Europa Universalis IV

Has anyone played a successful game as Georgia in this?

I'm finding it nigh on impossible as you are surrounded by Arab countries who all ally one another and it's just a net of alliances stifling the region.

I made some early gains and chewed up the couple of tiny other Orthodox states nearby and even took a couple of arab states through some opportunistic war mongering. Was doing well but Armenia appeared, we had a strong little alliance but they got too confident picked a fight they couldn't win and I got dragged in losing some of early gains. It was frustrating as I had the basis of a strong beginning to grow a lot but thanks to Armenia it was tossed away :(

I'm allied with a strong Muscovy so I'm largely free of worry of anyone attacking me but with being a small country Muscovy is my only ally and with the web of alliances I can make zero progress. Spent around 75 years now just sat watching time tick as I'm stifled and even with Muscovy I can't fight 3/4/5 strong Arab countries.

Any tips as despite a good little nation I'm tempted to pack in as it's probably just 300 years of time tick with the odd assist chucked in for Muscovy now. :(
 
Haven't tried Georgia yet but what you are experiencing is a common issue with small countries. Have you tried Byzantium :D
Some countries aren't really geographically suited to expansion - you would probably be better off developing tall, and building up a strong defense that way. But maybe you could venture into exploration and begin colonising.

My current save is an independent Sweden. Going good, without expanding too much on my home borders.
 
The irritating thing is the region is ripe for expansion with a lot of small/weak states but it's just huge webs of alliances and picking them apart is impossible or 50-100 year waits to get 1 or 2 territories :p
 
Well Georgia game eventually came together thanks to some patience.

The previously locked down region just went complete bat **** mental and I just played the opportunistic game. Was about 150 years of constant war between the Arab states and I just picked off the losers throughout :D

About 100 hundred years left and own a pretty big empire as far south as (almost) touching the Persian gulf, stretching east round the southern Caspian sea to where modern day Turkmenistan is, in the north I've got a little bit of southern Russia and the Crimea and the west into where Trebizond is at the start of the game.

Got a huge Russia to the north (my ally) Transoxnia to the east (we hate each other) and the Ottomans to the west and south (also hate each other) but nearing game end now no one can really afford a big war. I've about 45 territories from the 3 I started with and a 78k standing army over my teeny 6k which was all I could afford at the start.

May steal a few more Arab twerritoes by the end before it ends but that's pretty hard now as I have a war warning off the Ottomans and they are protector the faith :( they won't just start a fight with me though as they tried that once and got blobbed by myself, Russia, Bohemia (who are massive) Poland, Lithuania and the Papal States (who have had a mega game and control most of southern France) was hilarious and they lost 20 territories in the whipping they got :D

Well happy with it all though as never tried a small nation before (it is ironman as well so no dodgy reloads)
 
Sounds like you've done really well with that game. I haven't actually tried a tiny nation on that side of the map yet, and that's with almost 2000 hours on the clock. I quite fancy a great horde next, and seeing how it plays and where I end up. Each faith offers something completely different in this game, which is why I like it. It adds so much to the longetivity.
 
I did a game as switzerland and almost conquered the whole rheinland trade node with ironman mode in my first game :D

thought I did pretty good :D, was slow taking territory though to scared to get a coalition against me.

don't think I can be bothered to start the game again as a new country, feels kinda the same as ck2 for the most part and I played that game to death already
 
Unless you're mad keen on getting achievements and/or blobbing insanely, campaigns do get bogged down and tiresome. It's been a hugely enjoyable 2000 hours plus of game play, but I think I might have finally had enough now and there's other things I'd rather be doing.

I'd heartily recommend it to anyone who likes strategy games though, 9.5 out of 10.
 
Started a game as Naples. Really quickly got free of PU with Aragon thanks to Spain/Austria and England and just snowballed.

it 1607 and already and already formed Italy, I have my whole land fully built up, a standing army of 70k, a good foothold in North Africa and insane amounts of money. I have an income of 32 ducats a month even with a maxed out army and I have nothing to build, I have a gold stockpile of 4.6k it's insane :p

Ended up allied with France and Spain and I'm just chewing up around the southern empire.

Tldr - Naples are absurd! :p
 
Finished my Italy game with all of Italy and (almost) all of northern Africa. With a standing army of 400k I still had an income of 142g a month :p

Two quick questions;

- anyone played England with the expansion? Does it add much?
- has anyone ever "defeated" or severely beaten back Ottomans? Every game I play the one consistent element is a mega sized Ottomans
 
No1newts said:
Finished my Italy game with all of Italy and (almost) all of northern Africa. With a standing army of 400k I still had an income of 142g a month :p

Two quick questions;

- anyone played England with the expansion? Does it add much?
- has anyone ever "defeated" or severely beaten back Ottomans? Every game I play the one consistent element is a mega sized Ottomans
Click to expand...

