EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of January 2017

[JustMormegil]

That's because the ottomans at this point were crap, not because Russia was good.
If you want an event for General Suvorov that's fine but one brilliant leader does not mean that their entire army should be super good.
And no if Russia had had anywhere near the professional armies of sweden and prussia then they would have curbstomped them with their numerical advantage. Russia had a good solid army don't get me wrong but you can't compare them skillwise with the small but elite armies of Sweden and Prussia.
Whioe potentially true that high devleopment (due to large number of provinces) should be he reason Russia have loads of manpower and high forcelimit, what other national ideas should one give them? They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all. Giving them diplomacy ones or economic ones. Or perhaps one more colonial one, because let's face it the colonizing of Siberia is always behind schedule, even more so if you consdier that they should be atleast starting to colonize Alaska before the game ends. Perhaps a special thing which allows Russia to ignore the arctic penalty (if they don't already).

Also I find states to be an excellent way to limit the blobbing, except there are to many of them which favours countries with high development.


It is a nerf to big countries, and playing wide early on. I think it is a great idea t halt the snowball early and as such limit how big it will become.

How do you explain Austria, Poland and France morale and discipline boosts in this case? Everybody has professional armies except Russia? Really?

Ottomans are discussed 100500 times and there are no changes from Paradox to model their decline. You know, #ThanksParadox

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Well france did have a massive population didn't they? The largest one in Europe, maybee they could come with a modifier which forces them to have 5% extra nobility estate until the end of the HYW event fires. Or even until the age of absolutism.

Then again I don't really feel France is OP right now I see them destroyed more often than victorious these days. I rather feel Burgundy plus their vassals are the ones who are a bit to strong. Oh and England is also way to powerful early on.

Development isn't based on population alone though.

 

[TheDungen]

How do you explain Austria, Poland and France morale and discipline boosts in this case? Everybody has professional armies except Russia? Really?

Ottomans are discussed 100500 times and there are no changes from Paradox to model their decline. You know, #ThanksParadox

The ottomans have worse units in the later techs than Western and eastern does don't they? I would say this represents how they fall behind in the later ages.

Well poland was a very powerful nation in war in it's heyday, but I've already suggested that it's age thing (plus prudctuion as of now) gets changed for one of it's military ideas so that they become a bit less powerful outside their best age. Say that their age thing gets to be +20 morale of armies while their last idea instead becomes +10 production efficiency.
As for austria I have no idea why they have it, Russia and Ausria have pretty similiar situations and could easily have the same tier of military national ideas.
When it comes to France I have been advocating them being changed for a long time, they are the ones who should have manpower and force limit modifiers, France who went into every war in this era (before napoleon) with the idea that numbers would win it for them. I have no idea why they get a morale of armies modifier at all much less why they get a +20 and superb starting generals.
That said however France at the moment aren't very strong, they get crushed by their neighbours all the time, so a nerf is not really in the cards (Not unless England and Burgundy are nerfed first).

Development isn't based on population alone though.

True. I could see france losing some devleopment and instead getting national manpower modifiers to show that they have a lot of people but most of whom are peasants. But only if Burgundy is nerfed first, their vassals needs to be more trouble for them.

 

[JCivX]

If you look back at the first few pages of this thread, Johan mentioned that this has now been changed to +30% goods produced.

Thanks, completely missed it!

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

we can give %5 discipline to poland too but then we have to remove ridiculous %15 moral bonus or %5 discipline from their NI. what do you think?



just for a single battle near wien?

They are getting 30% production instead of +1 legitimacy so it is all good.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

Poland's +1 legitimacy is extremely weak even in a vacuum, but in the context of the other nation-specific bonuses it is absolute garbage. Please please please change it. If it has to be a legitimacy buff for whatever reason, at least make it +3 or +4 per year so it has at least minimal impact on the game.

There is just no reason whatsoever to keep the +1 legitimacy bonus other than maybe saving face by not admitting that it was too weak, but Paradox isn't usually that shallow and is actually very responsive.

They seem to already have changed it to +30 percent production.

 

[FrogCrusher]

+3 Artillery Bonus vs Fort
To clarify:
Artillery Bonus usually goes up to a maximum of +5 when sieging, this can be increased by this ability to +8 in this age.

Ok, si I did the calculation as I did in the other threads.
Here is the results: mean number of phases to finish the siege.

Basically, with a land province (or blockade province) and a 2 pip siege general, the column -6 has to be seen. The gain is about 3 phases with 20 artillery regiments. That is 30% ! Not so bad

I used reverse engineering done by other for the breach probability, as the team seems reluctant to give the exact rule that creates breach... That probability might also be increased, we don't know
I also added the table in the wiki for the number of regiments needed, as someone earlier asked for that.

 

[raikaria]

Between Enlightenment spawning based on Parliaments; and now a Splendor objective being 'Have Parliament' while also removing Absolute Monarchy as a Gov.Type; it seems Paradox REALLY want you to go Constitutional.

Also any changes to The Revolution?

 

[al.gb]

Well they do get them back in the last age, before 1710 can you really justify them being as powerful as they presently are?

In previous centuries Russia was fairly powerful and influential among its neighbors in Eastern and Northern Europe. Is this not enough?

That's because the ottomans at this point were crap, not because Russia was good.
If you want an event for General Suvorov that's fine but one brilliant leader does not mean that their entire army should be super good.
And no if Russia had had anywhere near the professional armies of sweden and prussia then they would have curbstomped them with their numerical advantage. Russia had a good solid army don't get me wrong but you can't compare them skillwise with the small but elite armies of Sweden and Prussia.
Whioe potentially true that high devleopment (due to large number of provinces) should be he reason Russia have loads of manpower and high forcelimit, what other national ideas should one give them? They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all. Giving them diplomacy ones or economic ones. Or perhaps one more colonial one, because let's face it the colonizing of Siberia is always behind schedule, even more so if you consdier that they should be atleast starting to colonize Alaska before the game ends. Perhaps a special thing which allows Russia to ignore the arctic penalty (if they don't already).

Oh, again. Nobody says that Russia should have military ideas of the level of Sweden or Prussia. It should be mediocre bonuses like a +10% army morale and +10% of infantry combat ability. Something at level of Austria.
This: "They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all." is example of VERY strange logic.
And are you talking only about Sweden and Prussia, with their "elite small armies." How about PLC "elite" army, it's aren't small. Especially with the ugly habit of PLC AI to pick quantity as first military idea group in last patch. Same for Ottomans.
Russian colonisation will be better if swap positions of "Siberian frontier" and "Abolish the Mestnichestvo" ideas at least. This change is offered a long time ago, but there's no sign that that will change any time soon.

 

[Col'um]

Wow! Kazahk and Khiva formed! I'm not sure if they used a historical start or took this from a save game.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Wow! Kazahk and Khiva formed! I'm not sure if they used a historical start or took this from a save game.

It's the "War of the Quadruple alliance" bookmark.

 

[OBRkenobi]

Screw the haters. This feature keeps looking more and more incredible!
I'm especially looking forward to this particular age, the missions and bonuses both look sweet.

 

[Djaevlenselv]

Since the Age of Absolutism has a fixed end date and Age of Revolutions has a dynamic start date, can we have years between them that are not part of any age?

 

[TheDungen]

In previous centuries Russia was fairly powerful and influential among its neighbors in Eastern and Northern Europe. Is this not enough?

Yes and no, Russia isn't weak before Peter I, but the polish Lithuanian commonwealth is definitely the powerhouse in the region prior to this. Russia is more on par with Sweden, a secondary power in the area, and nowhere near the world power it becomes in the 18th century and onwards.

I
Oh, again. Nobody says that Russia should have military ideas of the level of Sweden or Prussia. It should be mediocre bonuses like a +10% army morale and +10% of infantry combat ability. Something at level of Austria.
This: "They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all." is example of VERY strange logic.
And are you talking only about Sweden and Prussia, with their "elite small armies." How about PLC "elite" army, it's aren't small. Especially with the ugly habit of PLC AI to pick quantity as first military idea group in last patch. Same for Ottomans.
Russian colonisation will be better if swap positions of "Siberian frontier" and "Abolish the Mestnichestvo" ideas at least. This change is offered a long time ago, but there's no sign that that will change any time soon.

Someone said that the Russian soldiers were in the same league as the armies of Prussia and Sweden, and I merely replied that while they were certainly not bad they were not quite that good. I too would rather see Russia have military national ideas that did not focus on massed unit tactics 200 years ahead of time.
I'm sorry I'm tired are you saying Poland's army should be small and elite or that it shouldn't? Because getting a country with the development of the PLC to have a small elite army is going to take a lot of tweaking.

 

[Badesumofu]

So it looks like this DLC/patch is going to aim to focus the game on doing things other than blobbing. The state nerf is a nerf to the effectiveness of simple mindless blobbing since the extra land will be territories. The age mechanics give us alternate aims and goals to pursue. But it also looks like the ability to blob really hard in the late game has been buffed with the +3 siege bonus.

The age stuff looks very win more, but the nerf to states should counter that somewhat. It means more thought needs to go into which lands to conquer - conquering a bunch of low development nothing states that you won't statify is probably not worth the effort in a lot of cases. Conquer stuff to set up trade companies. Conquer wealthy land worthy of statehood. Builld economy, pursue age goals. Go revolutionary in 1710 and then blob like a madperson. Sounds good.

The state nerf is an indirect buff to more diplomatic playstyles as well since having more of your controlled land held by subjects will be more effective than having loads of territories.

 

[Mauer]

thats one big-ass whip

Who would have known the secret to more discipline is a longer whip.

 

[tobias.mb]

Yes and no, Russia isn't weak before Peter I, but the polish Lithuanian commonwealth is definitely the powerhouse in the region prior to this. Russia is more on par with Sweden, a secondary power in the area, and nowhere near the world power it becomes in the 18th century and onwards.

I think the problem is actually, that Russia is bordering Poland, Sweden and Prussia in the west and Ottomans in the south. All of those have top-tier mil ideas while Russia itself has NOTHING (aside from measly 0.5 army tradition).
Russia should at least have some defensive buffs, like extra winter attrition for enemies or something.
But at this point I doubt anything will change with national ideas anymore.

 

[Cysiek]

Actually, Polish armies at XVII century were small and elite and polish NI are good in representing it. Unfortunately, the game is unable to show interior problems in PLC(lack of Chmielnicki Uprising) so Poland can easily field hordes of space marines.
This is another problem of this game - EUIV is unable to show decline of empires like Spain PLC Ottomans, so Russia and Prussia never become powerhouses like in real history.

 

[Incompetent]

It's based on Eugene Delacroix's painting "Liberty Leading the People."

Edit: Note the guy in the top hat and the young student.

Doesn't really fit the whole barricade scene though. It's also still not relevant to the EU4 era, given that this painting is celebrating the revolution of July 1830. (The original 1789 revolution was so exciting that the French took the better part of a century to calm down and figure out what kind of government they really wanted.)

 

[Mortheim]

That's because the ottomans at this point were crap, not because Russia was good.
If you want an event for General Suvorov that's fine but one brilliant leader does not mean that their entire army should be super good.
And no if Russia had had anywhere near the professional armies of sweden and prussia then they would have curbstomped them with their numerical advantage. Russia had a good solid army don't get me wrong but you can't compare them skillwise with the small but elite armies of Sweden and Prussia.
Whioe potentially true that high devleopment (due to large number of provinces) should be he reason Russia have loads of manpower and high forcelimit, what other national ideas should one give them? They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all. Giving them diplomacy ones or economic ones. Or perhaps one more colonial one, because let's face it the colonizing of Siberia is always behind schedule, even more so if you consdier that they should be atleast starting to colonize Alaska before the game ends. Perhaps a special thing which allows Russia to ignore the arctic penalty (if they don't already).

Yeah...that's why they were able to win at Molodi. Also:
Battle of Cassano, Battle of Trebia, Battle of Novi, also there was battle on Schöllenen Gorge (but there is nothing about it on wikipedia for some reason).
Battle of Zorndorf (considering that Russian general was mediocre at best and was fighting Old Fritz himself), Battle of Kunersdorf.

I can find other battle, but they were, mostly, against Poland, Sweden and Ottomans. And, most of the time, Russian forces won. Considering the bonuses Poland have...Well, yeah. They have one of the best military ideas. Compared to Russia - garbage.

Also, it will be strange to you - but in most battle Russian didn't have large numbers. Cause. you now, population wasn't like in France.

And i can find to you a lot of good military leaders.