No single nation is even close to 80k there. This is nothing more than a junk alliance (that's still easy to beat) where 5 nations have built that stupid +10 FL building.
- 2
- 1
1508 Australian Liberation Army, aka AAA
- Thread starter ruianp2
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Okinawa has a famous us military base, so I think Ryuku army is pretty strong these days.
All jokes aside do you actually think 80k for Australian native is good and reasonable in any way?
Last edited:
- 6
Don't think they need FL building, but I'd like to point out that the coalition mechanic makes this Australian federation look completely plausible.
- 2
Yes by any means the federation is possible. And in no way is defeating them hard. 10k is good enough for Australia, and 20k for NA. Only thing this does is that it intimidates dumb AI colonizer from killing them.
From a game perspective and ignoring any historicity or lack thereof, yes. It makes colonization extremely possible, and if done, rewarding (at least with Leviathan, where all the new types of colonial nations give you a lot of cool stuff), but requires you to actually spend some of your resources on it to get those rewards. (You can't just expand through uncolonized land for 2k troops and 6 gold/month, but 10-20k with the typical tech advantage can beat even their 80k armies and take plenty of land.) It also gives player-controlled Australian/North American Nations the ability to do interesting things when played properly. So I'd argue from a purely game balance perspective, yes, these new features are good and reasonable.
- 4
- 3
It is important to note that Paradox games do not have a point of divergence from history because even their starting set-ups are inaccurate.
Examples of this can be seen in every game. HOI4 buffs the Axis' industries to implausible levels while simultaneously nerfing the Allies. CK3 does not even attempt to simulate a vassal having multiple overlords or sub-national warfare. And EU4 ahistorically presents New World and Australian decentralised groups as if they were centralised states.
Personally, I would make almost all of these groups 'estates' that co-operate and/or fight against the colonising powers and each other. Multiple such groups could exist in a province, and they would remain a much greater threat to the colonising nations than they are now.
Last edited:
This is a really stupid thread. It's a game. Of course the numbers are going to be ridiculous. If we all went off real life standards half the world wouldn't have enough men too siege a single non-fortified province. Let alone expand at all.
You have to realise that this is a game and should be treated as a game. Not a history simulator.
You have to realise that this is a game and should be treated as a game. Not a history simulator.
- 4
- 4
- 2
It’s a game with its internal logic, and that internal logic is based on historical facts. Opm Natives on Australia isn’t Zerg from Starcraft or Orcs from Lotr, they don’t have a three times larger army than German princes or Japanese daimyos simply because their army is trash. 20k for a native opm is against eu4’s own logic.
And yes, I consider eu4 to be a history simulation game. If Ming always conquer Europe, or Portugal never colonizes, I think that is failure of the game. If one primitive tribe with one Oceania province in the middle of nowhere has more army than 1550 Prussia, that is bs too.
- 5
- 4
The internal logic takes inspiration from history, but saying the mechanics themselves are based on historical facts is a hard no across the board. That simply isn't the case in EU 4.
We're talking about a game where coalitions can't separate peace, sieges last several times longer than reality in most cases, attrition is either a joke or ahistorically enormous depending on where you look, there is such a thing as 100% peace deals, economy is a simplified command structure everywhere, every nation has "monarch points", decision making entities rule a nation regardless of population for > 3 centuries, and it is easier to send 50,000 troops to other continents than settlers with regards to "range".
This is a game where the absurdity of Spain marching to Morocco through the Middle East was deliberately added to it in a patch (a gameplay mistake rather in addition to a history one, as it made planning relationships pre-war more shallow). It is in this framework that we are now supposed to buy that the force limit for a particular set of nations is too large, ostensibly due to inconsistency with history. In a game where ship building power and allies are inherently linked and you can have the panama canal in the 1700's trivially.
When one considers the mechanical implementation/design choices for EU 4 mechanics as a whole, this must be considered objectively false. Devs have intentionally deviated from history over and over again, and have trended away from historical representations across patches (sometimes to the detriment of gameplay, other times not).
- 3
Just because it is absurd that Spain goes the other way around Mediterranean does not mean 80k native troops is good. They are both stupid inconsistencies and should be eliminated from the game. Except one is easier to fix than the others, because the 80k native was consciously added to the game just to make a “fun to play” dlc nation for you to buy. Why they don’t make Siberia farmland so Siberian tribes can dev push and conquer China as well? Central Asia doesn’t have a lot of economy, next patch they should be producing spices in every province.
The beauty of eu4 over civ or other strategy games for me is the geopolitical position of nations, and the pseudo historical scenarios it creates. Like in India, of course the religion is very coarse, but the mixed Hindu and Islam gives you a fun taste of the religious conflicts in the region. Like in Europe, does the eight reforms make any sense? No, but it gives you fun mechanics to play through and pretend you are doing hre politics. What about the +10 fl native buildings? What does that reflect? How is that not a stupid brute force buff that does not make “remaining a tribe” good anyways?
- 3
- 1
Are they inconsistencies though? Both of these examples meet the following criteria:
- They were not part of 1.0 EU 4 release
- They were deliberately added by the developers, despite a subset of players protesting their implementation
- They were completely impossible in actual history
- They are not particularly more implausible than a wide multitude of other mechanics in EU 4, including ones that also meet the above 3 criteria
I could go on and on. Dozens of things. Hundreds of things all comparably impossible to there being 80,000 soldiers in tribal Australia (in the sense that they were equally likely in actual history: no chance). Some of those things are core design elements of EU 4, without which it would break. Even things we take for granted, like the stopgap nonsense that is "length of war" as a peace modifier for the AI completely break the game if removed.
Though it is fascinating that over the years, the number of threads that single out native resistance compared to those 100's of other things is incredibly high. What's the ratio of threads along the lines of "natives couldn't make an army that large!" to "coalitions can't separate peace"? 3:1? 5:1? More? Crazy, noting that at least some natives TRIED to westernize historically, and they continued to put up a fight well after 1821.
In contrast, how many times did a coalition hold all members incapable of signing separate peace deals in history? Exactly zero.
~~~
Though do note that I agree that the 10 FL buildings are annoying. It's a false choice construction option to skip it...but ONLY because the AI builds it. It throws manpower:FL out of whack, and it makes natives like to spam units and inflate FL rather than choosing actions that actually give them functional prospects post-reform. And that was true even before 1.31!
- 1
Idk why you are so passionately debating people against strong natives. Coalition is a core mechanics to cuck player from expanding. Is it good? No. But I came to the game in 2018 so I take it for granted. But new bull crap coming in and I oppose them, Is that so bad? I opposed paying the Pope indulgence during excommunication war, and I oppose this now. I find myself consistent, and I don’t bother myself with decade old mechanics this game is based on. At the end of day, I can explain why coalition is good or truce timer is good on a gameplay level. But +10 fl building I can’t. As I said, it is a brute force buff to sell dlc, and I don’t like it a bit.
- 1
I do not think this person is arguing AGAINST strong natives, merely saying that there are mechanics that are equally ahistorical, at least in this post.
I don't think this is an issue really. By the time AI traditional colonizers look at Australia, the natives would had already ceased becoming tribes since they would had unlocked the reform that enables them to become a monarchy. Last I checked, the AI doesn't even spend their accumulated magic dev before reforming government so all that magic native dev just disappears.
Ironically, this means that native tribes that reforms government ends up becoming weaker and a complete pushover to AI colonizers. In theory, they can access institutions and thus improve tech faster after reform, but in practice, Australian natives will struggle to catch up to Asian nations, let alone the Europeans.
Having said all that, I do think the force limit building needs to go. It's rather peculiar that an native OPM can get sustain an extra 10k troops just because of one building. It makes for a weird situation since it means there is a smaller gap in military between larger natives and smaller natives, since they both get +10k forcelimits + the base force limits.
I have fun in it. Whether I should play the game is my business, mind your own.
- 1
- 1
10 FL native building is older than the present coalition system.
- 1
- 1
Wait, is that so? When is the coalition system last changed?
Last edited:
I don't know for sure, but the 10 FL building has been in the game since the conquest of paradise DLC in 2013, and coalitions have seen numerous changes since then.
1.31 did add some effects/buildings for natives, mostly tied to reform progress boosting or tribal development growth.
The building has always been awkward, since you only get it before reforming, and your armies are complete trash despite it before reforming. It's main purpose has been to all-in other natives early on and then make the AI sit at high FL and low manpower for ages.
- 1
- 1
Ok now I get your replies a lot better. Who would have thought, the change I am bashing is a shiny legacy from 2013.
- 3