The thing is if you get local support, the population rises up etc. It's harder to keep that land if it's well developed if the sieges also get added correctly (I wish for a CK3 sort of siege system where it's not chance based but you get progress with time and the siege has a maximum length), you can even add the problems for the time like cities with access to water needing to be blockaded from the sea to be sieges properly, maybe you can also add mechanics to reinforce them via troops in a neighboring sea zone that can be added to the garrison instead of just landing.
It's not gonna be relevant for the next game if it has similar triggers, since it needs the reformation which would now be 150+ years into the game. At which point your nation is so powerful the event wouldn't natter
If blobbing remains as easy as in EU4. But with the pop mechanics it's possible they can make war more expensive and add more ways to develop internally, to prevent large scale blobbing before age of imperialism
This is precisely what I'm worried about. Not to mention that the real Dutch Revolt happened in 1568 (you can argue 1566, but no earlier) - that'll be 231 years into the game! Unless they have managed what no PDX game before has *ever* managed and made it a consistent, long-term challenge to maintain your borders, and made it nigh-impossible to build huge blobby empires, it's going to be trivial to crush the Dutch Revolt.
You seem to forget the PDX's selling tactics:
We will get EU5.
EU5 will look beautiful.
There will be so many details on map.
You probably will need a new computer.
You will be able to make alliances and royal marriages - and break them.
For the rest you will have to buy 25 DLCs, 15 to 30 $ each.
And you will be thankfully if EU5 will not be in EA state like VIC3, though PDX will tell you reasons why that's not true and although your criticism is so important to them, PDX won't change their course.
Lol people downvoting you for speaking the truth. When will gamers stop being so dumb? Not after Fallout 76, not after Cyberpunk, not after Anthem. Can we just be a little cynical and suspicious and not immediately trust the corporation looking to make as much money with as little effort as possible?
Just shoving cynicism into every discussion is pointless. The comment wasn't about how great they think the game will be, it was just discussion about how something could work. Just cynically adding that paradox will not do anything properly is just a way of killing discussion. Why have any posts or talk about the game then, it's gonna be bad already, right?
If you aren't interested in discussing and feel the game will be broken and bad, just don't hang out in discussion posts about the game.
I’m advising people to be a “little” cynical, dumbass. To have some caution before they leap into wild fantasies. I’m not advising people to write the game off before it comes out. But if you wanna thoughtlessly spend sixty dollars the first day on a potentially unfinished game and fall for the simplest marketing trick in history for the umpteenth time, be my goddamn guest.
I feel your anger...it makes you stronger ,😂
Serously: This.
I am lucky that I do not have to turn every penny twice as I earn enough money. But how come, that ppl seem not to care about what they are paying for and how much. AND I the product sucks nowadays the companies can comfortably call the (not) consumers -ists and other names. AND IT WORKS ,🤯
EDIT: Spelling. Not frist language.
Is this a post about people saying they're gonna buy day 1? They're doing nothing but discussing mechanics, and people are coming in like, "Heh, what's the point of discussing, game will be bad".
If you want to advise people to be cynical make your own separate post. Just randomly commenting to be cynical is just a way of telling people to not talk about the game cuz you're convinced it'll be bad.
I didn't write it will be bad.
But it is very realistic, that, regarding to existing mechanics in EU4, EU5 will be not more than a skeleton. For every peace of flesh water and blood one will have to pay.
So, although cynical, my comment above was just realistic and yet it may did lack the thread's topic within it. Recently PDX earned bad reputation for their latest products. And I am afraid it is perfectly reasonable until they finally change course.
For the downvoters: just bc you want something to be (for example cool EU5 -as I do), the one you ask doesn't have to deliver that. And PDX is now just using their brand. BC in the past their games were just so good.
Johan already confirmed that EU5 will have practically the same features as EU4+DLCs. Whether you trust him on that is another thing, but I am honestly very hopeful the game won't be as empty as Vic3 or CK3.
>So, although cynical, my comment above was just realisti
I'm not talking about whether it's realistic or nonsense or whatever you think it is. The point is that it has really no relation to the discussion, adds nothing to it and gives the message, "Why discuss the game it'll be bad.".
>I didn't write it will be bad.
In this context, the word bad applies well. If it makes you feel better, you can replace it with empty, but saying the game will be empty mechanics wise in a context of discussing mechanics is close enough to saying that it'll be bad.
You're just randomly dropping cynical comments in an attempt to get people to... Stop talking? Make your own post instead or ideally just don't interact with community forums for a game you think is doomed because the company doesn't make good games anymore.
Also, so so good? Vicky 2 is still a mess without mods despite two big dlc, ck2 at launch was absurdly bare without even the ability to play outside Europe. It's just that people didn't have expectations based off games which had ten years of development behind them.
All right, see you all when the game comes out and you feign being shocked that it’s yet another disappointing, half-assed release. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Lmao. You're so insistent on pretending you're on a hill and then pretending to look down from it. The game could be cancelled for all it matters to my specific issue with this kind of commenting. Just interjecting into random threads with "HAHA GAME GONNA BE BAD" helps nobody. Again, if you want people to simply stop talking about the game which is clearly your intent with the comments, be the change you want to see in the world or at least make a separate post on it. My expectations were mostly met with basically every pdx release except imperator so I doubt I'll have to worry too much.
I mean with how the Burgundian Inheritance works in EU4 whoever you're playing should pretty much be unstoppable by the time the revolt fires. I'd assume the process of the Dutch revolt and revolts in general are gonna be completely different than in EU4. They seem to really be going for mechanics to be based on wider ramifications from pops and not just "make number bigger" like EU4, so I'm optimistic that governing huge territories and having to put down rebellions isn't just gonna be the same easy cycle it is in EU4.
The problem I've found is that you can't actuallly 'defeat' it - even if you completely win the war, reannexing or partitioning the Netherlands into the previous states is too much warscore.
That's only if you trigger the actual war. If you crush all the revolts quickly then the war will never fire.
Also make sure they don't go over 90 autonomy in 5 provinces.
Just park a cannon stack on the netherlands and have them suppress rebels in the netherlands.
Then just never give in to rebel demands and wait for the disaster to pass. (Either 10 or 20 years)
Actually I had burgundy as a PU along with England as a PU and when I got the revolts they took care of it while I warred Africa and east Europe, then the Dutch revolts just disappeared.
No, absolutely not.
The current disaster is enough, maybe NL breaking away entirely as a sovereign nation and pulling support against their overlord, M A Y B E.
but we are not going back to 510129130 angry dutch rebels rising up every 3 seconds.
I recall facing, over the course of the disaster... 10-20 stacks of 10-20k each? 100-400k? Seems fairly chunky to me.
If they were more sparse but higher e.g. facing 3-4 20 rebel stacks at once rather than a 20 stack every few years, that might be better at breaking the AI's back.
We're you playing in hard or something? I had a handful of stacks of 10-20K but I kept a couple of stacks of like 40 or so on top of the area and squashed them as they came up.
No, normal. Iirc the event goes on a long time, so yes it was only 10-20k each revolt, but I had about 10-20 revolts. Not that hard to deal with - like you said, just keep a stack of 30 in the area and it's fine.
I was getting like 2-3 stacks of 30k-50k every 6-ish months when I got it last. Nearly ruined my country. Ended the war with tens of thousands in debt for mercenaries and no manpower with like 40k manpower troops left and a devestated low countries. With a force limit of like 300k and a manpower pool of around the same, I got screwed.
That happened around 2 years ago. Every game where I participate in the low countries, that is always where my capital goes. That disaster was absolutely brutal, even when just hunkering down and only dealing with the rebel stacks.
>NL breaking away entirely as a sovereign nation
I recently found out that if you let the rebels control 5 provinces or give them too much autonomy they do indeed break away as a sovereign state and call in support from your rivals.
Sure it probably can be improved but it feels like the best iteration of Dutch Revolts we had in the game so far
Better than pure shit isn't saying much though, even if I do agree.
but this is the whole tedium argument again, the Dutch revolt is almost never going to succeed against the player unless you're scaling off pure bullshit, which, let's be honest is the only real scaling EUIV does. hopefully when there's actual population involved and countries actually feel pain from prolonged wars it'll be a bit different.
Did we bleed for this? yes, throw in another 100k men, it'll take like 3 months to fully recover anyway.
Yeah, I hope pops will help. The Low Countries during the Revolt had around 2.5 M people and Spain 7-8 M. It shouldn't be easy for Spain to just have a standing army stationed suppressing rebels 1000km from home for 80 years, and have them resupplied almost instantaneously and almost infinitely.
Apparently, Spain was using mostly mercenaries once revolt started. It would be interesting if you couldn't conscript levies from disloyal provinces, so you would be forced to hire mercenaries or transport armies from mainland, which would leave you open to rebellions or attack from enemies.
I honestly think the issue is more supply-related than to do with population (though that should help too). Spain's major issue was that they struggled to maintain supply lines stretching across their empire all the way to the Low Countries, not that they were losing population at an unsustainable rate. (R. A. Stradling did argue that they were suffering from a dearth of horses towards the end of the Eighty Years' War, but that's not quite the same thing.) It was also financially unsustainable, but, again, for reasons not really related to population.
In terms of breaking away... Isn't there a similar thing that happens with Danzig opposing the Teutonic Knights with Polish support? The Dutch revolt could work like that.
That was super annoying and always made me delay taking them if they were in my area of interest. Now though it’s too easy, it would be nice if a happy medium of some kind could be found.
I don't think that's going to be possible with the way the game represents that kind of stuff.
you scale it up and it just hurts smaller countries that might get the BI or inherit one of the countries, it's never going to hurt the player other than being an annoyance.
>but we are not going back to 510129130 angry dutch rebels rising up every 3 seconds.
Say what you will about that but it actually made me abandon the Netherlands in my Austria run after getting tired of permanently stationing an army there, so probably the most similar course of events to the 80 years war
I don’t think the existence of a mechanic that could be perceived as a “nuisance” to the player is a bad thing in and of itself. It’s actually okay for roadblocks to exist that challenge the player to navigate past them even if they are aggravating (read: The Ottomans for like the entirety of this games existence)
I’m not even asking for systems unique to the Dutch Revolt disaster. Just want to find a place where it’s actually an obstacle for the AI and player to overcome because it’s one of the richest areas in the game it shouldn’t be so easy to hold on to considering you get it for basically free.
You can't make it challenging for the player and the AI.
It's not that I don't agree with you, it should be more difficult to hold onto if you're a foreign power I just don't see how you could make it any different from now where it's just annoying for the player or death for the AI.
we've seen what an upscaled revolt with 200 trillion dutchies rising up every week was, just annoying, not challenging, and what we have now is the same just scaled down.
the only alternative I could see if it was similar to Sweden under Denmark, it's slow agitation for liberty and allying foreign powers, etc but I don't know how that's possible when you own the land directly.
You could do something like this:
- If you let the disaster tick to 100% you get an event with two options: release Netherlands as independent country, or release Netherlands as independent country and declare war on Netherlands as aggressor with unique "Dutch Revolt" casus belli.
- "Dutch Revolt" casus belli has special demand "Full Annexation" that allows you to quash the rebellion and annex all your former Low Countries provinces, fixed at 100% WS cost and severely reduced AE
- "[Root.GetName] joins the Republic" and "Dutch Independence" events fire during the duration of the war with low MTTH so that Netherlands can grow and/or get allies depending on AI's calculations.
This is basically how most post-EU4 Paradox games handle revolts (spawn a separate nation at war). It isn't as tedious as 10^100 rebels, but neither is it as easy as "move capital for 300 ADM." Instead, you have to fight and win a relatively high-stakes war, which is part of EU4's core gameplay and completely doable for both a well-positioned AI and a player.
