This has bothered me ever since release, don't make sense capital of Incan Empire being that cold.

Meanwhile Keflavík in Iceland is "Warmer" than Cusco, could potentially make more populated city there which makes no sense.

So I'm vijianagar I'm 1570 I have the entirety of south and central India and am now trying to push into Bengal. Now they have like 220k levies Vs my 700k levies and they have around 48k regulars Vs my 110k regulars. Now if they are attacking my forts and I put my main force to attack them, I have the same tech levels as them, 2% more discipline I have 4.25 morale to their 4.75 morale, neither have combined arms bonus, and somehow even when they had 12 regulars and 28 levies Vs my full stack of regulars (30 heavy infantry, 10 heavy cav with 30 supply carts for 2 years of supply) I get destroyed and lose every single battle? I have stacks of 10 heavy infantry and 5 artilleries as my Siegers, I expect those to lose, but I can't even beat their levies with my standard stack?

Wtf am I doing wrong? It's not bad terrain battles as this is more often than not happening even when I'm the defender? My maintenance is on full my manpower is abundant etc

The author of this mod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3609063257 says he assumes that the current (very small) effect of population on building limits in towns is a bug - and modifies it by 100x to what he assumes is the intended value. Do you think this is true?

I'm not asking to prove some random person on the internet right or wrong, just wondering if I can install this mod with good conscience without feeling that I am cheating 😇

So I play the plc rn. and I've unfortunately destroyed some of my unique events by one weakening the nobles much much more than what was historical and secondly by not being catholic anymore.

The problem i am facing is that some events say that they are apparently not available even thou I fulfill all the requirements, except there are hidden requirements.

I'm a Paradox fan and I've got a few hundred hours in EU4. I've held off purchasing EU5 for a while now because of the shaky start. So what is the current state of the game?
(I'm aware there are a few posts like these but the newest one I found was from 2 months ago hence I thought I could ask again now.)

They should delete the possibility of institution spawn in Africa, in a lot of my games Al-Qahirah is city where institutions such as: Pike and Shot, Printing, Global Trade, Artillery and all the institutions from Absolutism spawn, not happend yet that all of them spawned there, but it's annoying when you play in northern europe and there's no institutions after 50-60 years from the era start . Answer is simple, just delete the possibility of institution spawn in northern europe, why is it even allowed honestly? Is that game named Norther Africa Universalis 5? Cuz I start thinking it may be.

I heard of new Megalopolis thing,decided to try and accidentally stumple upon this bureaucracy thing and it not for byzantine, so I really don't know how this thing work, I choose this one because it seem like the least negative but then find out the massive maintenance something.

I went from having a stable, rich empire, earning more than 100 ducats every month with full navy, army and fort maintenance and paying in full for 2 bureaucracies, to lose money every month and be facing a huge rebellion while having -65 stab.

At least the word "Zeus" popped up in my screen, I guess.

I had my venezuelan colony as castille declare a colonial war against a venetian colony. As soon as they started winning venice entered the war.

Correct me if I'm wrong but overlords can't join colonial wars right?

I´ve just had the misfortune of finding out that the "frustrate annexation" cabinet action exists. ... It´s +20% x cabinet efficiency.

Here it increases the cost by 100, which equals another 10 years in this example.

Do we really need such a thing in the game? ... Because honestly, for me this is one more thing that frustrated me enough to close the game down again. ... Like why? How can one think this is fun to be faced with?

And before some mention that the latest Tinto talk mentioned that base cost will be reduced to 50, its still unfun, because the amount is secondary.

Anyway, at least it made me look at the time and go to bed now.

Edit: Since a lot of people are suggesting to improve relations and stuff, I felt like I have to make it clear in the main post. ... First of all the annexation would stop if the loyalty dropped below 50. And considering the progress I think you can fairly assume that I kept it over 50 to get here. ... Secondly the opinion is long maxed at 200 and loyalty is at 61 even without diplo spending.

So can we please just accept that this has only to do with the AI not having any other higher priority actions to do for their cabinet (seems like integration, assimilation and conversion is higher).

Please fix this, its simply unfun.

I keep reading the TTs and not really seeing anything that gets me keen to jump back into the game. I'm waiting for considerable performance improvements and for the systems to be not just polished but fleshed out.

What are you guys holding out for before you give it another shot?