Yes I've got the expansion and it's definitely a worthy investment. It adds more depth to religious events. You can become Anglican, and adapt the new church system, which is a big part of it. It also adds the industrial revolution although I'm not sure how much of that you get in the free patch. It adds more flavour and a lot more events regardless. It also adds a lot of depth to Ireland.

I've smashed the Otto to oblivion in previous games, as Byzantium of all nations, which was quite amusing. Historically the Ottomans were mighty, and whilst never fairing that well in field battles against the Europeans they maintained a sprawling empire in the East. I think it's quite accurate. Coalitions are your friend ;)
 
philstanbridge said:
Yes I've got the expansion and it's definitely a worthy investment. It adds more depth to religious events. You can become Anglican, and adapt the new church system, which is a big part of it. It also adds the industrial revolution although I'm not sure how much of that you get in the free patch. It adds more flavour and a lot more events regardless. It also adds a lot of depth to Ireland.

I've smashed the Otto to oblivion in previous games, as Byzantium of all nations, which was quite amusing. Historically the Ottomans were mighty, and whilst never fairing that well in field battles against the Europeans they maintained a sprawling empire in the East. I think it's quite accurate. Coalitions are your friend ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers.

I'll pick it all up. Got a Brandenburg game on the go at the mo and doing well but after that I'll take someone to fight ottoman.
 
With the Ottos make sure you get good alliances, and work on them. They are lethal to begin with due to their ideas and pure strength on the field. But by about 1600 they start to flag and if you have a strong alliance group then you should be able to maintain status quo until you can jump them.
 
arknor said:
I did a game as switzerland and almost conquered the whole rheinland trade node with ironman mode in my first game :D

thought I did pretty good :D, was slow taking territory though to scared to get a coalition against me.

don't think I can be bothered to start the game again as a new country, feels kinda the same as ck2 for the most part and I played that game to death already
Click to expand...

Actually mechanics are changing depending the countries.

Try play with Aztecs, fighting one side to expand but trying not to trigger Doom.
Or play as N American natives, and then having the Europeans knocking your doors.

Both Ming & Japan make for interesting games.
 
Whats everyone's thoughts on CK2 in comparison to EUIV?

I have around 40hrs in EUIV and I still have absolutly no idea what i'm doing, tempted to give CK2 a go as I like the time period and the idea of having one character as opposed to a nation - other than that are the mechanics of the game etc all the same?
 
Andr3w said:
Whats everyone's thoughts on CK2 in comparison to EUIV?

I have around 40hrs in EUIV and I still have absolutly no idea what i'm doing, tempted to give CK2 a go as I like the time period and the idea of having one character as opposed to a nation - other than that are the mechanics of the game etc all the same?
Click to expand...

In short, not really.

CK2 is very much about dynasty management, using family members to gain alliances and titles. Your family line is the most important thing of all. In EU4, you play as a nation and you are always that nation unless you form a new one or tag switch. In CK2, you can start as the King of Scotland but over time lose all of your holdings in Scotland and just end up as a lowly count in southern France or something. Conquest doesn't happen at anywhere near the same rate as EU4 - although you can fabricate claims, it doesn't work in the same way and it is not reliable. Actually getting claims in general depends a lot on who you marry, and your lineage, which makes it a fun challenge. You also have a bunch of different things to manage within your realm, such as laws, the council, various events and so on, but you skip on a lot of things such as tech (it's basically standardised for everyone) and your armies work differently - you use levies rather than standing armies (although you can effectively have those in the form of retinues with the appropriate DLC). It also has a lot of RPG elements, as mentioned above, with a lot of fun events and each DLC certainly adds quite a bit of flavour, although that doesn't necessarily mean all of the mechanics in them are good, IMO. If you have the game, I would definitely say it is worth a try, but it is very different to EU4 in a lot of ways.
 
I've been playing CK2 for the last few weeks and just can't find the depth in it. I spend most of my time waiting to fabricate claims.

I've been looking at getting this instead for my strategy fix.
 
McGray said:
I've been playing CK2 for the last few weeks and just can't find the depth in it. I spend most of my time waiting to fabricate claims.

I've been looking at getting this instead for my strategy fix.
Click to expand...

Fabricating claims really shouldn't be your primary method for expansion in CK2 - you should be looking to push claims for your family, arrange marriages that will result in inheriting titles and to some extent inviting people with claims to your court so that you can press those, too (making sure, of course, that they would remain within your realm afterwards).

If quick conquest is what you are after, though, EU4 is definitely more suited to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom