Allow The Player PU Troop Control

[SonofWinter]

I am playing Poland, Lithuania just sits there and does NOTHING. I have +200 relations. They simply will NOT come to the aid in a battle, I was winning it handily, the Muscovites kept pouring in one army after another, neither the Bohemians nor the Lithuanians reinforced.

Who is programing the AI to sabotage their PU member?

 

[-Duiker-]

That seems to be an issue in 1.33 in general, not just for PUs. If I read the DDs correctly it will be addressed in 1.34

 

[SonofWinter]

That seems to be an issue in 1.33 in general, not just for PUs. If I read the DDs correctly it will be addressed in 1.34

Yeah, Bohemia was an ally, and their and Lithuania's armies just passed me by and ignored me, while my army was slowly slaughtered by the Muscovites.

At least I know what the problem is, thank you for the heads up.

 

[brifbates]

It's happening to all ai nations in the current patch. Allies, subjects, enemies; they all just freeze up and do nothing...

 

[Namepending4]

It would be nice if you could choose to either let vassals/PU's control their units or take over their troops.
Like I imagine it would work like condottieri, but not counting to your force limit. It would help fix a bit of the frustration when vassals on supportive refuse to attach to an army. It's probably pretty complicated so maybe in EU5.

 

[brantodb01]

I am playing Poland, Lithuania just sits there and does NOTHING. I have +200 relations. They simply will NOT come to the aid in a battle, I was winning it handily, the Muscovites kept pouring in one army after another, neither the Bohemians nor the Lithuanians reinforced.

Who is programing the AI to sabotage their PU member?

Alternatively, it leads to games strats where you dev to get your pu loyal and then send their entire army off to the north pole to use up all their money and manpower reinforcing it until they're more reliably loyal

 

[Nostalgium]

If the player was to get control of subject armies, they should also pay for their upkeep. And yes, I'm aware that part of the point of feudal subjects IRL was to localize the cost of maintaining armed forces, but crucially, the monarch didn't even have direct control of his own armies to the degree we do in EU4, so this would be a change purely for gameplay reasons. PUs in particular would need this, as they are already the (usually) largest subjects you have and by far the most loyal (unless you're in a very skewed PU relationship where the Junior Partner is very much dominant).

 

[Sharples88]

It's happening to all ai nations in the current patch. Allies, subjects, enemies; they all just freeze up and do nothing...

It's been happening on multiple patches, usually a restart can fix it but it's not an all in one solution

 

[brifbates]

It's been happening on multiple patches, usually a restart can fix it but it's not an all in one solution

While this is true, it is apparently far more likely on the current patch, especially when compared to some other patches such as 1.30.6...

 

[Namepending4]

Alternatively, it leads to games strats where you dev to get your pu loyal and then send their entire army off to the north pole to use up all their money and manpower reinforcing it until they're more reliably loyal

But isn't this already in the game? You can set you vassal/PU to supportive, get a 1k stack and enable ally attach. Get them to attach and march up to the north pole. The only reason I personally wish you could just take direct control is because maybe 20 - 30% of the time the AI bugs out and just sits there looking at the stack that they should be attaching to. Usually save and reload gets them moving again, but other times they won't budge until the next war. If attaching was more reliable I don't think people would really care about having direct control, IMO.

 

[SonofWinter]

If the player was to get control of subject armies, they should also pay for their upkeep. And yes, I'm aware that part of the point of feudal subjects IRL was to localize the cost of maintaining armed forces, but crucially, the monarch didn't even have direct control of his own armies to the degree we do in EU4, so this would be a change purely for gameplay reasons. PUs in particular would need this, as they are already the (usually) largest subjects you have and by far the most loyal (unless you're in a very skewed PU relationship where the Junior Partner is very much dominant).

I'm not sure what the point of paying for a PU army is if you aren't getting PU taxes. So if Lithuania hands over cash and troops, I can lead them to victory, instead of the failure and death they currently experience.

Also, a PU should give your troops full ability to march through the land. Instead, my troops are dying from attrition.

 

[Nostalgium]

I'm not sure what the point of paying for a PU army is if you aren't getting PU taxes. So if Lithuania hands over cash and troops, I can lead them to victory, instead of the failure and death they currently experience.

Also, a PU should give your troops full ability to march through the land. Instead, my troops are dying from attrition.

Look at it the other way. If you were to fall under PU, would you be happy for the AI to command your armies, that you pay upkeep for? Alternatively, are you arguing for the AI to be restricted in a way the player shouldn't be? I suppose that you wouldn't want the AI's units that you control to be randomly deleted mid-war because Lithuania suddenly decided it couldn't afford to reinforce the armies you used to siege, so naturally, it would be impossible for a player in a subject relationship with an AI to delete or withhold their armies as well.

If you get control of an AI army, you're essentially granted a free manpower pool. This is very powerful - manpower is the currency of war in EU4, moreso than ducats in most situations - and so I feel like Overlord-controlled subject armies should incur at least some cost.

 

[SonofWinter]

Look at it the other way. If you were to fall under PU, would you be happy for the AI to command your armies, that you pay upkeep for? Alternatively, are you arguing for the AI to be restricted in a way the player shouldn't be? I suppose that you wouldn't want the AI's units that you control to be randomly deleted mid-war because Lithuania suddenly decided it couldn't afford to reinforce the armies you used to siege, so naturally, it would be impossible for a player in a subject relationship with an AI to delete or withhold their armies as well.

