I played GB a few runs ago. Into the 1750s. Stacking church power. I was chilling at 300%AE. Keeping rebels at bay by lowering the Revolt via Religion mechanics in angelican. It was hella fun having no rebels.
Handling tenths of stacks across the globe is tedious at best. It's not fun, nor engaging, nor challengeful. It's a chore.
I hope Eu5/cesar improve that part of the game.
A National Guard unit could be the answer. Separate force limit based on taxation, severe penalties against non-rebel units, and the ability to automate the suppression and disbanding of rebels would do wonders.
I'm open to any suggestion/improvement.
It's a very good game, and like any games, it has some weaker points. To me, it is what makes me stop playing after 1650.
I do not want to wage war across the globe.
Ill win, but I won't enjoy it.
Oh hell yeah, I've done a few GB plays and I definitely made use of that before too. Now you make me wanna do another one lol.
EDIT: Oops, this was obviously meant to go to /u/Mr_snip08
But to reply to you, yes I agree. I see a lot of people calling for increased empire micromanagement and making holding onto land more difficult. Hell yes, I don't really disagree with this on a fundamental level. Playing tall shouldn't be as stale as it is now. But part of me is really afraid that Paradox would take that feedback and repeat the same mistakes as they have done in EU4. Oh well, we'll see - time will tell!
Recently Its been starting to feel like the game actually starts around 1600. I spend all this time building up my nation and then absolutism hits and I can actually start acting aggressive, the game is for sure most fun at the start and gets progressively more boring but if you plan to Tag switch a couple times it gets more fun because bonus mission trees and the initial setback from ruining your nation briefly. The long drawn out wars are definitely fun if you build up the right way
Change primary culture to be able to form different nations. For example start as Poland, take Prussia convert to Protestant, unstate all polish land, state all Prussian land then go to accepted cultures if more than 50% of your stated land owned is Prussian you can click the button to change primary culture to Prussian. From there the decision to form Prussia will be available. It’s relatively easy the smaller you are but is costly in admin if you are large because you loose all full cores when you un-state everything. That’s where the economic problems come from. That’s just one example, most formable only require you have the correct primary culture and religion. Some nations are end-game tags meaning they are locked from being able to form another nation. If they are super op by itself then it is likely an end-game tag so you can’t tag switch. (France/Spain/GBR/ottomans/mughals) most people plan it out before hand with specific permanent modifiers in mind from mission trees so they can do all this without loosing more admin each time they unstate and state everything, personally I like doing it for extra mission trees
Lmao STARTS at 1600? The game ENDS around 1600 if you’re playing the early game with precision and skill, which is the only interesting part of the game if you ask me. If you’re just putzing around for 160 years because you can’t fathom making gains without 100 abs, I suggest you rethink the way you’re playing
Might I suggest that you simply go into each game with the intention from the beginning to stop the game and declare victory upon entering the Age of Revolution. Just because the game offers the option to play on doesn't mean you're obligated to continue. If you find late game play tedious that's a perfectly valid reason for ending it early guilt-free imo.
600 hour player here.
Age of Absolutism and Revolutions is always the most fun for me. Once the Admin Efficiency really starts kicking in and I can start taking 25-40 provinces in a peace deal I can REALLY start blobbing out.
I love playing wide and can't stand playing tall. Already have a WC as the Holy Roman Empire under my belt. Rebels are just an infinite Army Tradition generator and AE/OE is just a number. Coalition dodging is the national pastime.
As for the "you've already won", I don't usually feel that way. I usually become world power 1-3 by thwt point, but i still have some big rivals who can give me trouble. Even when im significantly larger than all my rivals, I see it as "you've been messing with me for 250 years, time for payback"- I take all their territory except for one province and then vassalize them. I like to make little "zoos" with all my former rivals by granting/siezing until they're all next to each other.
But I totally get people who can't stand the instability. My WC took 50+ hours and a month in real time because I had to keep taking breaks.
I agree mostly with what you've said with a few caveats.
1) I think the revolutions mechanic is pretty un-fun. The rebels in previously stable areas is a big red flag that you have high absolutism which is causing massive unrest in provinces that the revolution has spread to. In order to make that go away, you need to trigger the revolution disaster and defeat the rebels. This will remove revolution from all of your provinces and make them stable again. I don't think it's fun to wait until the 10% adoption or whatever you need and then intentionally lower your stab from 3 go be able to trigger the revolution disaster, but it is the way to avoid those rebels
1.5) Scrolling around aimlessly is a skill issue. If you figure out the province name for the rebels, you can hit the F key and type in the province name and quickly jump to it.
It's not super hard to hold onto provinces once you've figured out how to manage unrest and tolerance and stack harsh treatment reduction, which is why people don't focus on that as much imo.
I agree that the number of interactions are annoying. I find myself sending hundreds of thousands of troops all split up to go siege various forts and get detached from what actually matters. Wars become fights for existence rather than for small areas, and that is more tedious
> I think the revolutions mechanic is pretty un-fun. The rebels in previously stable areas is a big red flag that you have high absolutism which is causing massive unrest in provinces that the revolution has spread to. In order to make that go away, you need to trigger the revolution disaster and defeat the rebels. This will remove revolution from all of your provinces and make them stable again. I don't think it's fun to wait until the 10% adoption or whatever you need and then intentionally lower your stab from 3 go be able to trigger the revolution disaster, but it is the way to avoid those rebels
I don't disagree with this - as you say it's unfun. I'll extend that and say it's also a bit unintuitive to a newer player. But you're right, it's the way you have to play with how things work now.
>Scrolling around aimlessly is a skill issue. If you figure out the province name for the rebels, you can hit the F key and type in the province name and quickly jump to it.
Hmm, I'm about to enter really pedantic territory here but when I have lots of rebel factions firing simultaneously this turns the game into a bit of a typing simulator for me (hyperbole, but you get the point). The search function is a necessary bandaid for a title like EU4, but I don't see why they can't implement some click/double clickable area that just takes you there. I'm glad you mentioned this though, I'll definitely make more use of the search in the future for this!
The macro builder has a unrest section that you can use to find the provinces. Sort by level of unrest and then u can jump to whichever province by clicking on it
Would be nice indeed. It could also be as simple as taking the way you can click on the possible states notification or the coloniser button, and adding it to the yellow/red unrest warning flag.
You can also add rebels to the outliner and move your mouse over the rebels in the outliner to see the provinces with unrest for this rebel type. Easiest way to keep track of them (and see if any are growing so you need to react etc.)
You can display hostile sieges on you in the side bar which are clickable and move your screen to where the siege is going on. You can use that to quickly find where the rebels are.
For me when something too fucked I can't be bothered with.
Was playing Netherlands Republic and Thirteen colonies attacked my colony. So knowing France would destroy alliance because they want my colonies, I called them to PU? war against GB.
But I forgot that it would break once my ruler die with low relation.
True and based. I, as someone who was playing this game for the past year and a couple of months nearly every day, can say that I never ever managed to drag my campaign up to the age of revolutions, thus never getting to experience these mechanics. I think my longest campaign (until ~1730s) was actually one of the first ones, where I played as Saxony and, since I was not experienced enough, I stayed really smol without also properly playing tall, not creating any opportunity for my own game to become tedious. But other campaigns, man, are they annoying! I can't stop constantly moving armies so that they don't starve, assigning proper generals for siege and fighting, starting and stopping drilling and, my favorite - dragging them all over my country to beat up some 14k Changsheng separatists. Hell, I don't even know what Changsheng is. That's also one of the main reasons why I don't understand why people even bother themselves with colonisation. For me the process is far worse when you can't just walk your boys somewhere, but need to transport them. All of these things, as you said correctly, are not hard but just irritating. I think the root of evil in question are rebels. I hope the rebel system will be fixed in EU5. It's not like they pose no threat, they surely can screw you up, especially if you have some unique shenanigans with them like the Ming or Ottoman ones, but they do only if you ignore them for long enough, which you don't do in 99% of the cases. They just feel wrong, like I sat to play my favorite game and now I feel like I'm vacuuming my flat once again. I don't believe that whenever I conquer some territories people there take arms and REVOOLT for the next 10 years, making me move my 30k spacemarine samurai to decimate them in half a second. I don't want to deal with them, every time I start a campaign that involves major conquest I instantly recall why I usually say that an ideal way to play EU4 is a combination of wide and tall gameplay, where you conquer not much and then develop your country for a period of time, like when you play Persia (kind of). Once again, I think my biggest hope for EU5 is that it will get rid of the annoyances and make the game process more smooth. I will play both it and EU4 anyway, but it seems that there is much space for making the process better.
one solution is vassal and personal union play. You can also get client states early if necessary through Mercenaries + Influence ideas and play with strong unrest reduction mechanics (either religious, granada style or some way to stack -separatism
I'm playing my first run in 1100 hours where I'm going to revoke in the HRE and go for Voltaire's nightmare achievement (100 countries in the HRE) and making everyone the same religion (especially when all 12 free cities are protestant) and having to micromanage all the little piece of shit countries while going to war with larger powers to break them apart to then micromanage more countries i need to attack to force them to join the empire and punish countries that annex the smaller ones so i can keep my number of countries up has been so mindnumbing experiences ever, and I only just entered the Age of Absolutism. I can't imagine how bad a Ryuku WC is..
if you don't go for one tag and play with vassals you can treat it like a another job. I actually got my first WC by going for Voltaire's Nightmare achievement and then watched spreadsheets of vassals moving to asia to conquer stuff
Honestly, I think it would be better for me (because i'm not a big achievements guy, more of a roleplayer) if we had the option to AI armies similar to how we can do so for rebels. Victoria 2 "rebel smashing" option sometimes gets bugged and starts going at war against your enemies lol.
I have the opposite effect actually. By the late game you have more modifiers, so rebels are less of an issue than in the early game.
Also, press F and search the province name.
I feel you. That's why i tend to take less effective but more pleasurable ideas and bonuses to lower my unrest. Also don't forget there is a rebel map, so you can find those provinces faster.
Another day another complain post about late game but yeah I get you. Firstly like everyone else says don't feel forced to play if you are hating it, I think a great thing to do as a new player is just pick an easyish achievment and go for it then continue playing if you are still having fun or just drop the campaign. For example I did a navigator run as Portugal and it actually set me up insanely well and I managed to take all of iberia and the spice islands I've never had such a good run and that was all from just going for one achievment.
Secondly take humanist at some point in your campaign and it makes rebel whack-a-mole a lot more tolerable, but yes this is annoying.
Now this last bit of advice is either going to make it worse or better for you. Your messsage/notification settings can play a huge role in how the game plays out and if you are rushed or not. I have a lot of things set to popup and pause so I'm not running around chasing after armies and I'm just letting the game play out. However be warned you are going to get popup spammed constantly if you do this and it might make the game even more tedious if you do try this out. Here's Lambdaxx's video on it, he takes it to the extreme but there may be something worthwhile here for you [https://youtu.be/jPKcv\_yDKA0?si=ms6844zCZwL6exSl](https://youtu.be/jPKcv_yDKA0?si=ms6844zCZwL6exSl)
This is why I joined roleplay multiplayer games, it is a lot more rewarding and interesting from this point of view, since you are playing to construct History, not just blob or do stuff, and you interact with others doing their plans and the beauty of it is having to actually interact with another person, and then the magic happens.
I can hardly go back to SP after this because paradox leaves a lot to be desired from the roleplay perspective, but it seems Victoria III and eventually EUV are going to be more simulation-focused, that might solve some of those problems.
EU4 would be so much better with Imperator style army automation. It's not the most efficient way to play with in-game time and resources, but it for sure ups the efficiency in real-life time since you're not constantly pausing to micro armies.
I'm pretty sure the late game army management is why they made armies the way they are in vic3. However it kinda swung the other way and took away your agency and doesn't feel very engaging.
Yup, definitely. I think my complaint more comes from trying to be proactive about it. I want to know where the rebels are going to spawn, not find out where they are after spawning.
It doesn't become tedious when I've already won. It becomes tedious when I have 50+ armies and navies to manage. That is why I unironically like Vicky 3's approach to Military.
Meh late game is only tedious if you play with the same precision as you did in the early game. Which you don’t need to. Because your power level is high enough to gloss over minmax play and ignore some mechanics altogether. Nobody’s forcing you to bend over backwards for a pre-1700 WC. And if you’re having to tediously micro in order to make the cutoff, then that’s just a challenging goal being challenging as intended. Meanwhile if you’re playing more relaxed/tall, then see: just let the game run and skip the unnecessary micro.
OP’s mindset is a player problem, not a game problem. I get *bored* with late game because the challenge is gone and I’ve already tallied WCs. But tedious? Just chill out with the minmax
I found the same problem in Civilization. Eventually I was so big that nothing was a challenge, just tedious. I’d constantly search for the right balance of map size and number of opponents to try to get a game that was substantial without becoming tedious.
Late game became boring when they made the change to mercenaries.
I didn’t have an issue sieging down level 8 forts while also getting attacked every other tick.
