1508 Australian Liberation Army, aka AAA

  • 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.

ruianp2

Sergeant
55 Badges
Jun 8, 2020
71
123
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
D021A148-9962-4E6E-8B1D-572BF9128571.png

40770445-109F-458B-B347-6B631AAEFCA1.png

By the way, during the Jingnan campaign, for the Ming throne, the winner Zhu Di had about 40k army when he started the rebel. He would be pretty terrified to know the mysterious power of Australian natives could raise twice as many troops as he can.
 
  • 16
  • 9Like
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Why are we comparing 1508 to 2018? Keeping in mind that one of these things is also a game, where the numbers don't necessarily reflect exact real world numbers.
1508 is supposed to have way less troops than 2018 in the first place, while in game it has twice. 80k army for half the Australian tribes is ridiculous in “in game” sense or “realistic sense”. That number is huger than the force limit of most major countries on the planet and they are supposed to be primitive tribes.
 
  • 13
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
idk why though. 4k army is closer to the truth than 20k right? Why do they feel it is necessary to give natives the strength to raise an army larger than France?
I don’t know. At some point any number is just absurd. 1,000 would be stupid. 4,000 would be stupid. 20,000 is stupid. It’s all just kind of stupid, does the specific silliness matter?
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
It's probably because of that building which adds +20 forcelimit for natives.

Aside from the obvious point that there is a lot of disparity between army sizes IRL vs in-game anyway, it's worth noting that Australia currently has a small military force not because they are unable to field a larger army, but that there is little reason to do so. At its peak, Australia had over 700k enlisted men in WW2... and that was when the population was 1/3 what it was today.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're literally invading Australia as Ryukyu. How is this the most innacurate thing about this situation?? Lmao
 
  • 10Like
  • 6Haha
  • 6
  • 2Love
Reactions:
You're literally invading Australia as Ryukyu. How is this the most innacurate thing about this situation?? Lmao
I am an immortal rational king with a knowledge of the world for the next 400 years and no self interest except the prosperity of the state. I am constantly aware of each and every potential rebellion and know the exact potential of a baby the moment it is born. So the country i rule will be absolutely bonkers strong. One can say an experienced eu4 player is a philosopher king according to Plato.
 
  • 11Like
  • 4
  • 2Love
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I am an immortal rational king with a knowledge of the world for the next 400 years and no self interest except the prosperity of the state. I am constantly aware of each and every potential rebellion and know the exact potential of a baby the moment it is born. So the country i rule will be absolutely bonkers strong. One can say an experienced eu4 player is a philosopher king according to Plato.
It could be said that each AI is the same (as you are), as they get the same information as you do.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am an immortal rational king with a knowledge of the world for the next 400 years and no self interest except the prosperity of the state. I am constantly aware of each and every potential rebellion and know the exact potential of a baby the moment it is born. So the country i rule will be absolutely bonkers strong. One can say an experienced eu4 player is a philosopher king according to Plato.
Well, as the drum @TheMeInTeam never tires of banging says, if we take this view then the point of divergence for EUIV’s alternative history is 11 November 1444 and from there on all bets are off; your immortal rational kingship is far and away the most ahistorical thing in the game, and so wildly ahistorical that it makes a mockery of efforts to bring “historical accuracy” into EUIV.

Personally I think that viewpoint and argument is facile, but that reflects a difference of philosophy about what EUIV is and should be; I think pressures on the player should be similarly bound into history. By contrast you’re invoking it.

Given that you clearly have time for the viewpoint that EUIV doesn’t owe any historical accuracy because it goes out the window as a result of human agency in the game, you seem to be suggesting that the AI should be designed to consciously play badly—that historical accuracy should be included in the game insofar as it makes the game easier for the player.

Why? What is the benefit of that?
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Personally I think that viewpoint and argument is facile, but that reflects a difference of philosophy about what EUIV is and should be
There can be a difference in philosophy about what EU 4 should be, but actual implementations in EU 4 are not the realm of the philosophical. They exist to the same extent the game does.

The decision making process for nations is one rule among many for gameplay, but it is a very important one and it isn't something that can be ignored or passed off as facile. Incentives drive decisions, both for gameplay and real history, and the game's rules define your incentives.

What a lot of people would like, myself included, is core mechanics that better match a model of actual history. I acknowledge that there are technical limitations to how much can be achieved this way, and accept that the more you abstract a game model the more you can't get away from anticipated deviations when running the model vs history.

It could be said that each AI is the same (as you are), as they get the same information as you do.

Also has the same incentives and is operating in the same abstracted world with the same rules.

~~~

All of that aside, I don't really see the gameplay benefit for the tribal force limit building existing (its main point of relevance is annoying me when I'm playing a native, it is meaningless otherwise). I also agree per above that the AI should not play poorly on purpose (it's plenty bad w/o that, this isn't peak machine learning AI or something).
 
Shouldn't it be ALA?
 
The new tags are so much bs. The australian tribes where as developed as europe was pre farming. Some did even forget the knowledge of boat building.
I mean cmon eu4 has so much ahistorical stuff in it and much historical, but this is just a dream and fails to represent the actual situation of the continent pre colonisation. I mean armies of that size would just starve there.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, as the drum @TheMeInTeam never tires of banging says, if we take this view then the point of divergence for EUIV’s alternative history is 11 November 1444 and from there on all bets are off; your immortal rational kingship is far and away the most ahistorical thing in the game, and so wildly ahistorical that it makes a mockery of efforts to bring “historical accuracy” into EUIV.

Personally I think that viewpoint and argument is facile, but that reflects a difference of philosophy about what EUIV is and should be; I think pressures on the player should be similarly bound into history. By contrast you’re invoking it.

Given that you clearly have time for the viewpoint that EUIV doesn’t owe any historical accuracy because it goes out the window as a result of human agency in the game, you seem to be suggesting that the AI should be designed to consciously play badly—that historical accuracy should be included in the game insofar as it makes the game easier for the player.

Why? What is the benefit of that?
I consider a simulation game to be: the game world works without you, sometimes it creates alternate history, like France goes Protestant or Ming destroys Manchuria, but at the end of day it makes sense. While the player puts himself in this simulation free to to whatever he wants to change this world. All worlds that simulates a world should be like this. For instance GTA is a bit goofy world, but if I stay in the house everything is fine. I am the lunatic driving tanks over pedestrians.

Not that it should be playing badly, but that they should be somehow grounded to the materialistic truth. For instance, if a tribe got buffed so hard that it can conquer Southeast Asia and have 100k fl, that would be more reasonable, because a tribal ruler of Southeast Asia should be able to raise 100k army. But five opms on primitive, uncolonized Australia? There is no factor of “playing well” in existing as a opm and building a certain building.
 
It could be said that each AI is the same (as you are), as they get the same information as you do.
They are designed to be bad so that players don’t suffer too hard. That said, even the greatest tribal ruler can’t generate 80k of army with 5 provinces in Australia. They don’t have 80k army because they are playing good, they have that because the game mechanics is bs.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Now post the size of the Ryukyuan military and empire in 1508 or 2021

I'll wait

e: not to mention we get Red Army 1944 sizes from Muscovy, or that France is fielding armies of 50k at game start in a war where 5k french and 7k english was considered a massive war-ending engagement
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions: