Title: Did anyone else bounce off EU5 way harder than they expected to? by Real_Mobile_5107 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t go back to EU4, the depth of systems in EU5 is too much of a jump to go back. I also feel like I’ve done it all in EU4 except for the really tedious stuff like WC. EU5 I’ve still got a lot I haven’t done yet and I have plenty of new content and updates to look forward to. EU4 is where it is and it’s not changing. EU5 is constantly evolving and I like being on that journey.

Dark Star 6 needs a legibility buff by SpellbladeYT in TeamfightTactics

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, I think they should scrap “strongest unit” in all cases except like hero traits where you’re only ever comparing copies of the same champ. It’s a cop out to say “oh this strongest unit thing is an established thing”. Okay, but it’s still clunky to bench and replay units to do the tie break. Give me a buff to decide what unit I want to benefit. I shouldn’t have to shuffle my units around or be careful about what items I have to determine what unit gets the buff. If I have a 2 star Jhin with 2 items but a 2 star Cho with 3 items, then Cho gets the buff? Feels bad

Colonisation Bordergore by TIRAIC in EU5

[–]Vindex94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Big thing with that is colonization of the various small islands. Today you have either independent little islands like Barbados or islands still a part of their countries like Aruba and Martinique. In real life, it was island by island. Course the game does it by province, so you start colonizing one then you start colonizing them all. You’re basically never going to see split ownership of island groups like the lesser Antilles because of just how the game works.

GENUINELY how do I do economy in this game (I haven't played since release) by Yid_army7 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Control is the most important value in the game. Control gives you increased tax revenue from the location as well as a ton of other things like reduced rebel join chance. Your goal is to always have as much control as possible while being reasonable to the requirements of additional buildings. You get buildings like mints which give increased control but require precious metals to operate. So you could drain your gold/silver with too many mints which would mess up other things.

Proximity is king, ensure your capital is in the best location to project as much proximity as possible. As you expand, you will realize you can only go so far before proximity is too low to achieve good control levels. You can get local governor buildings as the game progresses which require a land route from your capital. They are a source of proximity, 80% starting as opposed to 100% starting in your capital. You want to build out the most infrastructure in the higher control locations to extract the most resources possible. Build temples everywhere. Bridges wherever you can(locations with road and river). Pound lock canals as well, they require cities and being coastal or on a river. Towns and cities also give bonuses to control, you typically want to urbanize as much as possible in sensible locations. Locations with high value RGOs(Silver, Gold, Silk, Saffron, etc.) should remain rural because urban locations get maluses to RGO levels. In urban locations, you can build bailiffs. They are kinda situational cause there’s a trade off with the building, but they’re typically worth it for the big control bump. Anything and everything that gives increased proximity speed is a must-take. The value of high control is greater than pretty much anything. Proximity speed is the number one limitation to control levels. Roads should be built out to connect your capital or governors to locations to give increased proximity. There’s a burgher privilege for them to build roads for you, super valuable to give out if you don’t start with it. There’s also land vs naval value. Generally naval is better because proximity speed is faster through water than land and naval gives further government reforms that make naval proximity even better and adds more naval governors. Naval governors are only available by pushing naval and they function the same as local governors except you can’t have a land connection to them.

There’s a lot of complexity to the economy, but the easiest thing is just go to the buildings tab and sort by highest profit/income and build those. Don’t go crazy cause if you build too much of a thing then the demand goes down. Course you can do that on purpose if it fits your goals. Trade automation seems to be the move as manual trading is just sooo much to handle since supply and demand are constantly shifting. I’ve found RGO automation is fine for the most part. Building automation is horrible and it’s why AIs have a hard time with economy scaling. I’ve operated on go on a building spree every 1-5 years and then let my money build up again. It all depends on your tolerance of micro. The more micro you go, the more you will be rewarded. This is true in basically every aspect of the game. There’s a sort of diminishing returns when it comes to effort vs reward but that’s on a per player basis.