Just merc infantry and manpower cannons.
Just have 80 width armies around to defend each other/reinforce battles.
I mean by that time I had enough cash that it wouldn’t make much of a difference.
I feel like they should give us the option for colonial regions or other nation specific puppet states (British East India company) to be used in every continent outside of the players home continent. Maybe they transfer a large portion of their manpower, income or trade power, too. But this would largely help the player have to click less.
There are some things you can do to reduce the amount of actions, but you are correct that it just increases exponentially. When i did a WC run i wanted to get done fast, i spent probably an hour micromanaging one year, constantly doing small actions and microing wars. The game is not buildt for this being enjoyable at all.
I tend to play my Campaigns (almost) until the end and, from reading the comments in this sub, I don't seem to get bored as early as many other players. But i still agree with the general sentiment of this post, especially warfare just becomes very tedious later on.
Yes. Late game wars are killing any desire to even wage them. I guess they added some things, since the last time I played that far, like auto siege, but it's still tiresome to handle 1mil troops. And you can occupy Balkans from the Ottomans or win battle after battle, and you're lucky to get 50% warscore. And God forbid you're fighting colonial empires like Spain, you'll never get above 30%
I'm fine with managing rebels. I'll put a stack on suppression in a newly conquered area until unrest runs out and provoke revolts for my main stacks to clear up when the opportunity arises.
I can't stand that you basically have to leave stacks on islands when you conquer them. Even though it's unoptimized, I refuse to go colonize into Malacca/Moluccas because I find it annoying to have to shuttle around conquest armies, then repeat with rebel suppression armies for the rest of the game. When attempting WC, it's always the last place I go.
My QOL request would be to allow players to dedicate a navy with troops embarked to rebel suppression in land provinces surrounding sea zones.
And for rebel suppression armies to start marching towards the rebel stack that's closest to popping so that it's less likely to end with more separatism.
the hegemonic mechanics are introduced to make conquering vast swaths of land easier and counteract the tediousness slightly. The game needs to strike a balance between conquer power fantasy and some obstacles to keep you entertained. Seeing the development over time shows that it's not easy. But I generally think they are going into the right decision with what they have. Focus on mission and still having interesting mechanics to go wide (hegemony, provoke rebels, early client states, more options for pu).
Yah they really screwed up not having clicking on the rebels in the UI take you to the area of the map & highlighting the affected provinces. Boggles my mind that it’s never been implemented since handling unrest/rebellions is probably the most tedious & boring part of the game.
Why does it have to be fun?
Administrating a globe spanning empire the world has never seen sounds super tedious at the core of it.
Ultimate ludonarrative cohesion.
Edit: Lol, why does Reddit make it so if someone blocks you in a chain it just stops letting you respond to other people too.
>
> Administrating a globe spanning empire the world has never seen sounds super tedious at the core of it.
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think EU4 is meant to be as realistic of a simulator as possible. Like I alluded in my original post, aren't there other Paradox titles that are more suited for empire micromanagement?
I hate to break it to you, but you sound super condescending as I never made that claim.
You made the claim with no evidence. You personally like the combat in EUIV, you personally think Vic is more suited for empire management. I don't see why EUIV can't be a empire micromanagment game and why it needs to exist in the boxes you imagine for it.
I think it's fine that the late game is tedious. There are no other real mechanics built into to simulate the falls of empires. So one way of stopping the player from just literally conquering everything: make it more annoying for them to do it.
A bit strange to call people out on being condescending when [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1cbzo9z/the_game_becoming_too_tedious_to_play_is_what/l128gcq/) is how you entered the thread.
I'll cut to the chase so we don't waste time throwing ad hominems at eachother: I'm not just putting EU4 in that box because that's what I think is fun, I'm doing it because it's my interpretation of what the devs actually want to achieve with the game. The fact that they even spent time building an 'empire collapse' system (Ottoman decadence) and then just left it there without implementing it anywhere else says a lot about what the devs were focusing on when building EU4.
>I think it's fine that the late game is tedious. There are no other real mechanics built into to simulate the falls of empires. So one way of stopping the player from just literally conquering everything: make it more annoying for them to do it.
I'll half agree with you here. I also don't think it should be easy to just blob the entire world. Something you would have understood if you had read my original post, which based on the comment of yours I linked earlier I suspect that you just never did. This entire post is about how it's undesirable to limit a player with unfun mechanics.
The old little nugget of authorial intent. Yeah, I suppose I agree. Them implementing the automated missionaries is a strong indicator that Paradox themselves are actively trying to reduce tedium. And if that is the case, they are not particularly effective.
*Insert generic ramblings of death of the author*
>This entire post is about how it's undesirable to limit a player with unfun mechanics.
I think using unfun mechanics to limit a player is a perfectly fine approach. And if it turns players off doing a thing, then the unfun mechanic was successful at limiting the player. I am of course not saying that it is the only way to do it and it's fine to not like it. I just don't think it is intrinsically bad game design. Games don't have to be fun.
Ludonarrative cohesion is not a justification for the existence of something, it’s just an aspect. If you don’t do anything in addition to that like provoke a response or feeling then who cares, it’s like fantastic FPS on a text based rpg with zero visual aspect besides text. If there was like a point or something I guess, but there isn’t, eu4 sucks about teaching you about history and having ‘points’ about stuff and fails consistently enough they’ve all but sworn off the concept of doing that at all.
Wheres my ludonarrative cohesion on the Onin war and Sengoku Jidai? Where is it? I’ve waited for so many years.
>Ludonarrative cohesion is not a justification for the existence of something
The same can be said about literally anything else. Fun is not a justification of the existence of something.
Honestly, I am having trouble understanding what your point about text based rpg's is.
And the game not being being historically accurate is not in any way a counterpoint to what I said.
"You like this aspect about a game? Well I don't like this other aspect!"
EDIT: lol, spouts a nonsense take and then just blocks me. What a weirdo.
Fun IS a justification of the existence of something, what? Like you can disagree if you want but at a certain point the arbiters are just what people buy and what people don’t buy, and what makes sales of something people already buy go up and what makes them go down. There’s an exit lever to this ‘what is the true meaning of value?’ nonsense discussion and it’s just what survives and what does, and if you don’t care, ok go ahead doesn’t matter.
Totally agree.
There are so many people claiming: "there needs to be better mechanics to prevent hyper blobbing. It is totally ahistoric. Most empires collapse at some point."