If you get control of an AI army, you're essentially granted a free manpower pool. This is very powerful - manpower is the currency of war in EU4, moreso than ducats in most situations - and so I feel like Overlord-controlled subject armies should incur at least some cost.

So two PUs come to mind. The Scottish and the Lithuanian, both resulted in a merge and in both cases the Junior partner provided the Royal family.

So yeah, it was a Scottish monarch who became King of England and a Lithuanian Grand Duke who became King of Poland.

When I declare war, to gain territory for Lithuania from the Muscovites, it isn't the Polish State, that gains land and new subjects and taxes, it would be the Lithuanian nobles, so I would expect a bit of cooperation from them and not just them sitting on the sidelines. (Yes, I do go out of my way and gain territory for Lithuania, all the way up to the maximum of 57 provinces. I mean I will inherit them in the Commonwealth, I see no reason to core them myself. )

 

[Nostalgium]

So two PUs come to mind. The Scottish and the Lithuanian, both resulted in a merge and in both cases the Junior partner provided the Royal family.

So yeah, it was a Scottish monarch who became King of England and a Lithuanian Grand Duke who became King of Poland.

When I declare war, to gain territory for Lithuania from the Muscovites, it isn't the Polish State, that gains land and new subjects and taxes, it would be the Lithuanian nobles, so I would expect a bit of cooperation from them and not just them sitting on the sidelines. (Yes, I do go out of my way and gain territory for Lithuania, all the way up to the maximum of 57 provinces. I mean I will inherit them in the Commonwealth, I see no reason to core them myself. )

This doesn't actually answer my question, though. Would you, from a gameplay perspective, be happy to lose control of your armies, as a player, if you fall into a PU under an AI?

Also, while Lithuania provided the King, it was still Poland that was the senior partner. That's generally how titles in Europe worked: if you became king, you'd take on the place you became king over as your primary title. If you held two kingdoms, you'd pick the one with most prestige. If the English had won the Hundred-Years War early on, for example, I expect they would've styled themselves as King of France and England, rather than England and France.

 

[SonofWinter]

This doesn't actually answer my question, though. Would you, from a gameplay perspective, be happy to lose control of your armies, as a player, if you fall into a PU under an AI?

Also, while Lithuania provided the King, it was still Poland that was the senior partner. That's generally how titles in Europe worked: if you became king, you'd take on the place you became king over as your primary title. If you held two kingdoms, you'd pick the one with most prestige. If the English had won the Hundred-Years War early on, for example, I expect they would've styled themselves as King of France and England, rather than England and France.

If my relations with my PU leader are +100, then yeah, I would understand the logic behind giving control, at +200 I would absolutely understand it. I hope this answers your question, since I didn't consider it to be rhetorical question but just how I think it should be.

As a PU member it is your job as a player to insult your way to freedom if you can get other nations to support your independence war.

As a player I might spend more of my money on development and infrastructure, rather than raising armies for the King but I wouldn't object to the armies being controlled by the Senior Partner.

 

[esbenmf]

Given control over the PU armies, what would hinder you from declaring a phoney war, and attrition them to death, reducing their ability to break free?

 

[Namepending4]

Given control over the PU armies, what would hinder you from declaring a phoney war, and attrition them to death, reducing their ability to break free?

I mean I know that they are changing it in the next update but the Strat for the longest time as the Timurids has been to stay in a war while you weather the storm of the disloyal vassals.

On a more on point topic I don't see how this isn't already exploitable, like I said earlier in the thread you can already put vassals on supportive and force them around with a 1k stack that you allow them to attach to. Or put them on aggressive and if your foe is big enough probably kill their own armies by sieging a fort crazy far into enemy territory. I might of accidently left Portugal on aggressive while fighting France and they threw like 12k guys at Paris with no other support while everyone else in the war was focusing on southern France. It didn't work, but it was a chad move I'll give them that.

Just IMO there is already plenty of ways to cheese the AI allies in a war. I just don't believe this opens up any new avenues that aren't already accessible to the player. It does make it a bit easier but that's more cause the AI seems to break sometimes and not attach you your armies even though they are on supportive.

 

[SonofWinter]

Given control over the PU armies, what would hinder you from declaring a phoney war, and attrition them to death, reducing their ability to break free?

And I can't do that now, why?

The reason I wouldn't do it and neither would anyone else, is because that is MY manpower, as far as I'm concerned. As the Senior PU member I want access to those troops to gain more land and more power which will allow me to become stronger and have a tighter grip on my vassals. That means I would NOT throw away my MP.

The entire reason for why I started this thread has to do with the AI flushing its MP down the toilet, without any benefit to me.

I leave you to ponder this quote "If General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it for a time, provided I could see how it could be made to do something."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Given control over the PU armies, what would hinder you from declaring a phoney war, and attrition them to death, reducing their ability to break free?

Considering the costs vs what you get out of doing it, the main thing hindering players from this tactic is a decent level of skill at EU 4.

 

[Nostalgium]

If my relations with my PU leader are +100, then yeah, I would understand the logic behind giving control, at +200 I would absolutely understand it. I hope this answers your question, since I didn't consider it to be rhetorical question but just how I think it should be.

It does, yeah. It hasn't convinced me that Overlord shouldn't also be paying for those controlled armies, though, considering how powerful such free armies would be.