I'm mid age of discovery as Byz and finding myself with too much money.

What is an effective way to spend it? I mean in literally what buttons do you click to build without having to go location by location choosing what to build?

Macro builder seems to not like building more than 1 level per location

Getting back into the game with 1.3…. Loving it so far but seeing some weird shit with graphics optimization.

Booted the game back up on a very recently built PC (9070XT, 9850x3D) and my frame rate was dog shit. Tinkered around with the settings, found that dropping res from 4k to 2k was a big deal.

Anyways, played my Milan game for another 150 years or so and thought I’d tinker around again. Maxed out basically all my graphics settings besides texture quality and the game is completely smooth. So, my question is: is there some kind of buffering period where everything is getting up to speed?

Game is somewhat consistently laggy once I boot up. Curious if there is an explanation.

I had an alliance with Spain. Without being informed, the alliance broke. Even though the acceptance modifier for reestablishing that alliance was positive (+15), the option in the diplomacy menu was greyed out. I did some poking around and it turned out that the Isle of Mann somehow not only had a personal union with Spain, but it is also the SENIOR member of this personal union.

Bro, what? How is that even possible? How does Mann have integration level 3? Absolutely baffling. Never seen this in the game until now.

Playing a Spain colonization game. Central America rebels every 5 seconds and its killing my playthrough.

Hi all,

One of the Ottoman DHE requires you to have appointed a "shaykh al-islam" but i can't for the Life of me find how to do It.

Do you Need the law of the same name under the "Right of clergy"?

Does anyone know what are the conditions to trigger these events?

I've looked into the muslim events files and i could find nothing .

Thanks

Byzantine Empire military > Ottoman military with max Vrangian units and cataphracts?

As soon as he grew up he became the Earl of Chester. I'm not sure why this happened but I can't do a royal marriage, have him in my cabinet etc because of this? Quite annoying. Does anyone know why or if I can get hm back?

Also why do they spam it without cooldown...

Edit: And apparently it stacks because I just declined and now have -200 opinion from them...

Is there a reason why Estate Construction is limited to only 25 in the queue?

It used to be in the earliest release version that money untaxed due to low control was just lost. Now it appears the estates get it, but if they can’t spend it (due to the building limit cap), it still feels lost anyhow. Is the cap kept low because of technical reasons? Balance reasons?

hey gamers, naturally my capital is in Pavia on this patch. I am a greedy map painter; this precludes me from considering coalitions in my expansion, and I often end up fighting 30 german coalitions over the course of the game, so sometimes, my enemy has little to offer me even if I win, so the natural response is to save time and suffer a humiliating defeat in name only.

The banks love this so much, that they are willing to cute rates by ~-+1.5%, even when rates are at historic lows of 2.5 after capital economy and a few italian bank vassals.

The debt on 300k which is enough to build 100-600 buildings which would have maintenance costs of 40-150, less than that of the debt raised. You can see how building 200 more maintenance in buildings increases my tax base by far more than the debt... 3k/yr in ducats in interest for 300k ducats! Seems to be pay 3k yearly for 500+k monthly. I only think this strategy is good early game (when yields are insane), around new rushed technology, and with yields under 3%.

i have used this method to outscale my previous economy each time in a row; I let the debt rot with the various banks at 1-2% and pay it back ~18 years later. I also mint up to 5% when my credit is shot.

Horses seem to be far superior for cost efficiency and victory in combat.

I'm doing a playthrough as Castille and I wanted to do a heavy catholic run so I've been spamming to get as many cardinals as possible. I had 7 and now during the Schism all my cardinals disappeared.

Is this a bug? The schism is still ongoing.

Tried using these months ago and didn’t work. Do they work now if I create one for North Africa as Spain?

I've achieved the ends listed for the absolutist path: Do 20 years need to pass, or is the game bugging out? It's been about seven months in game since I achieved the end requirements.

My dumb brain fails to comprehend it. Do I just build shit to make alot of shit?

On one hand, France gets routinely beat by the Brits in the first one or two phases of the Hundred Years war. So you can first get concessions from the French, gain independence and grow a bit.

However at some point, the Brits will just stop sending over troops to the mainland whilst declaring the next phase of the Hundred Years war. France often gets support from the Spanish, so as an independent nation allied to England you get steamrolled by 60k+ Spaniards and their French allies whilst the 45k+ British troops sit in Dover watching you get slaughtered and your locations getting sieged down.

Am currently playing as Normandy in 1403 having conquered the whole of Bretagne and Normandy, as well as provinces down to Paris and further but right now I really have to think about cutting off the useless Brits and somehow dealing with the revanchist French wanting their land back.

Today this morning I watched Ludi's video on the 1.3 survey and watched him go off on 5 min bitching fest about multiplayer balance, he had the entirely wrong idea (we are saying the same thing ludi, more on that in a bit) and I do not outright think i am the person he was calling out (I hope it was because this gives me a chance to spell it out for you) I do not know how many people are saying the game being balance for multiplayer is ruining the single player game there are but I know I'm more vocal than some.

Anyway I want to address at least what I'm saying and maybe if you see this ludi, you can see this and realize we are asking for the same exact thing.

When I see one of the pain points saying "multiplayer balancing" what I hope Paradox is saying is balancing the game around multiplayer (where they nerf a mechanic to being unusable) is an issue because it is.

Now please listen VERY CAREFULLY!

We want paradox to balance the game around SINGLE PLAYER so yes id like it so that you don't need cavalry armies up until age IV and they fix infantry etc.

