically limited by limiting their real control over distant vassals and encouraging or facilitating independence of those distant vassals, especially ones that aren't of the same culture, religion or dynasty,

>Just because the HRE didn't fall apart doesn't mean it couldn't have
The HRE was too decentralized to fall apart

Turks literally called themselves "Roman Kaisers", their hubris knows no bounds.

What happened to the guy talking about his thesis

Probably banned.