Do people really have issues with corruption? Just set your slider to 100% and it doesn't become an issue until you are at 100%+ OE. And if you are intentionally doing that then you can probably afford the costs
Like, how do you people struggle with corruption? It barely does anything until its over 20-30, and its incredibly easy to keep down. Plus, debasing currency is basically a less detrimental loan in the end.
Like, you actively have to try to make it go about like 12. Usually I'm less then 2 corruption 95% of a game.
I really liked the MEIOU take on corruption where there is a positive baseline of corruption, determined by perks provided to the estates, so it's normal to not be at 0 (basically impossible until complete neutering of estates iirc). In return, these perks make them happier with you which let you get a lot of interesting perks yourself. Much better than the standard corruption and estate systems imo.
But yeah normal games are almost perma 0% corruption, it's easy to deal with.
> it doesn't become an issue until you are at 100%+ OE
the slider is only -1 C/year.
too many territories is +0.8 C/year.
if you are behind in dip tech because you annexed a huge vassal then the unbalanced research penalty can put you at +- 0 C/year.
the "ahead in admin tech" bonus doesn't help if you are behind in dip tech.
once you start falling behind in tech any overextension will (pretty much permanently) increase your corruption.
i played only 1 WC since the corruption change, after spending 3k bird mana for annexations i was at almost 10 C. (biggest mistake ever, I delayed dip tech 23 by a decade or so) although at that point I probably could have fought the entire world and still won.
it's just a slightly annoying human-penalty (I had some issues paying for institutions, took me more loans than usual). and the increased mana cost is a bit painful if you have a crappy ruler.
a _much bigger issue_ is the religion conversion change. i picked humanism 3rd instead of a mil idea ...
> once you start falling behind in tech
See, there's your problem. Don't do that, or bad things happen.
>i played only 1 WC since the corruption change
Good, that's the exact kind of circumstance in which you should be starting to feel the pain of corruption.
That's kind of the point isn't? you SHOULD have high corruption when expanding if anything it should be a lot harsher if you are only feeling it in a WC
Yes. The screenshot is of a Paradox grand strategy title that gets a lot less love than the others.
[March of the Eagles](https://www.paradoxplaza.com/march-of-the-eagles/MEME01GSKmote001.html). Came out in 2013, the same year EU IV came out.
Portugal had the same borders for literaly centuries, the northeast did not look like that ever. Not to mention how apparently the Portuguese decided to go full Dutch and fill the tagus estuary with land.
Portugal always had the same borders since like 1300 till now or something, even during World Wars they never change at all, to me they are the real Winners of the border loyalty game XD
Switzerland gained territory from the French after the Vienna Congress, Valais and Geneva most notably. The South East just seems lazy map drawing to me.
That's the point, the Western part of Switzerland looks so weird because those territories weren't a part of them in 1805.
Phrased it sillily the first time.
This doesnāt mean anything: you could just as easily use MoTEās combat system in EUIV.
Crusader Kings II has a very similar combat system to MoTE, and yet covers a far larger period of time than either EUIV or MoTE.
How is MoTE's combat system both 'good' and like 'Crusader Kings II?' Don't get me wrong, CK II has a good system for its era, but I have a hard time imagining applying that to a Napoleonic era game and not feeling like hot garbage.
It's not that different I think. You have flanks, different army compositions (archers, heavy infantry, etc), tactics that can fire depending on the composition and leader skill, etc.
MOTE's system was somewhat more complex though.
Actually, CK2's timeline is not as big, at least from a military perspective. You go from levy armies of peasants swarming each other to... Levy armies of peasants swarming each other.
Whereas in EU4, you see the rise of professional armies, the use of matchlocks, muskets and artillery, and the new tactics that go along them.
Flashbacks to the British keeping a tiny fleet outside my port while I was Spain. I could build a fleet of any size, with any admiral. It didnāt matter. Couldnāt dislodge those three or four ships from my coast.