We want the exact same thing, instead ludi you go on and get triggered because you have the wrong idea about at least what I am saying, it's when they nerf mechanics to the point of said mechanic becoming not usable that they're using multiplayer games (which the dev's themselves HAVE ADMITTED, please see my other post where I source all of that information) for testing.

Also I play multiplayer so trying to get that ridiculous jab in about how it's a "skill issue" stop trying to shift the conversation away from what we are trying to talk about, you don't know what else I do like play multiplayer as well, who gives a flying fruit cup if you are a better or worse player, NOT THE POINT.

We want the same thing and it was so sad to see you go on and on crying like you did, maybe if I'm that one guy on the forms, talk to me instead, I am actually really reasonable. I care about this game as much as you do and I too want to see this game succeed. So let me reiterate for everyone what I mean..

MULTIPLAYER BALANCINGS= nerfing mechanics to the point they are unuseable, and that's because they test features meant for single player in a multiplayer setting.

All the examples you gave for what "multiplayer players want" based on single player balancing, I want too because it would be based on single player testing, WE WANT THE SAME THINGS my guy.

So ludi you clearly didn't understand what I was saying, maybe other people are saying otherwise and the telephone game is rearing it's head so it gets skewed, if that's the case then I hope this clarifies, I am not trying to be an A hole here, it just annoys me when I see YouTubers get butthurt because they don't realize we are on the same page.

I don't think I am the "guy" he was talking about but this is my response to his video regardless, and again would love to chat one on one if you actually want to fix EU5.

Cheers.

I am having a blast playing as Andorra. I always loved loans in PDX Grand strategies, and I am so happy they explored this further in this update. I am just printing other countries' money at this point. Everytime some poor heathen pays one back, I hit them (and two more heathens) with another one.

I am playing the "[1.3] Vanilla+ Historical Immersion & Essential QoL" collection that includes Prosper & Perish. It is by no means easy, but it is one of my most favourite campaigns yet. Just wanted to share it with you guys

They formed like some time. I think 1617 since I know it was early 1600s Russia formed and they have been in this union since then since then but idk.

Also

England almost won the 100 years war they were one territory away from whatever happens when you get the required amount for Victory but they invaded me and failed then later invaded and failed against Utrecht who now owns all that land next to London and has added it to the HRE. Which of all the times England has invaded me as Friesland in past games makes me feel very happy.

The only reason fertility deity is in D is because of the massive -95% nerf. RIP fertility deity

R5: I had a post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EU5/comments/1v0nsj9/playing_wide_meaningful_in_this_patch/

I had several issues:

-Mamlukls were too strong.

-I had a mixed army comp. Heavy cav stack was suggested.

-My economy was concentrated around high control areas and I didnt spam cities.

-Some of my societal values were going down.

-creating more markets was suggested

So I restarted the campaign and changed/tested a few things:

1. A full stack of light cav is enough. Extended timars buff your light cav by 20%. So they are extremally potent and can kill anything. I dont even need Age 3 light cavs. Age 2 ones are doing the job just fine. I recommend you take the Mamluks as an ally early game, dragged them around in your wars and around the early 1400s the alliance will break because you and the Mamluks will become a hegemon, after which you can start declaring wars. The first war is the most difficult. Once you got that one, just take as much land as possible from lower Egypt.
2. I dont know why people suggest spamming cities and town, but it is 100% not the end of all means. I have considerable amount of more land directly under me and my wealth/tax base is still lower. It is perfectly fine investing your money in early game into your high control areas. Maybe as a min-maxing strategy it might be worse (beats me how), but for your average joe, it is completly fine. I may add that I didnt utilize my land as much as the other run yet, because I am spamming infrastructure buildings.

Eitherway, My economy, my army and my pop size is about the same.

1. My naval societal value was likely bugged/corrupted. I didnt even need any events/parliament to push my naval value far beyond 50, but jurisprudence 100% does go down, even when you push it. My guess is that it is somehow related to waging war with certain religions.

2. I honestly dont see why 1 big market as oppose to several smaller markets should be that big of a deal. I dont really see the benefit. Granted I likely have far less markets in this run, but you have to compensate building high control areas up.

EDIT:

Guys we are approaching the realm of non-existence with some comments. If you put a box on the comment section, we have Schrödingers urbanization. There are people advocating for lots of urbanization

"It's efficient to do 50% urbanization as a minimum" -> which is what I did in this run and that person says I should have urbanized even more for bailiffs (I dont even have that many worthwhile RGOs).

And

"towns and cities are tools to scale better, you can only do so much with rural settlements, if you have money and your cities are starting to become full, deploy new ones to have more promoted pops," -> People advocating for the reverse, which I was doing in my previous run.

I am not here asking for the best min-maxing guide out there. The purpose of this post was to share the results. Now the scaling itself is a different topic, but clearly the subject is more nuanced than "just make cities" or "just create demand".

My initial argument was that you should be radiating out of your high control, profitable areas and not dip into low control areas to create demand. The main take-away (at least for me) in the comment section is:

-Stick to radiating out economically.

- Push societal values as early as possible

-Set estates early (my new plan is to give rights at the begining and slowly taking them away starting from the 1400s onwards.

- And a more nuanced economic plan for scaling. How that is suppose to look like, I did not figure out, as there are contradicting suggestions with remarks that add no value or depth (telling me to just create demand, when I was doing so anyways, is not helping out. Clearly there is a priority with things).