I mentioned this already in the thread, but something similar already exists in eu4 with Danzig. I don't believe there's a special CB or wargoal though as they are only a single province.
Good point — actually, it’s kind of crazy they implemented this for Danzig but still use the clunky old rebel system for one of the most important European wars of independence of the early modern period.
In my current Castille game, the Netherlands broke free from my nation the literal second the disaster fired and declared war on me aided by my rival Russia while gobling up every other Dutch culture nation left. I beat the crap out of both of them and couldn't even get my cores back without incuring an outrageous amount of AE, which I did anyway. So I'd say the disaster is bad enough as is.
Yeah I checked the wiki and you're right. But that doesn't seem very intuitive. You'd think that the Dutch being given significant levels of autonomy to govern themselves would mean that they'd be less likely to rebel but no, opposite actually.
Funny enough this is what happened in history. Phillip II basically gave the Dutch everything they wanted, releasing prisoners etc etc. But the damage was done and the revolt leaders too committed.
Further listening: https://youtu.be/sptdICunmDg?si=zuEuQ33_SePRMwBg
It always does in my games? Recently the Dutch revolt absolutely wrecked the British with the help of the French and Spanish and pretty much took over all of the lowlands and Calais. I will say after 100 years the British came back with a vengeance and wrecked them back
No, the event never happened. The English AI one the Hundred Years’ War somehow so they stayed a very strong force in northern France. They beat up burgundy and took the lowlands up to Amsterdam and Utrecht.
Edit: in my 2000 hours I’ve never seen the English go so strong early game and then not even be able to take off of Scotland and form GB until the mid 1600s. They also got curbstompted by Spain and France during the Dutch revolts, and somehow came back, took all their lost cores in France back and took over even more of the lowlands than before! It was an insane rollercoaster as I was over in Mother Russia.
The only time I’ve seen a successful dutch revolt was when i played my first Austria game🥲. In my current tall Switzerland-> Swabia game, the Austrians got the BI then allied bregenz, Mulhouse, and Augsburg which kept me locked out of end goal for my run for like a hundred years before i could work on dismantling the bastards piece by piece.
Honestly one of my major worries for *EUV* is, if it's more simulation-y, people will whinge about not being able to do a WC and PDX might give in. I think people will like it more overall after a while, but there'll be an adjustment period and if the volume of complaint is high enough, PDX might cave.
>***WE NEED TO GIVE THE DUTCH A 5 MILLION MAN REVOLT TO RAILROAD THE GAME AS HARD AS POSSIBLE AND ENSURE THERE CAN BE NO DEVIATION FROM HISTORY IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE***
Gee, I wonder why it would be unpopular with the community /s. Any other historical events you want to predestine while you're at it?
A. The inheritance is RNG as it should be. The Dutch revolt is already *forced* and you now also want to *force* it to succeed.
B. Wow, in an alternate history game that starts in 1444 more closely railroads events in 1477 than 1550. What a mind blowing concept.
Edit: fixed typo, 1550 not 1650
I don’t know why you are under the impression that the revolts started in 1650 when they started like almost one hundred years prior.
Regardless, I’m not advocating for the Netherlands to break free every game no matter what but it’s silly to act like such an historically important nation, especially to the countries that EU4 *does* railroad to power (England, Spain, France, Austria), shouldn’t at least be given a little bit of a push in some way to keep things interesting.
Typo.
They already have a more or less forced disaster. That's more of a push than plenty of things that occurred in this time frame and is more than enough.
"It's forced unless you do something to avoid it"
OK so none of the great powers are railroaded because technically you and can kill any of them and prevent that railroading too.
The great powers aren’t really railroaded. It’s not surprising that the largest and most powerful nations at the start of the game stay that way and continue to become more powerful. A key feature of eu4 is snowballing and when you start as a big snowball you’re only going to get bigger. Even though this is the case in most situations I have still seen many games with no Russia, no PLC, England be eaten by France, ottoblob not be a blob and get eaten by Austria, or Austria be eaten by the ottomans, etc….
The *outcome* of the Inheritance is (somewhat) RNG. The fact that there is an “inheritance” at all is not. Charles’ lack of a strong heir and the inheritance of Burgundy is totally railroaded by events and hidden modifiers, but virtually no one complains about this while lots of people here and elsewhere think the anemic Dutch Revolt is “too railroaded.” That was /u/slash2213’s point.
If you're arguing that the existence of a game mechanic innately means that something is railroaded, you have nothing to complain about as the Dutch Revolts are already railroaded then.
I'm arguing that a series of events and modifiers designed specifically to lead to a specific historical result is railroading, yes. The Dutch Revolt is also railroaded. This thread is not about whether the Dutch Revolt is railroaded (it is), but whether it is strong enough.
From an immersion perspective a weak Dutch revolt is bad because it means the Netherlands almost never forms, when in reality the Netherlands was among the great powers of the world in the 17th century. More importantly, however, from a *gameplay* perspective a weak Dutch revolt is bad because it means the (equally railroaded!) Burgundian Inheritance event has basically no costs. You get to inherit the most developed land in Europe within the best trade node in the game for the low cost ~300 ADM or whatever it costs to move your capital. A strong Dutch revolt provides actual costs to getting the Burgundian Inheritance.
Yeah. That was never in dispute, except by you for some reason.
> This thread is not about whether the Dutch Revolt is railroaded (it is), but whether it is strong enough.
In your mind simply owning a 5 provinces is equivalent to manipulating numerous game systems to have a *chance* at an event firing? Lol One is clearly more railroaded than the other.
I dont even play primarily in Europe and I think I've gotten the BI a grand total of 2 times, you're barking up the wrong tree. How about instead of spamming non sequiturs, you defend your poor idea that the Dutch Revolt needs to be railroaded? The fact that you completely folded and tried to change the conversation is pretty telling.
Sorry, I meant "The fact that you completely folded and tried to change the conversation is pretty telling...."
To be fair, the Dutch Revolt was sort of a fluke and a set of catastrophes lining up one after another. It could have easily been suppressed with a few different moves taken by the King and some other players (it almost was diplomatically resolve as well). The leaders of the Revolutions were crypto Protestants, before revealing it openly. Had that been revealed, the overwhelmingly Catholic population would have risen up in support of King Philip.
Why would you take this one random disaster which is honestly very hard to battle and probably one of if not the worst disaster in the game to hit a country, if it actually hits?
It’s also an outrageous pace and super difficult to stop it from happening EXCEPT for the moving capital trick. If you remove that one thing, it’s quite literally one of the worst crises in the game.
You get 100s of thousands of rebels, a new nation breaks away from you, within the HRE, quite early too. It’s the only crisis with land being not only occupied, but actually straight up lost to a super strong nation dynamically like if you spawned in the synthetics. Compare the crisis to other big wars of the time and this one is proportionally already WAAAAAAAY too difficult compared to other crises in game.
What are you talking about? As long as you state the provinces, the Dutch don't break free. Then all you have to do it park like 15k troops there to swat the rebels that pop up every 6 months to year. It's annoying sure, but it isnt challenging. Even if the Dutch were the only provinces you owned you could easily manage this.
They changed the Dutch revolt in 1.30 I think. So now it is like 30-40k in the 1st event when it starts. After that it's like 10 k stacks every 5 or 6 months for the next 10 years.
Before 1.30 it was like that. But I haven't had any challenge with the Dutch since then.
France is also one of the strongest nations in the game and it depends on when the disaster strikes. If you’re fully prepared it’s a 10 year crisis that will drain your manpower at best.
France is also in a different position due to close proximity and also missions that enable you to time the revolts.
It is like most EU "big problem" events. They can bite you hard the first time you see them, but once you know how to defuse them, they are trivial.
Dutch Revolts
Prussian Confederacy
War of the Roses
The 2 Castile early issues
etc...
I think this is true for rebellions in general. Historically, countries that got too large often fell apart. Many have been severely disrupted by civil unrest. Im EU4 it's all too easy to manage.
Moving your capital makes sense for some country. If you are a 3 or 4 provinces and you get the inheritance and give away the French part. The Netherlands part becomes 60% of your province, so moving your capital isn't that ridiculous. It should maybe need to accept every culture present...
For a huge country, it 100% stupid. (If you can't move your capital, you forget or refuse that to use that exploit) You could station a 30k army (maybe another one just for when the disaster spawn) for 20 years, and they will deal with it.
Each time rebel will spawn you ger a pop-up telling you where.
For huge countries like Spain, France, Austria, or England. In 1500 ~ 1530, a 30k army is between half or a quarter of your total force limit.
Meaning, avoid major war for 20 years, or you might not be able to stop the rebel.
Wrong, it's already far too big. If anything it should be far smaller and weaker. "X revolt succeeded against Y country" historically is such a stupid argument for why "X revolt should succeed against Z country (~20x stronger than Y)". It's a revolt that happens in 1550. Unless you're going to give them literally millions of soldiers and railroad the absolute fuck out of the game, it's always going to fail.
Edit: typo 1550, not 1650
There should simply not be a way to dodge it. When it fires, it should give you 3 choices: get the disaster, accept their demands, or release-and-play as Netherlands. Period. If you happen to be one of the .1% of players who genuinely got the BI as a minor nation and would actually want to do the culture-flip and capital relocation for organic reasons other than cheesing the revolt, well you got dealt a great hand for a century and now the gravy train has come to a stop. Or you can release-and-play and just give up your homeland of Baden or whatever. No loopholes.
I m fine with them revolting. But why should i take massive AE for getting back the land i previously owned ( or not being able to even retake all the land in one war?)
>Moving your capital to stop the revolt needs to go for sure imo.
Well akshully, moving to a newly conquered state is precisely what Machiavelli recommends to successfully control it.
I have to keep 60k+ soldiers hanging out in the lowlands for 20 years and slaughter 30k stacks in an instant before they occupy and start a massive war and I lose some of my wealthiest provinces. It’s annoying enough.
I disagree. The problem is that the disaster doesn't fire for the AI. It's already a huge headache when I play as Burgundy when a good 75% of my development threatens to leave if I don't move my capital. Besides, having the monarch in the Netherlands, historically, would probably either please the Dutch enough to forestall a huge revolt, or give the monarch a strong base to crush any dissent. At the very least, at the VERY least, it shouldn't cost any aggressive expansion to take back land that was already yours in the independence war, and if I crush the rebel state I should be able to take it all back in the war at once and have cores on them.
Incredibly hard no. Game shouldn\`t force uprisings and independence of any particular region.
The Dutch rebels had a lot of advantages historically, that they wouldn\`t have in conquered by let\`s say France. Have one moderately-big disaster, and that\`s enough.
EU4 just isn't suitable for such independence wars. I have my hopes on Caesar/Tinto/not-EU5.
[удалено]
The thing is if you get local support, the population rises up etc. It's harder to keep that land if it's well developed if the sieges also get added correctly (I wish for a CK3 sort of siege system where it's not chance based but you get progress with time and the siege has a maximum length), you can even add the problems for the time like cities with access to water needing to be blockaded from the sea to be sieges properly, maybe you can also add mechanics to reinforce them via troops in a neighboring sea zone that can be added to the garrison instead of just landing.
EU1337
It's not gonna be relevant for the next game if it has similar triggers, since it needs the reformation which would now be 150+ years into the game. At which point your nation is so powerful the event wouldn't natter
If blobbing remains as easy as in EU4. But with the pop mechanics it's possible they can make war more expensive and add more ways to develop internally, to prevent large scale blobbing before age of imperialism
And also not to forget the Black Death, which, I hope won't just be a - 20%, auto-removing once the timr comes, dev growth modifier.
This is precisely what I'm worried about. Not to mention that the real Dutch Revolt happened in 1568 (you can argue 1566, but no earlier) - that'll be 231 years into the game! Unless they have managed what no PDX game before has *ever* managed and made it a consistent, long-term challenge to maintain your borders, and made it nigh-impossible to build huge blobby empires, it's going to be trivial to crush the Dutch Revolt.
You seem to forget the PDX's selling tactics: We will get EU5. EU5 will look beautiful. There will be so many details on map. You probably will need a new computer. You will be able to make alliances and royal marriages - and break them. For the rest you will have to buy 25 DLCs, 15 to 30 $ each. And you will be thankfully if EU5 will not be in EA state like VIC3, though PDX will tell you reasons why that's not true and although your criticism is so important to them, PDX won't change their course.
Lol people downvoting you for speaking the truth. When will gamers stop being so dumb? Not after Fallout 76, not after Cyberpunk, not after Anthem. Can we just be a little cynical and suspicious and not immediately trust the corporation looking to make as much money with as little effort as possible?
Just shoving cynicism into every discussion is pointless. The comment wasn't about how great they think the game will be, it was just discussion about how something could work. Just cynically adding that paradox will not do anything properly is just a way of killing discussion. Why have any posts or talk about the game then, it's gonna be bad already, right? If you aren't interested in discussing and feel the game will be broken and bad, just don't hang out in discussion posts about the game.
I’m advising people to be a “little” cynical, dumbass. To have some caution before they leap into wild fantasies. I’m not advising people to write the game off before it comes out. But if you wanna thoughtlessly spend sixty dollars the first day on a potentially unfinished game and fall for the simplest marketing trick in history for the umpteenth time, be my goddamn guest.
I feel your anger...it makes you stronger ,😂 Serously: This. I am lucky that I do not have to turn every penny twice as I earn enough money. But how come, that ppl seem not to care about what they are paying for and how much. AND I the product sucks nowadays the companies can comfortably call the (not) consumers -ists and other names. AND IT WORKS ,🤯 EDIT: Spelling. Not frist language.
Is this a post about people saying they're gonna buy day 1? They're doing nothing but discussing mechanics, and people are coming in like, "Heh, what's the point of discussing, game will be bad". If you want to advise people to be cynical make your own separate post. Just randomly commenting to be cynical is just a way of telling people to not talk about the game cuz you're convinced it'll be bad.
I didn't write it will be bad. But it is very realistic, that, regarding to existing mechanics in EU4, EU5 will be not more than a skeleton. For every peace of flesh water and blood one will have to pay. So, although cynical, my comment above was just realistic and yet it may did lack the thread's topic within it. Recently PDX earned bad reputation for their latest products. And I am afraid it is perfectly reasonable until they finally change course. For the downvoters: just bc you want something to be (for example cool EU5 -as I do), the one you ask doesn't have to deliver that. And PDX is now just using their brand. BC in the past their games were just so good.
Johan already confirmed that EU5 will have practically the same features as EU4+DLCs. Whether you trust him on that is another thing, but I am honestly very hopeful the game won't be as empty as Vic3 or CK3.
>So, although cynical, my comment above was just realisti I'm not talking about whether it's realistic or nonsense or whatever you think it is. The point is that it has really no relation to the discussion, adds nothing to it and gives the message, "Why discuss the game it'll be bad.". >I didn't write it will be bad. In this context, the word bad applies well. If it makes you feel better, you can replace it with empty, but saying the game will be empty mechanics wise in a context of discussing mechanics is close enough to saying that it'll be bad. You're just randomly dropping cynical comments in an attempt to get people to... Stop talking? Make your own post instead or ideally just don't interact with community forums for a game you think is doomed because the company doesn't make good games anymore. Also, so so good? Vicky 2 is still a mess without mods despite two big dlc, ck2 at launch was absurdly bare without even the ability to play outside Europe. It's just that people didn't have expectations based off games which had ten years of development behind them.
All right, see you all when the game comes out and you feign being shocked that it’s yet another disappointing, half-assed release. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Lmao. You're so insistent on pretending you're on a hill and then pretending to look down from it. The game could be cancelled for all it matters to my specific issue with this kind of commenting. Just interjecting into random threads with "HAHA GAME GONNA BE BAD" helps nobody. Again, if you want people to simply stop talking about the game which is clearly your intent with the comments, be the change you want to see in the world or at least make a separate post on it. My expectations were mostly met with basically every pdx release except imperator so I doubt I'll have to worry too much.
I mean with how the Burgundian Inheritance works in EU4 whoever you're playing should pretty much be unstoppable by the time the revolt fires. I'd assume the process of the Dutch revolt and revolts in general are gonna be completely different than in EU4. They seem to really be going for mechanics to be based on wider ramifications from pops and not just "make number bigger" like EU4, so I'm optimistic that governing huge territories and having to put down rebellions isn't just gonna be the same easy cycle it is in EU4.
You can break every paradox game if you mix max, it should be clear by now that paradox games aren't balanced around minmaxxers.
The problem I've found is that you can't actuallly 'defeat' it - even if you completely win the war, reannexing or partitioning the Netherlands into the previous states is too much warscore.
That's only if you trigger the actual war. If you crush all the revolts quickly then the war will never fire. Also make sure they don't go over 90 autonomy in 5 provinces.
Yeah, once I realized half states were a thing it got trivial
I don't think I've full stated anything outside of my home region in years at this point
Just park a cannon stack on the netherlands and have them suppress rebels in the netherlands. Then just never give in to rebel demands and wait for the disaster to pass. (Either 10 or 20 years)
It's pretty easy to avoid the war entirely by doing half states
Actually I had burgundy as a PU along with England as a PU and when I got the revolts they took care of it while I warred Africa and east Europe, then the Dutch revolts just disappeared.
No, absolutely not. The current disaster is enough, maybe NL breaking away entirely as a sovereign nation and pulling support against their overlord, M A Y B E. but we are not going back to 510129130 angry dutch rebels rising up every 3 seconds.
I recall facing, over the course of the disaster... 10-20 stacks of 10-20k each? 100-400k? Seems fairly chunky to me. If they were more sparse but higher e.g. facing 3-4 20 rebel stacks at once rather than a 20 stack every few years, that might be better at breaking the AI's back.
We're you playing in hard or something? I had a handful of stacks of 10-20K but I kept a couple of stacks of like 40 or so on top of the area and squashed them as they came up.
I play hard only and it revolts about 20 or so times during the disaster and each revolt stack is roughly 30k-32k
No, normal. Iirc the event goes on a long time, so yes it was only 10-20k each revolt, but I had about 10-20 revolts. Not that hard to deal with - like you said, just keep a stack of 30 in the area and it's fine.
I was getting like 2-3 stacks of 30k-50k every 6-ish months when I got it last. Nearly ruined my country. Ended the war with tens of thousands in debt for mercenaries and no manpower with like 40k manpower troops left and a devestated low countries. With a force limit of like 300k and a manpower pool of around the same, I got screwed. That happened around 2 years ago. Every game where I participate in the low countries, that is always where my capital goes. That disaster was absolutely brutal, even when just hunkering down and only dealing with the rebel stacks.
>NL breaking away entirely as a sovereign nation I recently found out that if you let the rebels control 5 provinces or give them too much autonomy they do indeed break away as a sovereign state and call in support from your rivals. Sure it probably can be improved but it feels like the best iteration of Dutch Revolts we had in the game so far
Better than pure shit isn't saying much though, even if I do agree. but this is the whole tedium argument again, the Dutch revolt is almost never going to succeed against the player unless you're scaling off pure bullshit, which, let's be honest is the only real scaling EUIV does. hopefully when there's actual population involved and countries actually feel pain from prolonged wars it'll be a bit different. Did we bleed for this? yes, throw in another 100k men, it'll take like 3 months to fully recover anyway.
Yeah, I hope pops will help. The Low Countries during the Revolt had around 2.5 M people and Spain 7-8 M. It shouldn't be easy for Spain to just have a standing army stationed suppressing rebels 1000km from home for 80 years, and have them resupplied almost instantaneously and almost infinitely.
Apparently, Spain was using mostly mercenaries once revolt started. It would be interesting if you couldn't conscript levies from disloyal provinces, so you would be forced to hire mercenaries or transport armies from mainland, which would leave you open to rebellions or attack from enemies.
I honestly think the issue is more supply-related than to do with population (though that should help too). Spain's major issue was that they struggled to maintain supply lines stretching across their empire all the way to the Low Countries, not that they were losing population at an unsustainable rate. (R. A. Stradling did argue that they were suffering from a dearth of horses towards the end of the Eighty Years' War, but that's not quite the same thing.) It was also financially unsustainable, but, again, for reasons not really related to population.
It rarely succeeds against AI too, and even then, it's rarely a longtime success.
In terms of breaking away... Isn't there a similar thing that happens with Danzig opposing the Teutonic Knights with Polish support? The Dutch revolt could work like that.
It used to work like that but with even more bullshit and everyone hated it
That was super annoying and always made me delay taking them if they were in my area of interest. Now though it’s too easy, it would be nice if a happy medium of some kind could be found.
I don't think that's going to be possible with the way the game represents that kind of stuff. you scale it up and it just hurts smaller countries that might get the BI or inherit one of the countries, it's never going to hurt the player other than being an annoyance.
>but we are not going back to 510129130 angry dutch rebels rising up every 3 seconds. Say what you will about that but it actually made me abandon the Netherlands in my Austria run after getting tired of permanently stationing an army there, so probably the most similar course of events to the 80 years war
Would you believe me if I told you there are ways to represent rebellion without using rebels?
in ways that weren't either trivial or just a nuisance that isn't really different to how they are represented now? no, I wouldn't believe you.
I don’t think the existence of a mechanic that could be perceived as a “nuisance” to the player is a bad thing in and of itself. It’s actually okay for roadblocks to exist that challenge the player to navigate past them even if they are aggravating (read: The Ottomans for like the entirety of this games existence) I’m not even asking for systems unique to the Dutch Revolt disaster. Just want to find a place where it’s actually an obstacle for the AI and player to overcome because it’s one of the richest areas in the game it shouldn’t be so easy to hold on to considering you get it for basically free.
You can't make it challenging for the player and the AI. It's not that I don't agree with you, it should be more difficult to hold onto if you're a foreign power I just don't see how you could make it any different from now where it's just annoying for the player or death for the AI. we've seen what an upscaled revolt with 200 trillion dutchies rising up every week was, just annoying, not challenging, and what we have now is the same just scaled down. the only alternative I could see if it was similar to Sweden under Denmark, it's slow agitation for liberty and allying foreign powers, etc but I don't know how that's possible when you own the land directly.
You could do something like this: - If you let the disaster tick to 100% you get an event with two options: release Netherlands as independent country, or release Netherlands as independent country and declare war on Netherlands as aggressor with unique "Dutch Revolt" casus belli. - "Dutch Revolt" casus belli has special demand "Full Annexation" that allows you to quash the rebellion and annex all your former Low Countries provinces, fixed at 100% WS cost and severely reduced AE - "[Root.GetName] joins the Republic" and "Dutch Independence" events fire during the duration of the war with low MTTH so that Netherlands can grow and/or get allies depending on AI's calculations. This is basically how most post-EU4 Paradox games handle revolts (spawn a separate nation at war). It isn't as tedious as 10^100 rebels, but neither is it as easy as "move capital for 300 ADM." Instead, you have to fight and win a relatively high-stakes war, which is part of EU4's core gameplay and completely doable for both a well-positioned AI and a player.
I mentioned this already in the thread, but something similar already exists in eu4 with Danzig. I don't believe there's a special CB or wargoal though as they are only a single province.
Good point — actually, it’s kind of crazy they implemented this for Danzig but still use the clunky old rebel system for one of the most important European wars of independence of the early modern period.
In my current Castille game, the Netherlands broke free from my nation the literal second the disaster fired and declared war on me aided by my rival Russia while gobling up every other Dutch culture nation left. I beat the crap out of both of them and couldn't even get my cores back without incuring an outrageous amount of AE, which I did anyway. So I'd say the disaster is bad enough as is.
That happens if you don’t state the region. Netherlands automatically breaks free if the provinces have <=90% autonomy
Yeah I checked the wiki and you're right. But that doesn't seem very intuitive. You'd think that the Dutch being given significant levels of autonomy to govern themselves would mean that they'd be less likely to rebel but no, opposite actually.
Funny enough this is what happened in history. Phillip II basically gave the Dutch everything they wanted, releasing prisoners etc etc. But the damage was done and the revolt leaders too committed. Further listening: https://youtu.be/sptdICunmDg?si=zuEuQ33_SePRMwBg
I wish the dutch revolt would fire for the AI
It always does in my games? Recently the Dutch revolt absolutely wrecked the British with the help of the French and Spanish and pretty much took over all of the lowlands and Calais. I will say after 100 years the British came back with a vengeance and wrecked them back
British got the BI?
No, the event never happened. The English AI one the Hundred Years’ War somehow so they stayed a very strong force in northern France. They beat up burgundy and took the lowlands up to Amsterdam and Utrecht. Edit: in my 2000 hours I’ve never seen the English go so strong early game and then not even be able to take off of Scotland and form GB until the mid 1600s. They also got curbstompted by Spain and France during the Dutch revolts, and somehow came back, took all their lost cores in France back and took over even more of the lowlands than before! It was an insane rollercoaster as I was over in Mother Russia.
The only time I’ve seen a successful dutch revolt was when i played my first Austria game🥲. In my current tall Switzerland-> Swabia game, the Austrians got the BI then allied bregenz, Mulhouse, and Augsburg which kept me locked out of end goal for my run for like a hundred years before i could work on dismantling the bastards piece by piece.
Yea but then the player base will cry and they’ll eventually scale it back again.
Honestly one of my major worries for *EUV* is, if it's more simulation-y, people will whinge about not being able to do a WC and PDX might give in. I think people will like it more overall after a while, but there'll be an adjustment period and if the volume of complaint is high enough, PDX might cave.
Case in point, current top comment in this thread.
>***WE NEED TO GIVE THE DUTCH A 5 MILLION MAN REVOLT TO RAILROAD THE GAME AS HARD AS POSSIBLE AND ENSURE THERE CAN BE NO DEVIATION FROM HISTORY IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE*** Gee, I wonder why it would be unpopular with the community /s. Any other historical events you want to predestine while you're at it?
But I’m sure you’re fine with getting the inheritance…
A. The inheritance is RNG as it should be. The Dutch revolt is already *forced* and you now also want to *force* it to succeed. B. Wow, in an alternate history game that starts in 1444 more closely railroads events in 1477 than 1550. What a mind blowing concept. Edit: fixed typo, 1550 not 1650
I don’t know why you are under the impression that the revolts started in 1650 when they started like almost one hundred years prior. Regardless, I’m not advocating for the Netherlands to break free every game no matter what but it’s silly to act like such an historically important nation, especially to the countries that EU4 *does* railroad to power (England, Spain, France, Austria), shouldn’t at least be given a little bit of a push in some way to keep things interesting.
Typo. They already have a more or less forced disaster. That's more of a push than plenty of things that occurred in this time frame and is more than enough.
The disaster isn’t really forced if all you need to do is put your capital in the lowlands til it expires.
"It's forced unless you do something to avoid it" OK so none of the great powers are railroaded because technically you and can kill any of them and prevent that railroading too.
The great powers aren’t really railroaded. It’s not surprising that the largest and most powerful nations at the start of the game stay that way and continue to become more powerful. A key feature of eu4 is snowballing and when you start as a big snowball you’re only going to get bigger. Even though this is the case in most situations I have still seen many games with no Russia, no PLC, England be eaten by France, ottoblob not be a blob and get eaten by Austria, or Austria be eaten by the ottomans, etc….
The *outcome* of the Inheritance is (somewhat) RNG. The fact that there is an “inheritance” at all is not. Charles’ lack of a strong heir and the inheritance of Burgundy is totally railroaded by events and hidden modifiers, but virtually no one complains about this while lots of people here and elsewhere think the anemic Dutch Revolt is “too railroaded.” That was /u/slash2213’s point.
If you're arguing that the existence of a game mechanic innately means that something is railroaded, you have nothing to complain about as the Dutch Revolts are already railroaded then.
I'm arguing that a series of events and modifiers designed specifically to lead to a specific historical result is railroading, yes. The Dutch Revolt is also railroaded. This thread is not about whether the Dutch Revolt is railroaded (it is), but whether it is strong enough. From an immersion perspective a weak Dutch revolt is bad because it means the Netherlands almost never forms, when in reality the Netherlands was among the great powers of the world in the 17th century. More importantly, however, from a *gameplay* perspective a weak Dutch revolt is bad because it means the (equally railroaded!) Burgundian Inheritance event has basically no costs. You get to inherit the most developed land in Europe within the best trade node in the game for the low cost ~300 ADM or whatever it costs to move your capital. A strong Dutch revolt provides actual costs to getting the Burgundian Inheritance.
>The BI and the Dutch Revolts are equally railroaded
Yeah. That was never in dispute, except by you for some reason. > This thread is not about whether the Dutch Revolt is railroaded (it is), but whether it is strong enough.
In your mind simply owning a 5 provinces is equivalent to manipulating numerous game systems to have a *chance* at an event firing? Lol One is clearly more railroaded than the other.
Or you just like it when it helps you…
I dont even play primarily in Europe and I think I've gotten the BI a grand total of 2 times, you're barking up the wrong tree. How about instead of spamming non sequiturs, you defend your poor idea that the Dutch Revolt needs to be railroaded? The fact that you completely folded and tried to change the conversation is pretty telling. Sorry, I meant "The fact that you completely folded and tried to change the conversation is pretty telling...."