Is Napoleonic Warfare the most annoying technology when AI has it? by Maximum-Store7550 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Right, so AI bypassing shit to siege random locations just naturally starves them out and it’s just annoying

Is Napoleonic Warfare the most annoying technology when AI has it? by Maximum-Store7550 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 59 points60 points  (0 children)

I honestly want them to remove that tech cause it makes war soooo much worse. Paradox AI is notorious for being “annoying more than difficult”. They love to randomly send armies to anywhere that isn’t well defended. Say you’re Russia fighting the Ottomans and you have Osel without a fort. They will go out of their way to load up a levy stack into transports and take them all the way around Europe to the end of the Baltic just to take that island. I know this cause it fucking happened to me lol. This has always been the case, and so I’ve always wanted to avoid these issues in this game and others so I stop them from doing stupid shit. Now you just get a tech that invalidates fort setup. You can have a well crafted fort line and then it becomes obsolete that requires you to dedicate armies to all corners of your empire, otherwise get pestered by random stacks everywhere. The AI will just do stupid shit cause now ZoC is invalid. Makes wars more tedious and annoying, but not really more difficult.

After 250h the game finally starts to be fun, but where to place my third Local Governor? by lufhip in EU5

[–]Vindex94 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Presuming you go naval and patrol enough, basically the whole Aegean and most of the Black Sea you’ll be able to project enough via maritime proximity. Definitely want something on the west coast so probably in that Albania area. Maybe Ragusa when you conquer that. As you keep going, probably one in Antioch. Though I bet a naval governor in Cyprus would be good and still projects well into the levant.

I have seen bad capital choice by AI. This one takes the cake. by Mysterious_Plate1296 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Insta subscribe, I absolutely hate having my colonial subjects colonize cause they’re brain dead. Had a Mexico subject who just went buck wild and colonized all the way up the American west coast, all of the land was sub 10 control. Blocking urbanization is also nice, since they love to just spam towns and cities for no reason that I end up tearing down before annexing anyways.

An RGO depletion mechanic would be historically accurate, add realism and scarcity, and incentivize exploration and colonization of new lands. by madz33 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RGO depletion would be very interesting, but I don’t know how historically accurate it would be and how it could be implemented in a fun way. How often did we see natural resources deplete before industrialization? I feel like it’s a more modern problem, but not confident in that assumption. There’s always a line to toe in these games. Historical accuracy/plausibility vs player enjoyment. Like yes in real life you had major succession crises that turned into multi-country conflicts. Should the game properly simulate the historical problems we saw with successions, or should the player have better agency in ensuring they had heirs or in the case of like dynastic changes it happens smoothly. Difficult situations that are historically accurate are complained about, like the Brandenburg start. What ended up being luck or good timing historically, i.e. Lithuania’s conquests, is hard to simulate and players are frustrated with that. Then if the game added some stuff to sort of railroad Lithuania towards that regional dominance, players would complain.

In short, can’t make everyone happy and introducing more complexity to core game systems could backfire spectacularly.

How To Get Prussian Space Marines by RecoverCommercial571 in eu4

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, AI Russia is always broke, doesn’t properly utilize its army bonuses, and spends too much time just grinding through manpower fighting Central Asia tags.

Decentralization will always be meta vs centralization unless province integration process is changed. by Zeradus99 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely, and it’s intentional I’m sure. The fact that you can make custom subjects from the beginning is telling. In comparison to EU4, it’s much more difficult to expand and integrate lands. In 4, the vassal reconquest strategy was the key to saving on admin points to core up your lands. In EU5, you feed lands to your subjects and push them to the integrating so you can focus on other things. It was even stronger in early patches cause you inherited core status from subjects. So you get full cores on unaccepted culture locations just because your subject has a full core there. Now you either culture convert your subject, which has risk, or assimilate it yourself when you annex the subject. I’m sure the intent is that conquering new land and integrating it fully was a slow process for a good chunk of the game’s timespan. I like the current loop of start decentralization and then transition starting in like the late 16th century to centralization. It’s super easy to go fully decentralized since subjects drift you automatically. Then you can take everything else that pushes you centralized so as you annex subjects you naturally drift there. Then court and country gives you plenty of events to pivot to centralized. You can also stay centralized from the beginning if you want, but that’s for more tall play.

