3 simple suggestions for new DLC (combat).

[unmerged(194490)]

Hi,

I have 3 minor suggestions for combat enchancement:

1. Easiest one: bring back unit experience for Rome. Nuff said

2. Guard units: they would have some more pips that regular ones. You could produce them in capital, hardlimit would be 1->2->3 etc, expanded by tech development. Loosing them would affect warscore (also nice way to force those OPM to capitualte by getting some more warscore )

3. How about one short phase after the battle - pursuit - comes after one side looses all morale. During that phase only cavalry is deployed for victor (entire comabt width) vs random units from defeated side (full combat width). Cavalry deals 2x shock. That would make battles more historical (rout is the worst), and would give buff to CAV. If you retreat manually you get 50% chance for rout -1% for each manuver point.

 

[saied_88]

+1

Very easy to implement and would definitely make combat more interesting.

 

[lolada]

1. Could you explain 1 a bit more, "Rome" reference? Unit xp concept would be interesting, it opens a lot of room for game improvement, so why not.

2. I dont know what this will bring to the game, looks like a minor thing.

3. Very nice idea, +1.

 

[unmerged(194490)]

1. Rome = EU Rome. You know: that old mod for EU 3 which paradox marketed as fully fledged game
(not saying that I have't had fun with it )

3. I think I saw that someone said it was implemented in EU3 (never played EU 3 longer than 30 mins)

 

[ragnarokk]

Don't like the first two, but the 3rd one seems good to me.

 

[lolada]

Unit XP is nice concept but AI usually suffers from it. For example in Civilization games in the end it turns out that player build only a dozen units for the entire game and then upgrades/xp levels them and gains advantage. AI cant do this properly and loses its units all the time. This leads to dumbing down and makes the game uninteresting in the late game since human players gain large advantage over time. In EU4 for example players would probably level up superstrong artillery units and its easily game over for every AI after a few level ups. In Civ you just sit back and bomb down everything with super planes.

 

[unmerged(194490)]

Unit XP is nice concept but AI usually suffers from it. For example in Civilization games in the end it turns out that player build only a dozen units for the entire game and then upgrades/xp levels them and gains advantage. AI cant do this properly and loses its units all the time. This leads to dumbing down and makes the game uninteresting in the late game since human players gain large advantage over time. In EU4 for example players would probably level up superstrong artillery units and its easily game over for every AI after a few level ups. In Civ you just sit back and bomb down everything with super planes.

Ok... I really appologize for that, this is nothing personall really, once again my appologies.

CIV 5 GO TO HELL!!! This game is NOTHING like EU. This is American take on World History (sorry Americans). It is TBS game, with hexes, the only thing it has in common with EU is that it is strategy game.
And this game SUCKS! (yes I said it)
I loved Civ 1, 2 , 3, 4
Then they decided to dummy it down for God (insert deity of your choice) knows why! And they were trying to cover it up with hexes.

Every time I hear someone speaking about "Tall" empire, or CIV V as idea base for EU I am boiling inside. There were no TALL empires! Empire MUST EXPAND, cover larger and larger portions of landmass, or it is not empire at all.
Every time I read guides&discussions for CIV 5 where people market strategies with 2-3 cities (1 being ok as well) - I am more and more pissed off. Keep this JUNK AWAY from EU!

 

[lolada]

Haha yeah, I tried returning to Civ5 after EU4 and just couldnt do it, so many things there are so artificial, combat AI quite weak, civilization that are not really different to each other etc. etc. I think I spent about 5-10 hour in CIV:BE and never ran it again, although i really loved good old Alpha Centauri game. Anyway, if EU4 introduces unit XP, it would need to be really well thought-out, otherwise it will screw the game. I feel like EU4 doesnt really need unit XP system.

 

[grommile]

1. Easiest one: bring back unit experience for Rome. Nuff said

Unit XP amplifies the impact of unit loss. The player loses fewer units than the AI. Result: net nerf to AI.

2. Guard units: they would have some more pips that regular ones. You could produce them in capital, hardlimit would be 1->2->3 etc, expanded by tech development. Loosing them would affect warscore (also nice way to force those OPM to capitualte by getting some more warscore )

If such a drastically restricted thing actually matters, then either (a) they're hilarious gods of war or (b) you're small enough that building them won't save you.

 

[unmerged(194490)]

Unit exp was present in two paradox games I was playing (not counting SOTS):
1. HOI2 - divisions were getting exp slowly, bonus from it was rather small
2. EU Rome - regiments were getting exp rather fast - reaching hardcap fast. It had large impact (I remember Caesar's legionnaires with almoust max XP kicking serious butt of newlyraised and much more numerous Pompey stacks), but they were also loosing exp very fast when not at war\combat.
So you can't just get perfect army, then sit on your hands for 50 years, and come back to it.

I agree that it would require some thought for balancing... One simple idea would be to get Xp reset after every upgrade...

 

[Destinyfaker]

disagree with unit expirince makes not so much sense in eu4 i think army tradition and prestige show it enough

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Cavalry do not need a hardcore slaughterhouse buff. When you use it in intended situations it's already devastating.

 

[victimizer]

Doesn't army tradition reflect the accumulated experience of your armed forces?

 

[Dr. B]

Ok... I really appologize for that, this is nothing personall really, once again my appologies.

CIV 5 GO TO HELL!!! This game is NOTHING like EU. This is American take on World History (sorry Americans). It is TBS game, with hexes, the only thing it has in common with EU is that it is strategy game.
And this game SUCKS! (yes I said it)
I loved Civ 1, 2 , 3, 4
Then they decided to dummy it down for God (insert deity of your choice) knows why! And they were trying to cover it up with hexes.

Every time I hear someone speaking about "Tall" empire, or CIV V as idea base for EU I am boiling inside. There were no TALL empires! Empire MUST EXPAND, cover larger and larger portions of landmass, or it is not empire at all.
Every time I read guides&discussions for CIV 5 where people market strategies with 2-3 cities (1 being ok as well) - I am more and more pissed off. Keep this JUNK AWAY from EU!

Hehe, very inspired post!
I dont think I will try that game out now...

Only suggestion #3 seems doable, but a separate pursuit phase is interesting. Infantry could also participate, but cavalry get a good bonus. Only units with high morale, no artillery, efficiency dependent on maneuver stat. Absolutely worth testing out.

Also, Alpha Centauri rocks.

 

[Casus_Belli]

+1 It all seems good.

But one question, would number one replace army tradition?

 

[Zqrfmb]

1) I'd be more interested in generals being able to gain experience, I find it odd that a general you got at 10 tradition and led you through several wars is pretty much guaranteed to be worse than a fresh general at 50 tradtiton... tradition that was gained from battles the old pathetic general led. Army tradition's other bonuses are a broader version of individual unit experience already.

3) totally, what are horses even good for once your infantry and cannons learn to shoot properly? Also if this were the case, the stackwipe before retreat date condition would probably have to be removed.