Europa Universalis IV Development Diary 21: Leaders & Mercenaries | Page 11

ABookshelf · Mar 4, 2013

Nevermind the over-simplicity of warfare, my gripe is that this DD could be copy-pasted into an EU3 instruction manual into the warfare section and no one could tell the difference. Why is Paradox trying to pass it off as "progress" and devoting a whole DD to say "Yeah we're not changing this major aspect of the game at all."

1alexey · Mar 4, 2013

BelisariuS.F said:
But you are playing as a state, not a king.
You argue for a more complex warfare system, and yet you say that logistics is a distraction. You realize that logistics is part of warfare, and not just a distracting part, but central (you surely heard the saying "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics")? And that's especially true on strategic level (which EU focuses on). For example, you can plan some grand maneuvers deep into the enemy territory, but it will be a failure if you cannot supply your army everywhere it is (or cannot protect your supply lines).

True pal, in 1980, professionals talk logistics. In medieval, not so much. Armies tended to live of land or have some crude supply chain later on. Wars were fought over warm seasons and armies retreated to winter quaters for winter.

And ofcourse, you did chose to ignore the main point, which is, logistic is something a lot of smaller people handle. Tactics is often decided by the highers person in the state. And since you play a state, you actually suposed to have more controll than just a king, not less. And obviously the part about logistic being a distraction was as much of a hyperbole as was the initial quote about tactics being a distraction. So,..

Seli · Mar 4, 2013

1alexey said:
True pal, in 1980, professionals talk logistics. In medieval, not so much. Armies tended to live of land or have some crude supply chain later on. Wars were fought over warm seasons and armies retreated to winter quaters for winter.
...

Of course this is EU4, not CK2. So you might want to adjust that argument. Just look at the problems caused by the simple logistics of getting pay to your mercenaries at this time-period.

HolisticGod · Mar 4, 2013

What's puzzling is that, so far as I understand, a great deal of time and attention have been invested in these battle events (flanking, maneuvering, breaking, etc.) even as early as EU III and now a great deal of time and attention are being invested in making these battle events more visible. I agree with the observation that invisible battle events are not terribly exciting, but, in a game like this, are visible battle events any more exciting? How many people actually watch this play out? Or care? And with so few unit types, the average, at least in EU III, really does appear to be a wash that favors numerical superiority over everything else most of the time.

So why bother?

When people complain about the "battles" in Paradox games, I think they're really complaining about the "campaigns." This is not a tactical simulator. It never will be. A pound of improvement in the "battles" is worth a penny (or less, honestly) to the player, and it's one pound less invested in the actual problem. EU III was significantly less realistic and enjoyable than EU II on the strategic level, not the tactical. Having "Latin Knights" and province-specific brigades and whatever the hell is going on when the little rectangles with the icons meet in battle was not worth losing a) supply lines, b) meaningful attrition, c) reinforcement columns, d) meaningful leaders (both leaders with high impact-to be avoided, lured, killed if defending against and used to great effect and protected if attacking with, which was a lot of what EU II warfare was-and leaders who were killable), e) meaningful terrain, and f) meaningful units, even if there were just three of them and they were named "cavalry" instead of "Latin Knights." I don't give a damn about "Latin Knights" with their dots when the variables really do seem to amount to nothing. Much better to see cavalry armies dominating plains, infantry necessary in mountains, leaders with too few of one or the other being wiped out, overextended armies trapped out of supply and cut down, mass cannon armies managing infantry attrition, etc.

None of these things was perfect and each had a slightly arcade flavor. I'm not saying that EU IV ought to restore them, only that warfare should be improved at this level-maneuver, strategy, logistics. That means limited resources. That means leaders with impact who can't teleport and survive annihilation. That means meaningful terrain, weather, etc. That means choosing the right force ratios for the terrain. That means, above all, meaningful lines of supply and reinforcement. No matter how many nifty calculations are going on under the hood, it's the steering wheel that matters. Launching stacks at one another over largely fungible provinces does not give the player a lot of places to go and it's not fun. It's just not any fun.

I'd like to see, in an ideal universe:

-Province support. Each province has an "off the land" number modified by Owned, Friendly (MA), Hostile Unoccupied, and Hostile Occupied. Ideally, this number is actually consumed as armies march through and stand in the province, with consumption becoming very high and rapid if an army is cut off from supply or too large. Otherwise, a province could simply have three levels-"fresh," "raided," and "wasted," with wasted provinces providing no "off the land" support. An army in supply but larger than this number faces attrition (progressive) but does not deplete the province. An army out of supply faces high attrition (also progressive) and depletes the province.

-Supply lines. An army is in supply if it is in a province that borders an unoccupied, unsieged province of its own or an ally, an occupied enemy province, or an enemy province under siege (siege requiring a more significant force than 1K). An army cut off from supply faces high attrition modified by the "off the land" province supply number, the army's size, terrain, etc., and faces massive attrition in a "wasted" province. It loses half its morale after the first month. In a "wasted" province, it loses the rest of its morale after the second month and will take heavy casualties and shatter if engaged.

-Moving armies face higher attrition than stationary armies, even in owned or friendly provinces. The larger the army, the higher the percentage. In certain provinces and terrain types, moving a large army should be devastating.

-Armies only reinforce in their own or occupied provinces that are in supply. Armies overseas cannot reinforce without control of an unblockaded port passing through clear seazones to a friendly port. Armies reinforce more slowly the further they are from home. Armies in the Americas and subsaharan Africa would ideally be "colonial militias" that are very small and reinforce even more slowly than usual, with non-militias never reinforcing. As it is, I favor zero automatic reinforcement for armies in the colonies.

-Leaders are units. Each comes with a small bodyguard. The bodyguard is fully replenished each month and does not draw on manpower. Leaders go with their bodyguards and die if their bodyguards are annihilated (i.e., if their armies are annihilated).

-Terrain, weather, and province modifiers drastically impact attrition, as should stability, leader, war exhaustion, and morale.

-Ships are outdated and must be replaced (anything else is ridiculous-just have a few naval techs that open up new ship models with improvements and refits in between).

-Navies are very expensive and have narrow frontage in battle (so that there's less incentive for naval stacking).

-Colonial cities and forts are much less fortified than European and attrition and movement in the Americans and Africa are much higher and much slower respectively for non-natives.

-Punish large armies with "plague" events, particularly large armies traveling through hostile territory far from home or through certain provinces or terrain types.

-Make use of impassable borders. Impassable borders were one of the most exciting additions to warfare in CK II and then saw hardly any use. They could really enhance the maneuvering game. Make most of the Rhine, Danube, Black Forest, Alps, Pyrenees, etc., impassable to armies (ideally, passability would depend upon army size) and suddenly certain provinces gain immense strategic value, as they had historically. As it is, building a big stack and going wherever the WS is highest is usually the best strategy.

-Make "power" part of peace deals, to reflect such things as feudal rights (administrative power), trade access and rights (diplomatic power), and prestige (military power). That way, wars can have meaningful outcomes without provinces changing hands. Indemnities and more flexible truces/nonaggression pacts, as well as the addition of "ally against," would also help.

-Generate more warscore for "conclusive" victories-victories in which a significant portion of one side's army is lost or the casualty ratios are very high-and durable occupation of provinces, so that minor wars are possible. As it is, we get pingponging armies because annihilating the other side's troops and occupying half their provinces is essential to winning even a couple of border provinces.

-Make the consequences for refusing reasonable peace offers, for both sides, much graver. Winning sides that refuse a reasonable peace should face diplomatic consequences as well as the chance of certain events triggering to lower stability or increase WE. Losing sides that refuse a reasonable peace should face increased WE and lower stability, and both ought to make persistence painful.

-Likewise, make the AI give up when there's 50% more warscore than the demand and a certain period of time has elapsed. As it is, the AI has to be beaten to death to win anything and then, of course, you might as well take everything.

HolisticGod · Mar 4, 2013

1alexey,

I don't know where you're getting this information, but you're absolutely incorrect.

1. Armies "lived off the land" to the extent that there were farms, villages, and towns that had food and could be extorted for that food. When they didn't, they had to be supplied from friendly territories, and they were. Ideally, in the early period in particular this would mean armies travelling with actual baggage trains full of animals, fodder, etc., that deplete over time. But that seems more difficult than just using supply lines.

2. When we talk about "supply lines," we're not just talking about food. Equipment, weapons, fresh recruits, clothing, etc., all had to be supplied and were seldom so easy to get "off the land."

3. Above all, troops had to be paid. Finding the gold and getting it to them was a very significant problem throughout this period, and much "attrition" was pay-related mutiny and desertion.

4. One of the reasons armies "lived off the land," that is that we don't see a lot of modern logistics over most of the period, is that armies did not cross hundreds of kilometers of hostile territory, leaving cities, towns, and castles undisturbed, to lay siege to enemy capitals. They had to take the towns and cities and castles as they went. EU III mostly completely failed to model this, so when most of us talk about "supply lines" what we're really saying is "some mechanism that makes warfare resemble anything that has ever actually happened in the history of man."

George LeS · Mar 4, 2013

the_legion said:
Two 'small' request for leaders:
(hope they'll make it in)

1) Please put a cooldown on reasigning leaders to another army (Either general 20/30 Days or based on the range he's away from the capital). In EU3 you could take your best general to fight a battle against Ming in Asia and the next day he was fighting France in Europe. That way you'd have the strategic decission to make where to place your little Napoleon.

2) If a ship sinks with a leader onboard in mid-Atlantic the leader has to DIE. To avoid exploiting it as 'King-Killing-Machine', King-Leaders should be excluded from the rule or there sould be a massive (-6) stability hit if your leader dies in battle/onseas (which is historical because nothing shook a nation more than their monarch killed in action) or other nasty consequences (like massive rebels).

----------------------------------------------

I like the mercenary-addition. It makes sense that mercenaries have the same morale as 'normal soldiers' because in that days mercs where the proffessionals on the battlefield. Not sure about the maintenance of generals, I feel it would be better to have the recruitment-cost in Military-Power-Points and the maintenance-cost in cash imho, but let's see how it will work ingame.

While I like the cool down, I can't agree with the 2nd suggestion. For one thing, it means more management to make sure no fleet gets left out, and could make you too reluctant to engage at all. Instead, I'd suggest a longer cool down for leaders "lost" rather than reassigned.

OTOH, there are 2 changes I would like which would ameliorate this. To repeat:

1. The game would be *MUCH* improved if a feature of EU2 were revived, whereby a fleet which is left at sea would automatically return to base. It worked rather as retreats do now. This was never quite adjusted to work so well as it should have, but the idea was absolutely sound. (Also, if reinstituted, it would make possible applying attrition to the AI, a very desireable end.)

2. There really should be no combat in all-sea, that is, non coastal zones. It was so rare during this period as to be beneath the level the game operates on; especially as the overwhelming majority of such actions were one-on-one.

HolisticGod · Mar 4, 2013

George LeS said:
2. There really should be no combat in all-sea, that is, non coastal zones. It was so rare during this period as to be beneath the level the game operates on; especially as the overwhelming majority of such actions were one-on-one.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

George LeS · Mar 4, 2013

HolisticGod said:
...
I'd like to see, in an ideal universe:

-Province support. Each province has an "off the land" number modified by Owned, Friendly (MA), Hostile Unoccupied, and Hostile Occupied. Ideally, this number is actually consumed as armies march through and stand in the province, with consumption becoming very high and rapid if an army is cut off from supply or too large. Otherwise, a province could simply have three levels-"fresh," "raided," and "wasted," with wasted provinces providing no "off the land" support. An army in supply but larger than this number faces attrition (progressive) but does not deplete the province. An army out of supply faces high attrition (also progressive) and depletes the province.

-Supply lines. An army is in supply if it is in a province that borders an unoccupied, unsieged province of its own or an ally, an occupied enemy province, or an enemy province under siege (siege requiring a more significant force than 1K). An army cut off from supply faces high attrition modified by the "off the land" province supply number, the army's size, terrain, etc., and faces massive attrition in a "wasted" province. It loses half its morale after the first month. In a "wasted" province, it loses the rest of its morale after the second month and will take heavy casualties and shatter if engaged.

...

-Leaders are units. Each comes with a small bodyguard. The bodyguard is fully replenished each month and does not draw on manpower. Leaders go with their bodyguards and die if their bodyguards are annihilated (i.e., if their armies are annihilated).

...

-Ships are outdated and must be replaced (anything else is ridiculous-just have a few naval techs that open up new ship models with improvements and refits in between).

-Navies are very expensive and have narrow frontage in battle (so that there's less incentive for naval stacking).

...

-Make use of impassable borders. Impassable borders were one of the most exciting additions to warfare in CK II and then saw hardly any use. They could really enhance the maneuvering game. Make most of the Rhine, Danube, Black Forest, Alps, Pyrenees, etc., impassable to armies (ideally, passability would depend upon army size) and suddenly certain provinces gain immense strategic value, as they had historically. As it is, building a big stack and going wherever the WS is highest is usually the best strategy.

-Make "power" part of peace deals, to reflect such things as feudal rights (administrative power), trade access and rights (diplomatic power), and prestige (military power). That way, wars can have meaningful outcomes without provinces changing hands. Indemnities and more flexible truces/nonaggression pacts, as well as the addition of "ally against," would also help.

...

(The parts snipped are those I agree with close to 100%).

1. Province support/supply lines could use an added feature. Tracing through besieged provinces should be more costly than just occupied ones. Thus, the further you penetrate with your forward force, with more untaken provinces in its rear, the lower your supply status should be. Perhaps this could be alleviated by having more troops garrisoning the rear provinces, IFF the AI could be made to understand how this works.

2. Leaders = units is problematic. For one thing, it cannot be made to work at sea, since the base unit is 1 ship. Generally, I'd prefer a return to EU2's method of having leaders exist IN units, not in a pool for instant assignment. However, I would advocate (if feasible) these difference:
a. They would show up in a pool for assignment.
b. They could be assigned as they are now, but only the top leader (of a type) at a time, say, one per month. The order would be that in which they entered, or reentered, the pool.
c. When relieved or when the unit is lost, they are placed at the bottom of the pool. They would have a cooldown period before they could be reassigned.
d. SOME leeway for the AI, if necessary, but not a complete release from these restraints.

3. Ships and Fleets: The need for replacement exists in game now, and I agree it should be kept. Those who are asking for auto upgrades are ignoring the realities of navies. However, there is more needed.
a. We really need to get rid of the maintenance slider, and instead institute reserves. That is how it really worked. So, in peace time, you'd really have, in commission, only such ships as needed for policing trade and your empire. A more limited war, against a non-naval power, would lead to only a portion of your fleet being commissioned. (This was exactly the case for the RN, 1776-1778).
b. Really, until the mid-18th C, it should be virtually impossible both to keep a fleet in full commission all year, and to maintain a full-strength blockade over many months. (Really, armies should be on a reduced status during the non-campaign months, too, until the tech gets really high.)
c. The strain of commissioning large fleets over years of war was another thing only rarely achieved during pre-18th C wars. As late as the 7 Years' War, the French were unable to afford to commission all the ships possible in the later years.
d. Once again, the available pool of trained sailors was a greater constraint on navies, than MP was on armies. This should be reflected in a morale cut, rather than FL, though.