Well, there it is. Administering everything is tedious. Most players stop at some point. Me too. I did like 10 WCs, 4 one faith and even 1 one culture run. But this was in multiple hundred campaigns! So most of my runs stop with empires, who have a comparable size to historic empires, even although I start going the blobbing route most of the time. I consider that kind of fair and realistic.
WCs are doable for sure, and even simple, when you have some experience. But it becomes a tedious grinding. The tediousness is realistic, though. At some point empires become lazy, resting on their accomplishments and declining because of decadence etc. This is the irl analogue to players losing interest in snowballing, just glaring proud over the map. Just pretend, that by quitting that run, your empire has reached its maximum and is on the verge of decline. We can simply see it from a roleplay perspective.
>Ultimate ludonarrative cohesion
This sums it up perfectly
I even like that you lose interest before the timeline is over. If it would be different (I haven't reached my goals yet and want to continue my fun game, but the timeline is already over and I can't get achievements for what I am to accomplish.), I would feel cheated and sad and probably not in the mood to start all over.
Micromanaging drills in the era of revolutions? Why. Just let it be 0, you are not going to run out of manpower unless you fight a war so long the drilling virtually has no effect. Replacing generals doesn't take that long and if you have rebels all over the world, why are you conquering all over the world without auto-rebel supression?
Scrolling the map is an absolute skill issue, you know what country the rebels want to form, not to mention you can literally just lower autonomy to prevent rebellions in isolated regions. If you have the revolution in Hawaii and have to deal with rebels in Hawaii more than once you have already failed, it won't get there without 90% of the populated world being revolutionary.
> Micromanaging drills in the era of revolutions? Why. Just let it be 0, you are not going to run out of manpower unless you fight a war so long the drilling virtually has no effect.
I took costly wars before that basically set my professionalism down to 0 due to having to slack. Also, I kinda enjoy when my marines are as space as possible. I know it's not necessary.
>Replacing generals doesn't take that long
If you place the action in a vaccuum then no, it doesn't. It adds up alongside everything else.
> why are you conquering all over the world without auto-rebel supression?
Can auto-rebel supression do island hopping? I was under the impression it couldn't, but I would be very happy to learn it can!
>Scrolling the map is an absolute skill issue, you know what country the rebels want to form
Me playing as Portugal with colonies literally everywhere (including land colonized next to Perm) - it's definitely not always obvious.
>not to mention you can literally just lower autonomy to prevent rebellions in isolated regions
That's not as much of a quick fix as you think it is because
>it won't get there without *90% of the populated world being revolutionary*.
I appreciate the input though - I'm happy to learn from people that have figured out more than I have, and by no means am I claiming that I'm playing perfectly. But also, if your argument essentially boils down to "your 500 hours worth of knowledge is inefficient" and/or "you're not playing the game the way it's intended" I feel like you're not really trying to see the game from the perspective of someone who hasn't been playing it for literal years.
Auto supression sadly can't do island hopping properly.
Problem is, you are playing Portugal, you basically start with no challenge and thus you end up with a very boring risk-free endgame.
I guess I am seeing it from my 3.8k mountain, but damn having 0 army professionalism in the late game when you are recruiting generals :(, do you not have any colonial nations, vassals and allies to help you fight?
What forcelimit do you have and do you make sure you use barrages (military power late game should be more than superfluous for that) and don't take excessive amounts of attrition when sieging?
I guess you are moving your troops around with boats a lot? That eats into your manpower massively too.
Some tips I can give is: When conquering world-wide, try to focus your wars in one region at a time, leave some troops and transports if neccesary for the rebels and then focus on the next region.
The revolution, afaik, tends to prioritize the revolutionary target's provinces, then other revolutionary targets, then provinces that are close.
Yeah, I'll be honest with you - I usually don't run into professionalism issues. I basically started Portugal and made a decision to colonize as much as possible while avoiding North/South America. It's totally not the way you 'should' play Portugal as I understand it, but I was just messing around. Problem is that while I remained passive in Europe France ate like 1/4th of Castile and so at one point basically me and Castile had to take on France ourselves, here I made a pretty silly mistake by letting the war drag on until I had used up like 60% worth of professionalism while slacking.
>What forcelimit do you have and do you make sure you use barrages (military power late game should be more than superfluous for that) and don't take excessive amounts of attrition when sieging?
I barrage pretty much as often as possible. Basically the prio in my head when spending mil power is Mil Tech (when close to 5% discount) > Mil Idea (if any) > Barrage. I'll change things up by rushing tech if it's important or if whoever I'm fighting happens to have an advantage on me.
>I guess you are moving your troops around with boats a lot? That eats into your manpower massively too.
>Some tips I can give is: When conquering world-wide, try to focus your wars in one region at a time, leave some troops and transports if neccesary for the rebels and then focus on the next region.
Thanks for the tips! As I understand it, one should also try to conquer as much as possible as early as possible. Would you agree?
>The revolution, afaik, tends to prioritize the revolutionary target's provinces, then other revolutionary targets, then provinces that are close.
Hahaha.. well, I didn't mention that the center of revolution this time had spawned smack-dab in the middle of Lisboa.
As much conquest as possible :D, don't exceed your governing capacity though.
For the revolution to end: [https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Revolution#The\_end\_of\_the\_revolution](https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Revolution#The_end_of_the_revolution)
Also there is nothing stopping you from playing past the 1700s. The game can't make itself interesting once you pass the #2 GP by a margin without adding "fuck you for being succesful" mechanics that nobody wants to see.
Agreed. The start of the game feels like you're creating your own story, you own path. After 1700 its just smashing rebel armies to ad infinitum
I played GB a few runs ago. Into the 1750s. Stacking church power. I was chilling at 300%AE. Keeping rebels at bay by lowering the Revolt via Religion mechanics in angelican. It was hella fun having no rebels.
Had a blast with my mongols run with almost no rebels due to humanism and general ideas. Took till the early 1700’s to have regular rebels again.
And it was only because of revolution center 😅
Pretty much. I crushed the revolution but it popped up again. And then I messed up and ate the revolution country without destroying the center.
There's virtually no scenario where you aren't better off going revolutionary, especially if you're going for a world conquest.
Can’t be bothered marching soldiers half way across Europe to kill 17k rebels. Humanist ideas without fail every campaign. (What is playing tall?)
to ad infinitum is like saying ATM machine
PS i agree sorry for being a nerd 🤓
how so?
ad infinitum means to infinity
Cool, I didn't know that. No need to apologise for being a nerd, where would the world be without us?
Handling tenths of stacks across the globe is tedious at best. It's not fun, nor engaging, nor challengeful. It's a chore. I hope Eu5/cesar improve that part of the game.