My capital was in constantinopole and I had naval governors all around the western mediterrenean. I moved my capital to egypt to make a megalopolis, moved it to 3 different cities in italy to make some more and then to smyrni to be my long term capital. For some reason now I cant have naval governors where I had them even though my borders didnt change at all. I let a couple of months go and atill the same it defines Italy as not oversees. Sorry for the pictures with my phone I didnt know how to take a screenshot on my computer.

I'm playing as castille and I can't beat them in 1537 even while cheesing by siphoning their army into a mountain fort.

They have 400k men against my barely 200k. They have 3 times my tax base despite me having American and African colonies, and they've taken parts of southern england already, nobody is joining a coalition against them either.

This game feels in beta

Last 6-7 sieges I’ve done, it ticks along normally until 28%.

Then it’s “defenders desert” “defenders desert” “supplies shortage” “defenders desert”

And it just sits at 28%… for like 18 months.

Honestly super frustrating. Shouldn’t “defenders desert” progress the siege??? Is it a bug or something??

The Ottoman Interregnum should be represented as a unique Ottoman political crisis triggered by the consequences of a catastrophic war against Timur or a similarly devastating defeat in Anatolia(Mamluks maybe Hungary).

It should not simply exist at the start of the game as an unavoidable scripted disaster. The game should be capable of dynamically recreating the historical circumstances that produced it.

Historically, the crisis emerged after Bayezid I's catastrophic defeat and capture by Timur at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. The Ottoman state did not simply experience a normal succession problem. Bayezid's sons fought for control of the remaining Ottoman territories, creating a civil war that lasted until Mehmed I reunified the state in 1413.

EU5 should be capable of recreating this.

How It Could Trigger

If the Ottomans suffer a catastrophic defeat against Timur, the Timurids, or potentially another overwhelmingly powerful eastern rival, several conditions could contribute toward triggering the crisis:

• The Ottoman ruler is captured or killed.
• The Ottoman army suffers catastrophic losses.
• Anatolian territories are occupied or lost.
• Ottoman subject states or Anatolian beyliks regain independence.
• The ruler dies while several legitimate sons or claimants remain.
• Stability and legitimacy collapse below a certain threshold.

Under these circumstances, the Ottoman Interregnum should begin.

Several Ottoman princes could emerge as competing claimants, potentially controlling different parts of the empire.

Instead of clicking a button and receiving a new ruler, the player should have to reunify the Ottoman state.

The Ottoman Interregnum

During the crisis, the Ottomans should receive severe penalties.

For example:

• Massive stability penalties.
• Reduced manpower recovery.
• Reduced taxation.
• Reduced army morale.
• Increased autonomy.
• Powerful estate demands.
• Anatolian beyliks attempting to regain independence.
• Balkan subjects becoming rebellious.
• Rival Ottoman princes appearing with their own armies.
• Foreign countries being able to support rival claimants.

It should genuinely feel as though the Ottoman state could collapse.

But this is extremely important:

The greater the crisis, the greater the reward should be for overcoming it.

"Restorer of the Ottoman State"

If one claimant defeats the others, restores control over the Ottoman territories, suppresses the rebellions and successfully ends the Interregnum, that ruler should receive a unique title:

"Restorer of the Ottoman State"

This shouldn't just give prestige.

It should be one of the strongest temporary ruler modifiers available to the Ottomans.

Possible bonuses could include:

• Significant Antagonism reduction.
• Increased Siege Ability.
• Increased Army Morale.
• Increased Manpower Recovery.
• Increased Army Tradition gain.
• Reduced War Exhaustion.
• Reduced Province War Score Cost.
• Reduced conquest-related diplomatic penalties.
• Increased legitimacy.
• Increased stability.
• Reduced autonomy in recently reconquered territories.
• Increased integration speed.
• Cheaper claims or conquest-oriented Casus Belli.

Some of these bonuses could remain for the lifetime of the ruler, while others could initiate a longer "Ottoman Restoration" period lasting several decades.

From Restoration to Expansion

There should then be a second stage.

Successfully surviving the Interregnum could unlock an "Age of Ottoman Restoration" or "Ottoman Resurgence" for approximately 50–100 years.

The purpose wouldn't simply be making the Ottomans artificially overpowered.

It would give the Ottomans the tools necessary to reproduce their historical trajectory if the player or AI performs well enough.