4. Restricting what, and how many, units can pass certain borders is an interesting idea, but would need to be much more developed.

5. Peace deals also need to be reworked so that the alliance leader doesn't get everything. Some measure of spreading the wealth should be enforced, based on WS gained by allies. I've long wanted to see war missions which, when achieved, would give a country a claim to more of the prize (or immunize him from some of the losses). But this, too, needs developing.

TheGreatSnoop · Mar 4, 2013

Asian countries can get samurai cavalry, for example,

Why would all Asian countries have access to the Japanese noble class of warriors?

takedown47 · Mar 4, 2013

1alexey said:
I can not get people that say "EU is not a wargame, it doesn`t need a complex warfare system".

The "uncomplex" system always comes down to who has more manpower and gold, plain and simple. We will spend a lot of time fighting wars. Soe wars will decide if we succed or if we fail. Warfare needs to be interesting and entertaining, not just number crunching.

In EU3, there was the simple-best composition of troops that didn`t varry much thrugh the game. That is uninteresting.

+1 Exactly.

takedown47 · Mar 4, 2013

Stoycho said:
outstanding post!

Thankyou for reading it

HolisticGod · Mar 4, 2013

George LeS said:
1. Province support/supply lines could use an added feature. Tracing through besieged provinces should be more costly than just occupied ones. Thus, the further you penetrate with your forward force, with more untaken provinces in its rear, the lower your supply status should be. Perhaps this could be alleviated by having more troops garrisoning the rear provinces, IFF the AI could be made to understand how this works.

Agreed.

I especially like a proportional covering/besieging qualifier, but doubt the AI could cost effectively be programmed to understand it.

And the simplified method is mostly correct. No matter how many troops guard a supply line, the lengthier it is the costlier and less effective. It's also important to note that desertion and illness will continue, and likely worsen, notwithstanding supply lines as an army further penetrates enemy territory. Meanwhile, harassment is greatly worsened by leaving enemy positions to one's rear, making it much more difficult to "live off the land."

What if covering armies (sizable enough to lay siege, at least, and perhaps larger if EU IV retains EU III's pathetically small siege armies) provided supply only one province out? Armies would be able to maneuver on a deep front line, but it would still be a front line. No using a string of tiny units from the Spanish Netherlands, let's say, to quickly lay siege to Paris and then using that main army to cover the covering armies.

2. Leaders = units is problematic. For one thing, it cannot be made to work at sea, since the base unit is 1 ship. Generally, I'd prefer a return to EU2's method of having leaders exist IN units, not in a pool for instant assignment. However, I would advocate (if feasible) these difference:
a. They would show up in a pool for assignment.
b. They could be assigned as they are now, but only the top leader (of a type) at a time, say, one per month. The order would be that in which they entered, or reentered, the pool.
c. When relieved or when the unit is lost, they are placed at the bottom of the pool. They would have a cooldown period before they could be reassigned.
d. SOME leeway for the AI, if necessary, but not a complete release from these restraints.

I, too, would prefer the EU II method. Yours would be the preferable hybrid-leaders are assigned from a pool to an actual army or navy rather than coming as a unit-provided they were annihilated with their armies.

I'd rather not allow reassignment at all, but instead require leaders to actually travel wherever it is they're needed, whether by bodyguard unit or with at least one brigade from their current army.

Why can't admirals come with flagships? Rather than bodyguards. Only assignable in home port.

3. Ships and Fleets: The need for replacement exists in game now, and I agree it should be kept. Those who are asking for auto upgrades are ignoring the realities of navies. However, there is more needed.
a. We really need to get rid of the maintenance slider, and instead institute reserves. That is how it really worked. So, in peace time, you'd really have, in commission, only such ships as needed for policing trade and your empire. A more limited war, against a non-naval power, would lead to only a portion of your fleet being commissioned. (This was exactly the case for the RN, 1776-1778).
b. Really, until the mid-18th C, it should be virtually impossible both to keep a fleet in full commission all year, and to maintain a full-strength blockade over many months. (Really, armies should be on a reduced status during the non-campaign months, too, until the tech gets really high.)
c. The strain of commissioning large fleets over years of war was another thing only rarely achieved during pre-18th C wars. As late as the 7 Years' War, the French were unable to afford to commission all the ships possible in the later years.
d. Once again, the available pool of trained sailors was a greater constraint on navies, than MP was on armies. This should be reflected in a morale cut, rather than FL, though.