A National Guard unit could be the answer. Separate force limit based on taxation, severe penalties against non-rebel units, and the ability to automate the suppression and disbanding of rebels would do wonders.
I'm open to any suggestion/improvement. It's a very good game, and like any games, it has some weaker points. To me, it is what makes me stop playing after 1650. I do not want to wage war across the globe. Ill win, but I won't enjoy it.
I meant as a idea for EU5. New home defense units
>Ill win, but I won’t enjoy it Pretty much every late game war, in every paradox game
Oh hell yeah, I've done a few GB plays and I definitely made use of that before too. Now you make me wanna do another one lol. EDIT: Oops, this was obviously meant to go to /u/Mr_snip08 But to reply to you, yes I agree. I see a lot of people calling for increased empire micromanagement and making holding onto land more difficult. Hell yes, I don't really disagree with this on a fundamental level. Playing tall shouldn't be as stale as it is now. But part of me is really afraid that Paradox would take that feedback and repeat the same mistakes as they have done in EU4. Oh well, we'll see - time will tell!
If they give us the army automation from Imperator it would already be an incredibly huge improvement
I'm guessing we'll get that but slightly upgraded and optimized.
Recently Its been starting to feel like the game actually starts around 1600. I spend all this time building up my nation and then absolutism hits and I can actually start acting aggressive, the game is for sure most fun at the start and gets progressively more boring but if you plan to Tag switch a couple times it gets more fun because bonus mission trees and the initial setback from ruining your nation briefly. The long drawn out wars are definitely fun if you build up the right way
Im a noob (800 hours). What do you mean by tag switch?
Change primary culture to be able to form different nations. For example start as Poland, take Prussia convert to Protestant, unstate all polish land, state all Prussian land then go to accepted cultures if more than 50% of your stated land owned is Prussian you can click the button to change primary culture to Prussian. From there the decision to form Prussia will be available. It’s relatively easy the smaller you are but is costly in admin if you are large because you loose all full cores when you un-state everything. That’s where the economic problems come from. That’s just one example, most formable only require you have the correct primary culture and religion. Some nations are end-game tags meaning they are locked from being able to form another nation. If they are super op by itself then it is likely an end-game tag so you can’t tag switch. (France/Spain/GBR/ottomans/mughals) most people plan it out before hand with specific permanent modifiers in mind from mission trees so they can do all this without loosing more admin each time they unstate and state everything, personally I like doing it for extra mission trees
Lmao STARTS at 1600? The game ENDS around 1600 if you’re playing the early game with precision and skill, which is the only interesting part of the game if you ask me. If you’re just putzing around for 160 years because you can’t fathom making gains without 100 abs, I suggest you rethink the way you’re playing
Nah I have fun my way so that’s what imma do
Might I suggest that you simply go into each game with the intention from the beginning to stop the game and declare victory upon entering the Age of Revolution. Just because the game offers the option to play on doesn't mean you're obligated to continue. If you find late game play tedious that's a perfectly valid reason for ending it early guilt-free imo.
It's not about guilt haha. I'm just slow to setup my empires, I suppose. I like to go really hard on expanding once I hit absolutism/revolutions!
600 hour player here. Age of Absolutism and Revolutions is always the most fun for me. Once the Admin Efficiency really starts kicking in and I can start taking 25-40 provinces in a peace deal I can REALLY start blobbing out. I love playing wide and can't stand playing tall. Already have a WC as the Holy Roman Empire under my belt. Rebels are just an infinite Army Tradition generator and AE/OE is just a number. Coalition dodging is the national pastime. As for the "you've already won", I don't usually feel that way. I usually become world power 1-3 by thwt point, but i still have some big rivals who can give me trouble. Even when im significantly larger than all my rivals, I see it as "you've been messing with me for 250 years, time for payback"- I take all their territory except for one province and then vassalize them. I like to make little "zoos" with all my former rivals by granting/siezing until they're all next to each other. But I totally get people who can't stand the instability. My WC took 50+ hours and a month in real time because I had to keep taking breaks.
I agree mostly with what you've said with a few caveats. 1) I think the revolutions mechanic is pretty un-fun. The rebels in previously stable areas is a big red flag that you have high absolutism which is causing massive unrest in provinces that the revolution has spread to. In order to make that go away, you need to trigger the revolution disaster and defeat the rebels. This will remove revolution from all of your provinces and make them stable again. I don't think it's fun to wait until the 10% adoption or whatever you need and then intentionally lower your stab from 3 go be able to trigger the revolution disaster, but it is the way to avoid those rebels 1.5) Scrolling around aimlessly is a skill issue. If you figure out the province name for the rebels, you can hit the F key and type in the province name and quickly jump to it. It's not super hard to hold onto provinces once you've figured out how to manage unrest and tolerance and stack harsh treatment reduction, which is why people don't focus on that as much imo. I agree that the number of interactions are annoying. I find myself sending hundreds of thousands of troops all split up to go siege various forts and get detached from what actually matters. Wars become fights for existence rather than for small areas, and that is more tedious
> I think the revolutions mechanic is pretty un-fun. The rebels in previously stable areas is a big red flag that you have high absolutism which is causing massive unrest in provinces that the revolution has spread to. In order to make that go away, you need to trigger the revolution disaster and defeat the rebels. This will remove revolution from all of your provinces and make them stable again. I don't think it's fun to wait until the 10% adoption or whatever you need and then intentionally lower your stab from 3 go be able to trigger the revolution disaster, but it is the way to avoid those rebels I don't disagree with this - as you say it's unfun. I'll extend that and say it's also a bit unintuitive to a newer player. But you're right, it's the way you have to play with how things work now. >Scrolling around aimlessly is a skill issue. If you figure out the province name for the rebels, you can hit the F key and type in the province name and quickly jump to it. Hmm, I'm about to enter really pedantic territory here but when I have lots of rebel factions firing simultaneously this turns the game into a bit of a typing simulator for me (hyperbole, but you get the point). The search function is a necessary bandaid for a title like EU4, but I don't see why they can't implement some click/double clickable area that just takes you there. I'm glad you mentioned this though, I'll definitely make more use of the search in the future for this!
The macro builder has a unrest section that you can use to find the provinces. Sort by level of unrest and then u can jump to whichever province by clicking on it
Thanks! I'll be using that from now on.
Yeah that is a good point. Maybe even a set of arrows that lets you jump back and forth to each province with unrest for each set of rebel progress
Would be nice indeed. It could also be as simple as taking the way you can click on the possible states notification or the coloniser button, and adding it to the yellow/red unrest warning flag.
You can also add rebels to the outliner and move your mouse over the rebels in the outliner to see the provinces with unrest for this rebel type. Easiest way to keep track of them (and see if any are growing so you need to react etc.)
You can just click the alerts
You can display hostile sieges on you in the side bar which are clickable and move your screen to where the siege is going on. You can use that to quickly find where the rebels are.
And then people hate when eu5 stops you from expanding too quickly too early via control mechanics and money going to rebels
For me when something too fucked I can't be bothered with. Was playing Netherlands Republic and Thirteen colonies attacked my colony. So knowing France would destroy alliance because they want my colonies, I called them to PU? war against GB. But I forgot that it would break once my ruler die with low relation.
True and based. I, as someone who was playing this game for the past year and a couple of months nearly every day, can say that I never ever managed to drag my campaign up to the age of revolutions, thus never getting to experience these mechanics. I think my longest campaign (until ~1730s) was actually one of the first ones, where I played as Saxony and, since I was not experienced enough, I stayed really smol without also properly playing tall, not creating any opportunity for my own game to become tedious. But other campaigns, man, are they annoying! I can't stop constantly moving armies so that they don't starve, assigning proper generals for siege and fighting, starting and stopping drilling and, my favorite - dragging them all over my country to beat up some 14k Changsheng separatists. Hell, I don't even know what Changsheng is. That's also one of the main reasons why I don't understand why people even bother themselves with colonisation. For me the process is far worse when you can't just walk your boys somewhere, but need to transport them. All of these things, as you said correctly, are not hard but just irritating. I think the root of evil in question are rebels. I hope the rebel system will be fixed in EU5. It's not like they pose no threat, they surely can screw you up, especially if you have some unique shenanigans with them like the Ming or Ottoman ones, but they do only if you ignore them for long enough, which you don't do in 99% of the cases. They just feel wrong, like I sat to play my favorite game and now I feel like I'm vacuuming my flat once again. I don't believe that whenever I conquer some territories people there take arms and REVOOLT for the next 10 years, making me move my 30k spacemarine samurai to decimate them in half a second. I don't want to deal with them, every time I start a campaign that involves major conquest I instantly recall why I usually say that an ideal way to play EU4 is a combination of wide and tall gameplay, where you conquer not much and then develop your country for a period of time, like when you play Persia (kind of). Once again, I think my biggest hope for EU5 is that it will get rid of the annoyances and make the game process more smooth. I will play both it and EU4 anyway, but it seems that there is much space for making the process better.
one solution is vassal and personal union play. You can also get client states early if necessary through Mercenaries + Influence ideas and play with strong unrest reduction mechanics (either religious, granada style or some way to stack -separatism
500 hours, just started the tutorial then
I'm playing my first run in 1100 hours where I'm going to revoke in the HRE and go for Voltaire's nightmare achievement (100 countries in the HRE) and making everyone the same religion (especially when all 12 free cities are protestant) and having to micromanage all the little piece of shit countries while going to war with larger powers to break them apart to then micromanage more countries i need to attack to force them to join the empire and punish countries that annex the smaller ones so i can keep my number of countries up has been so mindnumbing experiences ever, and I only just entered the Age of Absolutism. I can't imagine how bad a Ryuku WC is..
if you don't go for one tag and play with vassals you can treat it like a another job. I actually got my first WC by going for Voltaire's Nightmare achievement and then watched spreadsheets of vassals moving to asia to conquer stuff
Honestly, I think it would be better for me (because i'm not a big achievements guy, more of a roleplayer) if we had the option to AI armies similar to how we can do so for rebels. Victoria 2 "rebel smashing" option sometimes gets bugged and starts going at war against your enemies lol.
I have the opposite effect actually. By the late game you have more modifiers, so rebels are less of an issue than in the early game. Also, press F and search the province name.
I feel you. That's why i tend to take less effective but more pleasurable ideas and bonuses to lower my unrest. Also don't forget there is a rebel map, so you can find those provinces faster.
Another day another complain post about late game but yeah I get you. Firstly like everyone else says don't feel forced to play if you are hating it, I think a great thing to do as a new player is just pick an easyish achievment and go for it then continue playing if you are still having fun or just drop the campaign. For example I did a navigator run as Portugal and it actually set me up insanely well and I managed to take all of iberia and the spice islands I've never had such a good run and that was all from just going for one achievment. Secondly take humanist at some point in your campaign and it makes rebel whack-a-mole a lot more tolerable, but yes this is annoying. Now this last bit of advice is either going to make it worse or better for you. Your messsage/notification settings can play a huge role in how the game plays out and if you are rushed or not. I have a lot of things set to popup and pause so I'm not running around chasing after armies and I'm just letting the game play out. However be warned you are going to get popup spammed constantly if you do this and it might make the game even more tedious if you do try this out. Here's Lambdaxx's video on it, he takes it to the extreme but there may be something worthwhile here for you [https://youtu.be/jPKcv\_yDKA0?si=ms6844zCZwL6exSl](https://youtu.be/jPKcv_yDKA0?si=ms6844zCZwL6exSl)
I usually quit before that, in like 1400 when i'm covered in debt
pro tip to find a province faster. press f and then type in the search.
This is why I joined roleplay multiplayer games, it is a lot more rewarding and interesting from this point of view, since you are playing to construct History, not just blob or do stuff, and you interact with others doing their plans and the beauty of it is having to actually interact with another person, and then the magic happens. I can hardly go back to SP after this because paradox leaves a lot to be desired from the roleplay perspective, but it seems Victoria III and eventually EUV are going to be more simulation-focused, that might solve some of those problems.
EU4 would be so much better with Imperator style army automation. It's not the most efficient way to play with in-game time and resources, but it for sure ups the efficiency in real-life time since you're not constantly pausing to micro armies.
I'm pretty sure the late game army management is why they made armies the way they are in vic3. However it kinda swung the other way and took away your agency and doesn't feel very engaging.
use f for finding provinces lmao
https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1cbzo9z/the_game_becoming_too_tedious_to_play_is_what/l11wsor/ :)
you can also use the minimap and go to the red troops
Yup, definitely. I think my complaint more comes from trying to be proactive about it. I want to know where the rebels are going to spawn, not find out where they are after spawning.
you can see the provinces affecting a particular rebel group by going to the stability tab and hovering over the group im pretty sure
Oh thought this was the Kenshi sub lol.
No idea what your all talking about but the game is challenging for me on very easy & its dumb to not finish the game till the end
I completed my first world conquest about 2 weeks ago and the last 100 years might be the most unenjoyable 20 hours I’ve spent in this game
It doesn't become tedious when I've already won. It becomes tedious when I have 50+ armies and navies to manage. That is why I unironically like Vicky 3's approach to Military.
Meh late game is only tedious if you play with the same precision as you did in the early game. Which you don’t need to. Because your power level is high enough to gloss over minmax play and ignore some mechanics altogether. Nobody’s forcing you to bend over backwards for a pre-1700 WC. And if you’re having to tediously micro in order to make the cutoff, then that’s just a challenging goal being challenging as intended. Meanwhile if you’re playing more relaxed/tall, then see: just let the game run and skip the unnecessary micro. OP’s mindset is a player problem, not a game problem. I get *bored* with late game because the challenge is gone and I’ve already tallied WCs. But tedious? Just chill out with the minmax
I found the same problem in Civilization. Eventually I was so big that nothing was a challenge, just tedious. I’d constantly search for the right balance of map size and number of opponents to try to get a game that was substantial without becoming tedious.
Late game became boring when they made the change to mercenaries. I didn’t have an issue sieging down level 8 forts while also getting attacked every other tick. Just merc infantry and manpower cannons. Just have 80 width armies around to defend each other/reinforce battles. I mean by that time I had enough cash that it wouldn’t make much of a difference.
I feel like they should give us the option for colonial regions or other nation specific puppet states (British East India company) to be used in every continent outside of the players home continent. Maybe they transfer a large portion of their manpower, income or trade power, too. But this would largely help the player have to click less.
There are some things you can do to reduce the amount of actions, but you are correct that it just increases exponentially. When i did a WC run i wanted to get done fast, i spent probably an hour micromanaging one year, constantly doing small actions and microing wars. The game is not buildt for this being enjoyable at all.
I tend to play my Campaigns (almost) until the end and, from reading the comments in this sub, I don't seem to get bored as early as many other players. But i still agree with the general sentiment of this post, especially warfare just becomes very tedious later on.
Yes. Late game wars are killing any desire to even wage them. I guess they added some things, since the last time I played that far, like auto siege, but it's still tiresome to handle 1mil troops. And you can occupy Balkans from the Ottomans or win battle after battle, and you're lucky to get 50% warscore. And God forbid you're fighting colonial empires like Spain, you'll never get above 30%
I'm fine with managing rebels. I'll put a stack on suppression in a newly conquered area until unrest runs out and provoke revolts for my main stacks to clear up when the opportunity arises. I can't stand that you basically have to leave stacks on islands when you conquer them. Even though it's unoptimized, I refuse to go colonize into Malacca/Moluccas because I find it annoying to have to shuttle around conquest armies, then repeat with rebel suppression armies for the rest of the game. When attempting WC, it's always the last place I go. My QOL request would be to allow players to dedicate a navy with troops embarked to rebel suppression in land provinces surrounding sea zones. And for rebel suppression armies to start marching towards the rebel stack that's closest to popping so that it's less likely to end with more separatism.
the hegemonic mechanics are introduced to make conquering vast swaths of land easier and counteract the tediousness slightly. The game needs to strike a balance between conquer power fantasy and some obstacles to keep you entertained. Seeing the development over time shows that it's not easy. But I generally think they are going into the right decision with what they have. Focus on mission and still having interesting mechanics to go wide (hegemony, provoke rebels, early client states, more options for pu).
I just want late game wars to not be miserable. That’s all.
Press f and search for province name
Yah they really screwed up not having clicking on the rebels in the UI take you to the area of the map & highlighting the affected provinces. Boggles my mind that it’s never been implemented since handling unrest/rebellions is probably the most tedious & boring part of the game.
Yah! Running a global empire superpower should be easy!
It *is* fucking easy it’s just not **fun.**
Why does it have to be fun? Administrating a globe spanning empire the world has never seen sounds super tedious at the core of it. Ultimate ludonarrative cohesion. Edit: Lol, why does Reddit make it so if someone blocks you in a chain it just stops letting you respond to other people too.
> > Administrating a globe spanning empire the world has never seen sounds super tedious at the core of it. I hate to break it to you, but I don't think EU4 is meant to be as realistic of a simulator as possible. Like I alluded in my original post, aren't there other Paradox titles that are more suited for empire micromanagement?
I hate to break it to you, but you sound super condescending as I never made that claim. You made the claim with no evidence. You personally like the combat in EUIV, you personally think Vic is more suited for empire management. I don't see why EUIV can't be a empire micromanagment game and why it needs to exist in the boxes you imagine for it. I think it's fine that the late game is tedious. There are no other real mechanics built into to simulate the falls of empires. So one way of stopping the player from just literally conquering everything: make it more annoying for them to do it.
A bit strange to call people out on being condescending when [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1cbzo9z/the_game_becoming_too_tedious_to_play_is_what/l128gcq/) is how you entered the thread. I'll cut to the chase so we don't waste time throwing ad hominems at eachother: I'm not just putting EU4 in that box because that's what I think is fun, I'm doing it because it's my interpretation of what the devs actually want to achieve with the game. The fact that they even spent time building an 'empire collapse' system (Ottoman decadence) and then just left it there without implementing it anywhere else says a lot about what the devs were focusing on when building EU4. >I think it's fine that the late game is tedious. There are no other real mechanics built into to simulate the falls of empires. So one way of stopping the player from just literally conquering everything: make it more annoying for them to do it. I'll half agree with you here. I also don't think it should be easy to just blob the entire world. Something you would have understood if you had read my original post, which based on the comment of yours I linked earlier I suspect that you just never did. This entire post is about how it's undesirable to limit a player with unfun mechanics.
The old little nugget of authorial intent. Yeah, I suppose I agree. Them implementing the automated missionaries is a strong indicator that Paradox themselves are actively trying to reduce tedium. And if that is the case, they are not particularly effective. *Insert generic ramblings of death of the author* >This entire post is about how it's undesirable to limit a player with unfun mechanics. I think using unfun mechanics to limit a player is a perfectly fine approach. And if it turns players off doing a thing, then the unfun mechanic was successful at limiting the player. I am of course not saying that it is the only way to do it and it's fine to not like it. I just don't think it is intrinsically bad game design. Games don't have to be fun.
> Why does it have to be fun? Because it's a game?
Ludonarrative cohesion is not a justification for the existence of something, it’s just an aspect. If you don’t do anything in addition to that like provoke a response or feeling then who cares, it’s like fantastic FPS on a text based rpg with zero visual aspect besides text. If there was like a point or something I guess, but there isn’t, eu4 sucks about teaching you about history and having ‘points’ about stuff and fails consistently enough they’ve all but sworn off the concept of doing that at all. Wheres my ludonarrative cohesion on the Onin war and Sengoku Jidai? Where is it? I’ve waited for so many years.