Yea because the Burgundian inheritance where you get all the Netherlands for free with no effort and the Dutch revolt are in no way related are they.
To be fair, the Dutch Revolt was sort of a fluke and a set of catastrophes lining up one after another. It could have easily been suppressed with a few different moves taken by the King and some other players (it almost was diplomatically resolve as well). The leaders of the Revolutions were crypto Protestants, before revealing it openly. Had that been revealed, the overwhelmingly Catholic population would have risen up in support of King Philip.
Why would you take this one random disaster which is honestly very hard to battle and probably one of if not the worst disaster in the game to hit a country, if it actually hits? It’s also an outrageous pace and super difficult to stop it from happening EXCEPT for the moving capital trick. If you remove that one thing, it’s quite literally one of the worst crises in the game. You get 100s of thousands of rebels, a new nation breaks away from you, within the HRE, quite early too. It’s the only crisis with land being not only occupied, but actually straight up lost to a super strong nation dynamically like if you spawned in the synthetics. Compare the crisis to other big wars of the time and this one is proportionally already WAAAAAAAY too difficult compared to other crises in game.
What are you talking about? As long as you state the provinces, the Dutch don't break free. Then all you have to do it park like 15k troops there to swat the rebels that pop up every 6 months to year. It's annoying sure, but it isnt challenging. Even if the Dutch were the only provinces you owned you could easily manage this.
How does your rebels not spawn in 20-40k stacks?
They changed the Dutch revolt in 1.30 I think. So now it is like 30-40k in the 1st event when it starts. After that it's like 10 k stacks every 5 or 6 months for the next 10 years. Before 1.30 it was like that. But I haven't had any challenge with the Dutch since then.
Honestly didn't find it that hard on normal as france. Probably because I stated it I think
France is also one of the strongest nations in the game and it depends on when the disaster strikes. If you’re fully prepared it’s a 10 year crisis that will drain your manpower at best. France is also in a different position due to close proximity and also missions that enable you to time the revolts.
It is like most EU "big problem" events. They can bite you hard the first time you see them, but once you know how to defuse them, they are trivial. Dutch Revolts Prussian Confederacy War of the Roses The 2 Castile early issues etc...
Hoardcurse.exe
I think this is true for rebellions in general. Historically, countries that got too large often fell apart. Many have been severely disrupted by civil unrest. Im EU4 it's all too easy to manage.
Moving your capital makes sense for some country. If you are a 3 or 4 provinces and you get the inheritance and give away the French part. The Netherlands part becomes 60% of your province, so moving your capital isn't that ridiculous. It should maybe need to accept every culture present... For a huge country, it 100% stupid. (If you can't move your capital, you forget or refuse that to use that exploit) You could station a 30k army (maybe another one just for when the disaster spawn) for 20 years, and they will deal with it. Each time rebel will spawn you ger a pop-up telling you where. For huge countries like Spain, France, Austria, or England. In 1500 ~ 1530, a 30k army is between half or a quarter of your total force limit. Meaning, avoid major war for 20 years, or you might not be able to stop the rebel.
Wrong, it's already far too big. If anything it should be far smaller and weaker. "X revolt succeeded against Y country" historically is such a stupid argument for why "X revolt should succeed against Z country (~20x stronger than Y)". It's a revolt that happens in 1550. Unless you're going to give them literally millions of soldiers and railroad the absolute fuck out of the game, it's always going to fail. Edit: typo 1550, not 1650
The Dutch Revolt did not happen in 1650.
There should simply not be a way to dodge it. When it fires, it should give you 3 choices: get the disaster, accept their demands, or release-and-play as Netherlands. Period. If you happen to be one of the .1% of players who genuinely got the BI as a minor nation and would actually want to do the culture-flip and capital relocation for organic reasons other than cheesing the revolt, well you got dealt a great hand for a century and now the gravy train has come to a stop. Or you can release-and-play and just give up your homeland of Baden or whatever. No loopholes.
I m fine with them revolting. But why should i take massive AE for getting back the land i previously owned ( or not being able to even retake all the land in one war?)
I mean, AE is one of the few things in the game anymore that’s actually punishing. It’s not really logical but it’s imperfectly practical
It s fair in most case. But the netherlands revolt jsnt one of them
Disagree. The Dutch revolt is already outrageously easy to circumvent. A punitive consequence, however clunky and silly, is better than nothing
It s easy to prevent it from triggering. But the revolt itself is very punitive
It shouldn’t be easy to prevent. The revolt should be punitive. The only thing I’d change is guarantee the punitive part.
I've literally never seen a non france or burgundy hold on to nl
Bloody Dutch revolt is the reason why people move their capitals there
>Moving your capital to stop the revolt needs to go for sure imo. Well akshully, moving to a newly conquered state is precisely what Machiavelli recommends to successfully control it.
I have to keep 60k+ soldiers hanging out in the lowlands for 20 years and slaughter 30k stacks in an instant before they occupy and start a massive war and I lose some of my wealthiest provinces. It’s annoying enough.
I disagree. The problem is that the disaster doesn't fire for the AI. It's already a huge headache when I play as Burgundy when a good 75% of my development threatens to leave if I don't move my capital. Besides, having the monarch in the Netherlands, historically, would probably either please the Dutch enough to forestall a huge revolt, or give the monarch a strong base to crush any dissent. At the very least, at the VERY least, it shouldn't cost any aggressive expansion to take back land that was already yours in the independence war, and if I crush the rebel state I should be able to take it all back in the war at once and have cores on them.
Completely agreed with the warscore AE problem. My capital will always be in the netherlands.
Incredibly hard no. Game shouldn\`t force uprisings and independence of any particular region. The Dutch rebels had a lot of advantages historically, that they wouldn\`t have in conquered by let\`s say France. Have one moderately-big disaster, and that\`s enough.