Agreed completely. And it's worse than that.

Naval squadrons should have very strict basing and rebasing requirements, especially ships of the line, and there should be far fewer ports capable of serving as "bases." I'd like a distinction between bays, where ships can shelter for repairs, to recover morale, etc., and ports that determine a ship's range and resupply, as well as the ability to support armies and colonies. One of the deepest flaws in the naval game is that ports like, say, Malta in the Napoleonic Wars are trivial.

Ideally, galleys would be absolutely restricted to the inland seas but remain viable there deep into the game. Transports would have even stricter basing requirements and would be required to maintain supply to an invading army until at least one coastal province was taken. And then perhaps they could take a bite out of trade income or something? I don't mind cheap transports, but invasions ought to be costly and time-consuming, such that they have to be carefully prepared in advance and timed. Nobody should be maintaining large transport fleets in peacetime just in case they need to nip across the channel. One way to do that would be simulating the toll commandeering merchant ships or building convoys took on civilian shipping.

Meanwhile, I agree on some kind of naval reserve, and would also like to see separate naval manpower that requires continuous financial investment. Galleys could be exempt, I suppose, and transports, too, but mid-sized ships and ships of the line should require a nation to marshal its resources. For SOLs, in particular, and perhaps there should be a separate class of unit above heavy ships that opens at the appropriate tech level, the per ship time and ducat costs should be very high, whatever is used for maintenance and manpower should be high, and certain expensive one-time thresholds should be prerequisites (including Ideas and improvements like an Admiralty/Naval Board, Shipyard, etc.).

There was a reason only a tiny handful of countries were real naval powers in the 18th century. By the Napoleonic Wars, it really came down to Britain and France, and even earlier navies (Sweden's, for example) were subsidized by the British or built by the Dutch.

nalivayko · Mar 4, 2013

George LeS said:
While I like the cool down, I can't agree with the 2nd suggestion. For one thing, it means more management to make sure no fleet gets left out, and could make you too reluctant to engage at all. Instead, I'd suggest a longer cool down for leaders "lost" rather than reassigned.

OTOH, there are 2 changes I would like which would ameliorate this. To repeat:

1. The game would be *MUCH* improved if a feature of EU2 were revived, whereby a fleet which is left at sea would automatically return to base. It worked rather as retreats do now. This was never quite adjusted to work so well as it should have, but the idea was absolutely sound. (Also, if reinstituted, it would make possible applying attrition to the AI, a very desireable end.)

2. There really should be no combat in all-sea, that is, non coastal zones. It was so rare during this period as to be beneath the level the game operates on; especially as the overwhelming majority of such actions were one-on-one.

Agreed.

Grubnessul · Mar 4, 2013

TheGreatSnoop said:
Why would all Asian countries have access to the Japanese noble class of warriors?

Probably the same reason all of Europe shared units as longbowmen, highlanders, redcoats etc. If you don't make unique units for every country, you'll get these kinds of generic things.

lowdias · Mar 4, 2013

Seriously the best would be either to make warfare more EU 2 'ish, with the addition of supply à la MOTE and frontage or to use the magna mundi warfare system with broad unit types (light, heavy, militia...) that gain levels based on tech.

Seli · Mar 4, 2013

The difference between the reactions to this DD where the composition of the armies is described and dd19 (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...per-diary-19-–-War-has-never-been-so-much-fun...) where it is made clear how they will act during war is strange to see.

