I never retreat manually in singleplayer, it is one of my house rules. It is just a tool to make human players even more superior to AI. Why is it even in the game? If you let your army getting catched, pay the price.
- 3
- 3
Battle Morale Loss on Partial Retreat is Massive Buff to Human Player
- Thread starter Pellucid
- 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.
Maybe you saw it in the reddit post about the patch notes before reading directly. I seriously do not remember reading this elsewhere, not even on Wiz's twitter.
- 1
- 1
In what universe is stack cycling "skill"?
Maybe for a twitch game like Starcraft where insane micro is the order of the day, but this is a grand strategy game FFS. Good change here in my opinion.
Maybe for a twitch game like Starcraft where insane micro is the order of the day, but this is a grand strategy game FFS. Good change here in my opinion.
- 7
- 5
I've been considering limiting myself to that as well, but so far I haven't because I basically hate the way combat works in general and would be even more irritated if my losses to it became more catastrophic.
Wouldn't this just increase the chance of your ally getting stack wiped?
Did your allies get too big? Too big for your to topple on your own?
Well good news everyone! The next war they start you just send your troops in, then retreat and cause them to lose every battle.
You just have to do this a few times before the enemy gets the upper hand. Then you peace out. Break alliance and by the time the AI is finished occupy and breaking up your former big bad ally you can swoop in and carve them up.
Meh, but like I said in the dev diaries and a few threads before. These silly tweaking of mechanics to try and make the AI harder is just a waste of development time. If the devs are so concerned about making the AI better then you have to do the hard difficult task of going through some of that code and programming the AI better.
And if that's not possible due to skill level then its probably time to hire the experienced coder and start on EU5.
A few more DLC's for EU4 would be good, just don't waste your time on these useless tweaks that really add nothing to the game.
And the time does add up. 20min here to change a line of code, 30 min there, a few min to check, time discussing idea with the chief, then the chief approving, responding on forums regarding topic, etc...Then all of a sudden you don't have enough time to meet the deadline of the DLC and have to cut estates from merchant republics and rush in a 25% multiplicative autonomy without doing the math on how it affects everything.
Well good news everyone! The next war they start you just send your troops in, then retreat and cause them to lose every battle.
You just have to do this a few times before the enemy gets the upper hand. Then you peace out. Break alliance and by the time the AI is finished occupy and breaking up your former big bad ally you can swoop in and carve them up.
Meh, but like I said in the dev diaries and a few threads before. These silly tweaking of mechanics to try and make the AI harder is just a waste of development time. If the devs are so concerned about making the AI better then you have to do the hard difficult task of going through some of that code and programming the AI better.
And if that's not possible due to skill level then its probably time to hire the experienced coder and start on EU5.
A few more DLC's for EU4 would be good, just don't waste your time on these useless tweaks that really add nothing to the game.
And the time does add up. 20min here to change a line of code, 30 min there, a few min to check, time discussing idea with the chief, then the chief approving, responding on forums regarding topic, etc...Then all of a sudden you don't have enough time to meet the deadline of the DLC and have to cut estates from merchant republics and rush in a 25% multiplicative autonomy without doing the math on how it affects everything.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
People don't use stack cycling against the AI because in most cases, you can attack split-up AI stacks with heavy flanking/arty advantage, sometimes it won't even have a general.
Why would you need to stack cycle THAT? The only "cycling" going on there is Austria hiring the next round of mercs to stack wipe.
Why would you need to stack cycle THAT? The only "cycling" going on there is Austria hiring the next round of mercs to stack wipe.
- 2
- 1
wiz took quantity and defensive in the last multiplayer between devs. Enough said.....
(seriously, haven't looked at the last dev multiplayer sessions ( I look at you DDRJAKE and mzab) but I guess Wiz stomped Burgundy with stack cycling? Surprised if he didn't...)
I know you're joking, but no, actually it is not. It is not even close, and if the developers believe that kind of thing is enough to merit change by itself it explains a lot of problems in this game.
But some of their previous changes do reek of this kind of reasoning :/.
- 2
the reasoning that the game should be balanced for multiplayer?
maybe they should learn to improve core rules, instead of installing layers of rules upon layers of rules that alter core mechanics, cause core mechanics are too abusable
by micromanaging fetishists that delve into and get knowledge of all core rules.
Sometimes I don't even know if I am serious, or just writing another cynical post.
But all in all, 1.15 (started today!) happily surprised me so far, in stopping player to abuse AI to expand.
But who cares, multiplayer is where it's at!
Micro being doing something other than praying during the course of a 12 month long battle?
I'm new enough to the game I didn't even know you could stack cycle. The idea of cycling troops in and out of battle like that seems at odds with the type of game EU4 is (like another poster said)
Although since I don't play multiplayer and the computer doesn't stack cycle, I'm obviously less concerned about its changes.
Although since I don't play multiplayer and the computer doesn't stack cycle, I'm obviously less concerned about its changes.
- 2
Well, it only really happens effectively in year long battles involving a million troops, at which point I think it makes a great deal of sense.
never was a fan of the mechanic of stack cycling. glad to see Paradox officially finds it not in the spirit of the game.
- 4
- 1
AAR soon?
sigh... tenacious one are you? Finefine, I might do a naxos one on monday. If i come around to it.
Now stop bugging me in every thread
- 1
Its my house rule to avoid cheesy strats, but to forbid yourself to NEVER retreat? That is spartan logic
On topic: this stack cycling only happens late game in multiplayer usually. You can defeat 200k doomstack easily with reinforcement stacks of infantry/cavalry in singleplayer, just takes some guts.
Retreating during big fight blahblah in singleplayer is indeed best to avoid, to keep campaign immersion.
I always tend to stop any game if I catch myself using a 'cheat', sicne it breaks my immersion and morale..