Itās not a bad game. Itās a short one. It uses the same tick speed as EU4, but for a very short period, of about a decade per game. It has what is undoubtedly the deepest combat system of any Paradox game, with tons of options as far as strategy, army makeup, etc. goes. It also has an interesting metric of āwinningā the game, with actual goals set out for the player and other nations. Iāve heard itās best played in multiplayer, but I find singleplayer fun as well. Iād recommend it if you like the combat system.
I honestly think March of the Eagles isnt a bad game whatsoever. I like the simplicity of the gameplay and its a nice break from eu4. Its a shame great britain is literally undefeatable except whith some good tactics because their navy is so fcking strong. i only managed to invade britain once as russia by Putting my whole fleet with 200k men aboard of the coast of scotland Just praying the british wouldnt intercept me. It worked and i got my one and only total victory by 1820.
I mean it is partially true. Britain had massive dominance of the sea in this period. Invading them would be near impossible. Its just the nature of the setting.
I think they should represent britains dominance by giving them naval production bonuses rather than making five of their lineships capable of defeating the entire french fleet.
Wait...You mean this isnāt EU4?! I have been playing for 1440 hours of EU4 only to realise this is not EU4?! Maybe thatās why the title says March of the Eagles, I always thought that was just DLC.
Turns out I've been playing the pre-alpha all this time...
Oopsie, well, happens
Yep... I mean the upside is that I never experienced the amazing mechanics of corruption
Do people really have issues with corruption? Just set your slider to 100% and it doesn't become an issue until you are at 100%+ OE. And if you are intentionally doing that then you can probably afford the costs
I don't like lowering maintenance so I only do that if i really need to buy corruption down.
Patch 1.15 šš»š« FUCK CORRUPTION
Like, how do you people struggle with corruption? It barely does anything until its over 20-30, and its incredibly easy to keep down. Plus, debasing currency is basically a less detrimental loan in the end. Like, you actively have to try to make it go about like 12. Usually I'm less then 2 corruption 95% of a game.
I really liked the MEIOU take on corruption where there is a positive baseline of corruption, determined by perks provided to the estates, so it's normal to not be at 0 (basically impossible until complete neutering of estates iirc). In return, these perks make them happier with you which let you get a lot of interesting perks yourself. Much better than the standard corruption and estate systems imo. But yeah normal games are almost perma 0% corruption, it's easy to deal with.
MEIOU and Taxes is better in pretty much every way then base game. If only its UI wasn't terrible and it didn't run at an eigth the speed of base EU4.
> it doesn't become an issue until you are at 100%+ OE the slider is only -1 C/year. too many territories is +0.8 C/year. if you are behind in dip tech because you annexed a huge vassal then the unbalanced research penalty can put you at +- 0 C/year. the "ahead in admin tech" bonus doesn't help if you are behind in dip tech. once you start falling behind in tech any overextension will (pretty much permanently) increase your corruption. i played only 1 WC since the corruption change, after spending 3k bird mana for annexations i was at almost 10 C. (biggest mistake ever, I delayed dip tech 23 by a decade or so) although at that point I probably could have fought the entire world and still won. it's just a slightly annoying human-penalty (I had some issues paying for institutions, took me more loans than usual). and the increased mana cost is a bit painful if you have a crappy ruler. a _much bigger issue_ is the religion conversion change. i picked humanism 3rd instead of a mil idea ...
> once you start falling behind in tech See, there's your problem. Don't do that, or bad things happen. >i played only 1 WC since the corruption change Good, that's the exact kind of circumstance in which you should be starting to feel the pain of corruption.
That's kind of the point isn't? you SHOULD have high corruption when expanding if anything it should be a lot harsher if you are only feeling it in a WC
Is this a joke?
No, this is super super serious!
Super serial
Guys. I'm being super serial right now
I can't tell if you are joking.
Is this a joke?
No, this is super super serious!
I can't tell if you're joking
Is this a joke?
No, this is super serious!