T-Duke · Mar 4, 2013

Eu 3 was released in 2007... 6 years after we have just a couple of tweaks as to military managment at least. I'm quite disappointed too.

George LeS · Mar 4, 2013

HolisticGod said:
...
I, too, would prefer the EU II method. Yours would be the preferable hybrid-leaders are assigned from a pool to an actual army or navy rather than coming as a unit-provided they were annihilated with their armies.

I'd rather not allow reassignment at all, but instead require leaders to actually travel wherever it is they're needed, whether by bodyguard unit or with at least one brigade from their current army.

Why can't admirals come with flagships? Rather than bodyguards. Only assignable in home port.

Well, in EU2, that entailed having a new unit show up. This led to all sorts of awkwardness. Sometimes it was in a position which led to instant death. But mostly they'd show up in the wrong places. INITIAL freedom of placement is, I think, the best way to go.

On reassignment, I am inclined to agree; send him home (or elsewhere) with a regiment or ship. But there is still the problem if leaders' deaths, and this is especially big for the AI. The AI was very bad in its handling of leaders in EU2; e.g., I recall fighting the Dutch once when they sent out de Ruyter with 6 transports, while there was a 70+ ship fleet in the same port. It was just too easy to kill the leaders. This got so bad that I created events which resurrected AI leaders throughout their historical lives. And after all, even for the player, leaders often did return, or get exchanged. My ideal would be some sort of delayed event giving him back after some time, with (again) *immediate* assignment required.

HolisticGod said:
...
Naval squadrons should have very strict basing and rebasing requirements, especially ships of the line, and there should be far fewer ports capable of serving as "bases." I'd like a distinction between bays, where ships can shelter for repairs, to recover morale, etc., and ports that determine a ship's range and resupply, as well as the ability to support armies and colonies. One of the deepest flaws in the naval game is that ports like, say, Malta in the Napoleonic Wars are trivial.

Again, this is true, but there are limits to playability. I've already, several times, advocated a different way of maintaining fleets on station, based on their target zone and base, so I won't repeat. (It's in my old naval thread here.) However, there are pitfalls. Having to keep track of each port, to be sure you get the right one, or worse, having to split up the fleet for repair and maintenance, seems to me just adding work for the player. What I believe is that the choice of a base should be based, for game purposes, on what you can do *FROM* it, more than what happens *IN* it. (This is a mistake MMtG was committed to; add one more ship into a port, and none get repaired.) Really, you should want Minorca because a fleet, using it to blockade Toulon, will more effective than one from Gibraltar or Malta; and they more effective than from Lisbon, etc.

HolisticGod said:
Ideally, galleys would be absolutely restricted to the inland seas but remain viable there deep into the game. Transports would have even stricter basing requirements and would be required to maintain supply to an invading army until at least one coastal province was taken. And then perhaps they could take a bite out of trade income or something? I don't mind cheap transports, but invasions ought to be costly and time-consuming, such that they have to be carefully prepared in advance and timed. Nobody should be maintaining large transport fleets in peacetime just in case they need to nip across the channel. One way to do that would be simulating the toll commandeering merchant ships or building convoys took on civilian shipping.

Meanwhile, I agree on some kind of naval reserve, and would also like to see separate naval manpower that requires continuous financial investment. Galleys could be exempt, I suppose, and transports, too, but mid-sized ships and ships of the line should require a nation to marshal its resources. For SOLs, in particular, and perhaps there should be a separate class of unit above heavy ships that opens at the appropriate tech level, the per ship time and ducat costs should be very high, whatever is used for maintenance and manpower should be high, and certain expensive one-time thresholds should be prerequisites (including Ideas and improvements like an Admiralty/Naval Board, Shipyard, etc.)...

1. Galleys were used in N European waters, as were ships which, though different from their Med sisters, can only be considered "galleys" in the game. However, I do think that the increased attrition of EU2 should be revived, especially if (as I hope) weather returns, and with it, storms.