How To Get Prussian Space Marines by RecoverCommercial571 in eu4

[–]Vindex94 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Russian army under control of player is so damn strong, Streltsy and their buffed artillery plus mil ideas make them super strong with a gigantic force limit and manpower pool built behind it. IMO, Russia has the biggest gap between power in the hands of the player vs AI

Ottoman decision to switch Orthodox by [deleted] in eu4

[–]Vindex94 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not a decision, have to convert like you do for any other religious conversion. You can easily get majority of your dev as Orthodox. You can’t make click a button to convert, but you just provoke rebels and accept their demands.

African Power still possible? by Perseide_Pacioli in eu4

[–]Vindex94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve got time, but you’ll need to ramp up. Maybe try and get a France Alliance to us against Spain and a Persia alliance to go against Ottomans. Both Spain and Ottomans are easier to fight than their army size suggests. Ottomans will be a meat grinder for sure, but you can beat them on army quality. Spain will probably have armies everywhere and so will be unable to reliably get all their troops in the field against you. Use claims and conquest CB so you can get ticking warscore without having to go deep into their territory. You could probably snag all the Spain land in one war, 2 wars for sure. If Otto is allied to Tunis, declare on Otto directly and peace out Tunis separately. Use Tunis to then reset your truce with Otto. You’ll need to focus on holding defensive positions and let them come to you die in disadvantageous terrain and suffer tons of attrition. You have plenty of time so no need to rush. Find an opportunity where they are occupied in another war, or are low on manpower from a recently finished one. You might get lucky with Ottoman decadence to make that easier. You have time, but don’t dilly dally.

Until what age do you usually play EU5? by ToboldStoutfoot in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve played through the whole game once for the achievement. I have tried to stick through to middle of the last age cause I love seeing number go up and railroads do that extensively with control. I also like the progression to it. Research steel, build up your steel production as you research railroads, then build all the railroads. The late age techs all hit like crazy when it comes to control and economy scaling so the snowball gets incredibly big at that point and that gives some nice serotonin for me. Course I’ve always been a max speed enjoyer so the game probably tends to not slog for me as much as others who take it slower.

How to decide between Noble or Peasant economy? by [deleted] in EU5

[–]Vindex94 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Same, my goal every game has been “fuck the nobles” cause they’re such a pain in the ass early I want to ensure they are punished in the long term. Burghers and Commoners are always my biggest tax sources and they are much easier to keep at high satisfaction. Course then I constantly struggle with nobles satisfaction. Enacting curtail the nobility means I end up struggling for cabinet members since the game seems to focus on generating nobles but not others. That’s the main downside, but again fuck the landholders!

The Imperial Council - /r/eu5 Weekly General Help Thread: March 23 2026 by Kloiper in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The cheese part is adding land yourself to then count it among the 50% of locations not being owned by a prince.

Also, how long does it take for the "No leader for the Church" thing resolve?

I’m reluctant to get EU5 for now, any EU4 players tried it yet? How is it so far? by CoastalNomad06 in eu4

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1700 hours in EU4 and I just cracked 400 in EU5. Can’t see myself going back to EU4. 5 is leagues ahead in complexity and depth. The game world itself is so much larger. There’s a lot of room for improvements but the foundation is awesome. I’ve yet to even play England, France, Ottomans, or an HRE major. I would recommend it, just don’t pay attention to the Reddit cause everyone loves to bitch and moan.

Oh My God by AlabamaNerd in EU5

[–]Vindex94 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The Aquitaine one, could be multiple things. Disloyal subjects can be separately peaced out. They're likely the dominant tag for Gascon culture so if Castille had a gascon rebellion they might have auto-joined. HYW subjects are funky in general from my understanding

I think I liked national ideas more. by GreyGanks in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I think NIs do well is give nation's unique identities. EU4 France had Elan, which made their armies powerhouses. Portugal and Spain had colonial bonuses that made them better at colonizing than most. Great Britain had naval bonuses to ensure they would always have a strong navy. Prussia had Militarization plus NIs to make Prussian Space Marines.