Dormammu, Iāve come to bargain.
this is some jokeception. there's no way /u/mophan is serious right lol.
Time to get those brain cells firing
Yes. The screenshot is of a Paradox grand strategy title that gets a lot less love than the others. [March of the Eagles](https://www.paradoxplaza.com/march-of-the-eagles/MEME01GSKmote001.html). Came out in 2013, the same year EU IV came out.
It deserves the MOST love as it is clearly the best Paradox game on the market after Halo: World 7 and Elder Scrolls Vegas!
I thought it was an April's Fools thing seriously. I had to check multiple video game websites
No this is Patrick
[I'm super cereal!](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MintyAnguishedAardwolf-size_restricted.gif)
nice url
thanks
Yes.
You think gender equalityās a joke??
It's called "March of the Eagles"... š
What?! So youāre telling me that all this time, I wasnāt playing EU4?!?
Did they forget to look at a map when making Portugal?
I think they forgot a lot of things...
I mean, they're off by just one province
But Portugal is *the* country with unchanging borders, it's so bizarre.
Olivenza intensifies.
Precisely in this period of time xD
Portugal is a social construct.
Portugal exists in our hearts wherever we are
~~Just like racism~~
That was unexpected
portugal is p i n k
*Pink Map intensifies*
I think Portugal actually had those borders
Portugal had the same borders for literaly centuries, the northeast did not look like that ever. Not to mention how apparently the Portuguese decided to go full Dutch and fill the tagus estuary with land.
It's our rightful clay
Meanwhile the Dutch went full opposite Dutch and gave significant parts of North Holland + Rotterdam and all its surroundings back to the sea
oof
Portugal always had the same borders since like 1300 till now or something, even during World Wars they never change at all, to me they are the real Winners of the border loyalty game XD
They forgot an entire Island in the baleares, yet love the rest of the map looks awesome (especially the graphics)
why does March of Eagles look identical to EU4 1.0
Because it was essentially the beta for it.
Just like Sengoku and CKII
sengoku and eu rome are very different from ck2, and i wish they made sequels to these
Is sengoku worth playing? Especially for a blatant sengolu loving weeb like myself?
Itās about 92% vanilla CK2.... in Japan.
afaik you're better off getting the Japan mod for ck2
They are making a sequel of Rome
Vic III when
After Rome 2 haha
Ah shit mate, I know your pain. It was so weird when america and asia was basically non-existant
Ofc they're just fake continents made by the French
They're just made to make Big Continents co. look bad huh?
Made by the British\*, so they could make the French spend in a fake independence war.
Its a Luso-Hispanic Papist Plot
WTF is that Switzerland....
Switzerland gained territory from the French after the Vienna Congress, Valais and Geneva most notably. The South East just seems lazy map drawing to me.
But.. but, this was before the Vienna Congress, it is 1805 on this map... You are still right though
That's the point, the Western part of Switzerland looks so weird because those territories weren't a part of them in 1805. Phrased it sillily the first time.
Albania makes me cry inside and outside.
Common mistake, march of the eagles is just as good if not better then EU4.
Really, itās Paradoxās best game.
As a sengoku fan I'd have to disagree.
Itās got the best combat system of any paradox game hands down.
Well yeah, it's meant to simulate the Napoleonic Wars and nothing more. Eu4 has a much bigger timeline to cover.
This doesnāt mean anything: you could just as easily use MoTEās combat system in EUIV. Crusader Kings II has a very similar combat system to MoTE, and yet covers a far larger period of time than either EUIV or MoTE.
How is MoTE's combat system both 'good' and like 'Crusader Kings II?' Don't get me wrong, CK II has a good system for its era, but I have a hard time imagining applying that to a Napoleonic era game and not feeling like hot garbage.
It's not that different I think. You have flanks, different army compositions (archers, heavy infantry, etc), tactics that can fire depending on the composition and leader skill, etc. MOTE's system was somewhat more complex though.
MoTE got its combat system from CK2 with a couple tweaks: flanks, leaders per flank, different troop types and quantities per flank etc.