2. Transports in large numbers were merchants. No number of converted warships (of which there were many) or purpose built ships (of which there were a few) could handle a large invasion force. That is correct. To my mind the best way would be to treat your trade as a "reserve", with of course the cost that in calling it up, you lose income. (Note that this will be inherently more appealing to France, whose trade is already taken a hit, than Britain, who needs hers as much as ever.)

3. The key to having a pool of seamen was trade. There really wasn't another way. The French attempt to make a system of registered sailors, and encourage more, failed. And its hard to see just how anyone could have made such a thing work, given the times. On the other hand, *IF* you can keep a fleet manned for several years, you would improve things. But it would be very costly.

While galleys didn't entail this investment, they were very costly to keep in commission. The Pope, before Lepanto, agreed to help Venice to pay for more Venetian galleys. The crews may not have needed great skills, but no matter how little you cared about the rowers, you still had to give them food or drink, if you wanted to get any speed out of them. And remember, some countries didn't use slaves or convicts.

There is another problem in EU3, though. If you load at any time in question, you'll see that the RN is TOO strong relative to its competitors, except for Spain, which is also overpowered. I don't have a real suggestion for this.

On the question of stronger SOLs, what I've done is simply have 3 deckers (of size increasing with tech) not built at all, but acquired by decision. This keeps the numbers down. I assume this will still be possible in EU4.

takedown47 · Mar 5, 2013

T-Duke said:
Eu 3 was released in 2007... 6 years after we have just a couple of tweaks as to military managment at least. I'm quite disappointed too.

Agreed. It is not really a new game, just an updated map and new trade system.

HolisticGod · Mar 5, 2013

takedown47 said:
Agreed. It is not really a new game, just an updated map and new trade system.

I disagree.

While EU III was a step backward in military mechanics, and EU IV has shown very little promise beyond the intriguing shatter/disorganization mechanics and the slow morale and manpower regeneration we were already beginning to see in the latest Divine Wind beta, the other changes are quite significant and, if well-implemented, promise a lot.

Putting aside the map and interface (vast improvements over EU III):

-Expanded idea system in place of DPs (however significant in implementation, think of the flexibility this provides modders)
-Monarch powers (even if I don't like the high level of abstraction) replacing a number of mechanics and simultaneously a) reducing linear rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer development that has plagued all Paradox games and b) transforming largely mechanical decisions (quality over quantity in EU II, hyperteching in EU II and EU III, etc.) into difficult choices over finite resources
-Trade overall everybody seems to agree is dramatic and to the good
-Conversion of expendable resources (colonists, merchants, diplomats) into a finite pool of agents with travel times, etc. (I think many have underrated this)
-Reintroduction of historical event system, which was one of Paradox's great strengths and for which dynamic events never quite compensated
-General focus on one of fully expanded, fully patched EU III's two greatest weaknesses-that countries are essentially fungible, tasting of nothing but the faint nuttiness of Civilization

Sure, they appear to be doing nothing much about fully expanded, fully patched EU III's other greatest weakness-that warfare feels like nothing much and certainly nothing like historical warfare, with low stakes, endless frustrations, little strategy, and "abstraction" of such negligibles as supply, meaningful attrition, limited manpower, economic consequences, maneuver, reinforcement, etc. (i.e., everything but the actual battles, which, of course, aren't actually playable)-but the rest of that is more than enough to justify a sequel.

If it all comes off, based on nothing more than what we've seen so far, I expect EU IV to be a much, much better game than EU III. Whether it will be the divine successor to EU II... We'll see.

Attachments

Major

Field Marshal

Pining for a past that never was

Beware of the HoG

Beware of the HoG

Ruler of the Queen's Navee

Beware of the HoG

Ruler of the Queen's Navee

Colonel

Grand Strategist

Grand Strategist

Beware of the HoG

General

Your Friendly Dictator Next Door

First Lieutenant

Pining for a past that never was

Corporal

Ruler of the Queen's Navee

Grand Strategist

Beware of the HoG