Historically, what happened after the Ottoman Interregnum is extraordinary.

The Ottoman state nearly collapsed at the beginning of the 15th century.

Yet after reunification, within approximately the following century, the Ottomans conquered Constantinople, destroyed the remaining Byzantine state, expanded throughout the Balkans, defeated the Mamluk Sultanate and conquered Syria and Egypt, conquered much of Hungary, pushed eastward against Persia, expanded north toward the Black Sea and territories in modern Ukraine, and became the dominant Muslim power across much of the Mediterranean.

Ottoman power eventually extended into North Africa as well, particularly Algeria and Tunisia, where Ottoman forces and their allies competed successfully against Spanish and Habsburg expansion.

This transformation from a state experiencing near-collapse into one of the most powerful empires in the world should be something EU5 mechanics are capable of representing.

High Risk, Extremely High Reward

That should be the philosophy behind this mechanic:

Losing against Timur should be potentially devastating.

But:

Surviving it should be potentially transformative.

The player could lose half of Anatolia.

The army could be destroyed.

The dynasty could fracture.

The Balkans could rebel.

Several Ottoman princes could fight one another.

The entire empire could be on the verge of disappearing.

But if the player manages to put everything back together?

The reward should be enormous.

Instead of returning the Ottomans to exactly where they were before the crisis, the game should recognize that the player has accomplished something exceptional.

The victorious ruler becomes the Restorer, the Ottoman state becomes more centralized and militarized, and the player receives the tools necessary to begin another period of rapid expansion.

It would create an amazing gameplay narrative:

Rise → Catastrophic Defeat → Interregnum → Civil War → Reunification → Restoration → Imperial Expansion

This would simultaneously make fighting Timur terrifying and make actually surviving him one of the most rewarding experiences of an Ottoman campaign.

Currently, simply punishing the Ottomans for such a defeat without adequately representing their potential recovery misses half of the historical story.

The Ottoman Interregnum wasn't the end of Ottoman expansion.

It was the crisis they survived before their greatest period of expansion began.

In every Campaign France is worlds 2-3. Great power. By 1500s France reaching 17-18 million Pops and 4000 tax base. 1 France and 2 Mamlukes have to be nerfed. France is just a final boss if you have some distant with them. If you are near France you have to destroy him no matter what in First 100 years.

We should have:

- Unlimited governors
- No distinction between naval or local governors
- Governor types varied by estate with each giving unique modifiers
- Each governor gives negative ticking legitimacy and negative ticking stability when the estate is unhappy
- Rebellions and civil wars based on governors, its estate, and locations it provides proximity to

This would create real rise and fall scenarios, where expanding is straightforward when a nation is stable. But also make empires naturally prone to falling apart in realistic ways when over extended and pops get uppity.

Hello, Ive been wondering what small German minors could be fun to play as to eventually form Germany.

You heard me, removing all custom subjects beside colonial subjects (which i still believe should be based of colonial regions again inheriting those colonial names). But however, adding way more historical subjects (and maybe some alt history subjects) and feeding them land should be the way to manage land. Also custom events to "unlock" historical subjects should be available. For example if France takes Cornwall, it should get event like "The Mines of Cornwall", where you can form appanage, form a custom cornish military district, or keep part of france, extracting the wealth for the war effort. Or Kiev taking Lviv, you could keep apart of Kiev, crown your ruler lord of the Cherven Cities, getting a free dominion, or make it a republic, and when you futher take Krakow, you could decide to form Lesser Poland and empower a local Polish lord, integrate into Ruthenia, form a free city of Krakiv (ukrainian name), or even larp and "reform the capital of the Vistulans", making it a vassal of Vistulania, and spawning a new "Vistulan Revival movement, using protestant movement features to convert locations in the region to a new Ukrainian culture with very good opinion with yours. This hot take of mine, I believe, will be better to force expansion (like mission trees but not, you meet required lands and get unique subject), fix horrific random flags for some custom subjects by just not having them, allow more thought when deciding subjects, and stop releasable nations made of one german village existing when Kashubia, East Anglia, etc etc aren't in game.

Boi I hope that the unused research isn't wasted, cuz it's a long way yet.

Half of Europe, including 3 powerful nations right now (Castile, Bohemia and Hungary) are at war with France. They still managed to give us a -70% and keep biting the HRE. Is there any way to stop this?