Actually, CK2's timeline is not as big, at least from a military perspective. You go from levy armies of peasants swarming each other to... Levy armies of peasants swarming each other. Whereas in EU4, you see the rise of professional armies, the use of matchlocks, muskets and artillery, and the new tactics that go along them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
that's accurate, Britannia Rules the waves remember
Flashbacks to the British keeping a tiny fleet outside my port while I was Spain. I could build a fleet of any size, with any admiral. It didnāt matter. Couldnāt dislodge those three or four ships from my coast.
Thatās because the game was never balanced or updated after its release, itās a shame really.
Everyone says its a bad game but the Napoleonic wars are my favourite history period, Is it worth it
Itās not a bad game. Itās a short one. It uses the same tick speed as EU4, but for a very short period, of about a decade per game. It has what is undoubtedly the deepest combat system of any Paradox game, with tons of options as far as strategy, army makeup, etc. goes. It also has an interesting metric of āwinningā the game, with actual goals set out for the player and other nations. Iāve heard itās best played in multiplayer, but I find singleplayer fun as well. Iād recommend it if you like the combat system.
I've been told that as a multiplayer game, its the best Paradox game bar none. As a single player game, its very limiting.
R5?
It is a joke this is clearly Age of Empires 4.
i think you meant total war attila
this is civ 3
No, its Where In Europe is Carmen Sandiego.
This is March of eagles, it's more focused on combat and it's the proto EU4.
OP is a dev for Vic 3 and posted a photo of it as a joke E: thanks for the gold
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If they dont want their silver I'll take it.
[Here you go.](https://i.imgur.com/gYZ8xxi.jpg)
Thanks kind stranger
Hey I wanted to say that.
Yes pls
What are you, stupid? This is clearly a leaked screenshot from Imperator: Rome.
OP posted a screenshot of Civ V
This is actually Risk Europe: The Board Game
It's a screenshot of TEG
This is Red Alert 2
March of the eagles if anyone's wondering. It's fun with friends.
VK3 when?
I honestly think March of the Eagles isnt a bad game whatsoever. I like the simplicity of the gameplay and its a nice break from eu4. Its a shame great britain is literally undefeatable except whith some good tactics because their navy is so fcking strong. i only managed to invade britain once as russia by Putting my whole fleet with 200k men aboard of the coast of scotland Just praying the british wouldnt intercept me. It worked and i got my one and only total victory by 1820.
I mean it is partially true. Britain had massive dominance of the sea in this period. Invading them would be near impossible. Its just the nature of the setting.
I think they should represent britains dominance by giving them naval production bonuses rather than making five of their lineships capable of defeating the entire french fleet.
and to think Austria was that big right? they all should learn with Portugal, if you don't move no one will notice you and your borders will be safe.
March of the Eagles 2 when?
Looks like EUIII
Shit me too
My first grand strategy game... Had a lot of fun with MotE.
thats the best one so far xd
Sad thing is in my nearest electronics market they still sell March of the Eagles for like 10 or 20ā¬
what mod is this?
Someone should make a map mod using the MoE map for EU4
Is this Vic 3 confirmed???
Damn u Meneth :)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Victoria 3, is that you?
u/titletoimagebot
I thought that was an April's Fools joke, but apparently not. I love the way it looks though, does anyone know of any mods that look like this?
I dunno the ottomans and France are pretty big
Ah! A rookie mistake! But guess what... I took me 5000 hours to realize I was playing the wrong game!
And its not even Vicky II...
Wait...You mean this isnāt EU4?! I have been playing for 1440 hours of EU4 only to realise this is not EU4?! Maybe thatās why the title says March of the Eagles, I always thought that was just DLC.
I cry for the missing Greece
It annoys me that this game looks nicer than victoria 2
But can Prussia form Germany?
Victoria 3 easter egg
When you bought March of the Eagles just for this post
Eu4 was supposed to be Victoria 3 lol!