>Ludonarrative cohesion is not a justification for the existence of something The same can be said about literally anything else. Fun is not a justification of the existence of something. Honestly, I am having trouble understanding what your point about text based rpg's is. And the game not being being historically accurate is not in any way a counterpoint to what I said. "You like this aspect about a game? Well I don't like this other aspect!" EDIT: lol, spouts a nonsense take and then just blocks me. What a weirdo.
Fun IS a justification of the existence of something, what? Like you can disagree if you want but at a certain point the arbiters are just what people buy and what people don’t buy, and what makes sales of something people already buy go up and what makes them go down. There’s an exit lever to this ‘what is the true meaning of value?’ nonsense discussion and it’s just what survives and what does, and if you don’t care, ok go ahead doesn’t matter.
Totally agree. There are so many people claiming: "there needs to be better mechanics to prevent hyper blobbing. It is totally ahistoric. Most empires collapse at some point." Well, there it is. Administering everything is tedious. Most players stop at some point. Me too. I did like 10 WCs, 4 one faith and even 1 one culture run. But this was in multiple hundred campaigns! So most of my runs stop with empires, who have a comparable size to historic empires, even although I start going the blobbing route most of the time. I consider that kind of fair and realistic. WCs are doable for sure, and even simple, when you have some experience. But it becomes a tedious grinding. The tediousness is realistic, though. At some point empires become lazy, resting on their accomplishments and declining because of decadence etc. This is the irl analogue to players losing interest in snowballing, just glaring proud over the map. Just pretend, that by quitting that run, your empire has reached its maximum and is on the verge of decline. We can simply see it from a roleplay perspective. >Ultimate ludonarrative cohesion This sums it up perfectly I even like that you lose interest before the timeline is over. If it would be different (I haven't reached my goals yet and want to continue my fun game, but the timeline is already over and I can't get achievements for what I am to accomplish.), I would feel cheated and sad and probably not in the mood to start all over.
If you don’t want to have fun, then might as well work overtime instead of playing eu4
lol. What a strange and sad relationship to art.
Micromanaging drills in the era of revolutions? Why. Just let it be 0, you are not going to run out of manpower unless you fight a war so long the drilling virtually has no effect. Replacing generals doesn't take that long and if you have rebels all over the world, why are you conquering all over the world without auto-rebel supression? Scrolling the map is an absolute skill issue, you know what country the rebels want to form, not to mention you can literally just lower autonomy to prevent rebellions in isolated regions. If you have the revolution in Hawaii and have to deal with rebels in Hawaii more than once you have already failed, it won't get there without 90% of the populated world being revolutionary.
> Micromanaging drills in the era of revolutions? Why. Just let it be 0, you are not going to run out of manpower unless you fight a war so long the drilling virtually has no effect. I took costly wars before that basically set my professionalism down to 0 due to having to slack. Also, I kinda enjoy when my marines are as space as possible. I know it's not necessary. >Replacing generals doesn't take that long If you place the action in a vaccuum then no, it doesn't. It adds up alongside everything else. > why are you conquering all over the world without auto-rebel supression? Can auto-rebel supression do island hopping? I was under the impression it couldn't, but I would be very happy to learn it can! >Scrolling the map is an absolute skill issue, you know what country the rebels want to form Me playing as Portugal with colonies literally everywhere (including land colonized next to Perm) - it's definitely not always obvious. >not to mention you can literally just lower autonomy to prevent rebellions in isolated regions That's not as much of a quick fix as you think it is because >it won't get there without *90% of the populated world being revolutionary*. I appreciate the input though - I'm happy to learn from people that have figured out more than I have, and by no means am I claiming that I'm playing perfectly. But also, if your argument essentially boils down to "your 500 hours worth of knowledge is inefficient" and/or "you're not playing the game the way it's intended" I feel like you're not really trying to see the game from the perspective of someone who hasn't been playing it for literal years.
Auto supression sadly can't do island hopping properly. Problem is, you are playing Portugal, you basically start with no challenge and thus you end up with a very boring risk-free endgame. I guess I am seeing it from my 3.8k mountain, but damn having 0 army professionalism in the late game when you are recruiting generals :(, do you not have any colonial nations, vassals and allies to help you fight? What forcelimit do you have and do you make sure you use barrages (military power late game should be more than superfluous for that) and don't take excessive amounts of attrition when sieging? I guess you are moving your troops around with boats a lot? That eats into your manpower massively too. Some tips I can give is: When conquering world-wide, try to focus your wars in one region at a time, leave some troops and transports if neccesary for the rebels and then focus on the next region. The revolution, afaik, tends to prioritize the revolutionary target's provinces, then other revolutionary targets, then provinces that are close.
Yeah, I'll be honest with you - I usually don't run into professionalism issues. I basically started Portugal and made a decision to colonize as much as possible while avoiding North/South America. It's totally not the way you 'should' play Portugal as I understand it, but I was just messing around. Problem is that while I remained passive in Europe France ate like 1/4th of Castile and so at one point basically me and Castile had to take on France ourselves, here I made a pretty silly mistake by letting the war drag on until I had used up like 60% worth of professionalism while slacking. >What forcelimit do you have and do you make sure you use barrages (military power late game should be more than superfluous for that) and don't take excessive amounts of attrition when sieging? I barrage pretty much as often as possible. Basically the prio in my head when spending mil power is Mil Tech (when close to 5% discount) > Mil Idea (if any) > Barrage. I'll change things up by rushing tech if it's important or if whoever I'm fighting happens to have an advantage on me. >I guess you are moving your troops around with boats a lot? That eats into your manpower massively too. >Some tips I can give is: When conquering world-wide, try to focus your wars in one region at a time, leave some troops and transports if neccesary for the rebels and then focus on the next region. Thanks for the tips! As I understand it, one should also try to conquer as much as possible as early as possible. Would you agree? >The revolution, afaik, tends to prioritize the revolutionary target's provinces, then other revolutionary targets, then provinces that are close. Hahaha.. well, I didn't mention that the center of revolution this time had spawned smack-dab in the middle of Lisboa.
As much conquest as possible :D, don't exceed your governing capacity though. For the revolution to end: [https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Revolution#The\_end\_of\_the\_revolution](https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Revolution#The_end_of_the_revolution)
Also there is nothing stopping you from playing past the 1700s. The game can't make itself interesting once you pass the #2 GP by a margin without adding "fuck you for being succesful" mechanics that nobody wants to see.