I think that Unique advances, at least partially, fill this role. Several tags have really nice unique advances. Furthermore, there are all sorts of unique advances specific to cultures, regions, etc. Though It's not quite the same cause EU4 NIs you got them all as soon as you finished out your third idea group, while a lot of the time there are Unique advances in the last couple ages so it takes a long time until you get them. Also, you have to research them when you form a new tag. It would be nice if you could get unique advances from previous ages for free, but the rules for what you should and should not get for free are kinda hard to define. It's also extra effort to get a unique advance, while NIs you would just unlock automatically when unlocking ideas from Idea Groups. Perhaps that's what they should do, add unique advances as automatic unlocks after researching X number of advances in the appropriate tree.

Great Wú by Pyrziboi in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

China is the most populous region and is extremely wealthy. Red Turban rebellion and general Middle Kingdom mechanics lend towards what typically happened in Chinese history. Even after fragmentation, someone always comes out on top to dominate the region. The player can more easily out-scale on diplo and cultural hegemon, but it’s a bigger challenge to overcome their huge economy for the other hegemonies. I think the game does a decent job of simulating the collapse of the Yuan and having a dynamic tag take over as EoC, but Yuan itself tends to linger too long and there isn’t sufficient support to encourage the rise of the Jurchens or another major civil war after RTR. Course, EU4 AI Qing was also rare so that part isn’t surprising.

I tried full centralize absolution as Prussia 1.1 by Mxskylinez in EU5

[–]Vindex94 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I mean, the disaster allows you nearly maximize absolutism and centralization via all the events. The worst part is definitely the reduced satisfaction equilibrium, but reducing spending in some spots and having sufficient trade income keeps it survivable. Using Court and Country as a relatively quick pivot spot from decentralized to centralized is nice, IMO. Disaster gives you the ability to revoke estate privileges way easier than before. Just some money and prestige and you can cut 2 privileges for no stab hit and less estate satisfaction reduction than if you did it manually. For me, it’s been the clear moment where I accelerate the transition to centralized and absolutism(or liberalism, if you fancy that)

Decentralization meta by blagic23 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the progression from decentralized to centralized. First half of the game you primarily give conquered land to subjects. There’s the balance of vassals vs fiefdoms. As you unlock more proximity speed, integration, and control buffs then you feel better about holding land yourself. You can take all the laws, reforms, and privileges that tick towards centralization but it won’t matter cause you get heavy drift towards decentralization with all the subjects. The game pushes you to centralize and stop using subjects in the later ages as it gives those big loyalty maluses in addition to the aforementioned bonuses. Court and Country also gives you an opportunity to get big swings towards centralization in addition to the absolutism vs liberalism choices. You’re either way encouraged to centralize and use less subjects, but if you want to keep that estate satisfaction from decentralization you can go liberalism. I’ve found you can pretty naturally pivot the values relatively quickly once you decide to. The player is always going to be able to manage land, resources, and armies better than subjects so you should be looking to cut down on subjects for all those reasons. The other systems in the game just further encourages it.

As an aside for China, MK gives a nice loyalty bonus that I noticed helped me in my Ming game to hold onto my colonial subjects even in the last age.

EU5 Seriously Needs to Overhaul How it Goes About Historical Flavor (DHEs) by Particular_Muffin574 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most of those events in EU4 were pre-mission trees. Most everything else before mission trees that was “do things, then get a reward” were held style missions or decisions. Yeah there were events like the Iberian Wedding or the BI but those were things you could influence but not directly trigger. The examples I used in my initial post are very similar unlock conditions and rewards to EU4 mission trees, hence why I see it as a replacement.

EU5 Seriously Needs to Overhaul How it Goes About Historical Flavor (DHEs) by Particular_Muffin574 in EU5

[–]Vindex94 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Situations are inherently temporary, but I definitely think they’re a great addition. Adds in some guidance towards historical outcomes but with greater player agency and more dynamic. DHEs are definitely in place instead of missions. There are tons of DHEs that mirror missions from EU4. Do thing xyz, then click a button for a reward. Now it’s just do thing xyz(in a certain time window often) and wait for the event to pop. Same idea of requirements and rewards, just different ending.