How the fuck do I earn money in this shit? I can either spend

Taxes go directly to your treasury. There's also a number of ways to reduce inflation, such as Master of Mint advisor and National Bank idea, allowing you to mint more money without inflation. And some inflation is fine if the investment pays itself back (say, cost for constructing a building requires you to mint gold enough to increase inflation by 1%, but building in operation increases your income by 2%, and it's always possible to combat inflation later on). Loans can also be worth it on similar grounds.

File: EU3_8.jpg (430KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1366x768px

>>388737579
Noone plays Grand strategy games anymore?

>>388738118
One obvious mistake to make is spam merchants. You need to mint money to get trade (or production) income for your own use and while there's value in faster technological advancement, you need to be somewhat of a trade power or have good inflation reduction to make trade worth it (on trade nodes where you actually have to compete for the trade slots, anyway) in terms of your treasury.

You can also reduce army and navy upkeep when you're at war (or even disband some of the forces).

>>388738272
the new crowd plays eu4/ck2

File: image.jpg (512KB, 2260x1673px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 2260x1673px

>>388738272

no reason to play Eu3 when you own Eu4

t. player more than 1000 hours of both

>>388740718
eu4 has mana
therefore it's shit

>>388740718
Being the better game and having better mods (Magna Mundi) seems like a pretty good reason to me

git gud

>>388740718
Is this meant to trigger me. Because it has

>>388740881
Why is mana shit, I've only played a little eu4

>>388743607
For starters, you play these sort of games in order to RP a sovereign, and while some abstraction is obviously always going to be there, the mana system is utterly abstract. Spend mana and population will ~immediately feel a part of your culture, spend mana and you suddenly discover a technology etc. It simply doesn't feel like you are guiding the development of a state in an artificial history simulation, and instead it feels like you're "just pressing buttons". Paradox games have never offered particularly deep gameplay, but it also pretty much takes away the feeling of mastery over the mechanics as the number of things you can do is strictly limited by your mana pool (whereas in EU3 for example you can learn to exploit trade efficiency stacking to dominate trade and subsequently gain a massive lead in societal and technological progress and you feel good for "being good at the game", while with mana you can only progress as fast as accumulation of mana allows).

>>388740881
eu3 has cascading alliances
therefore it's shit