Cheep ships and guns, c'mon people!

[Pollux]

I read development diaries but I didn't find anything about selling and buying of ships and art. between countries. It would be nice to have that possibility at least in mp games.
But for me more voluble will be possibility to rent things. Those both features we have in hoi2 DD for example.
Why not in EU3?
Some examples:
So you are Spain and going to fight Turks at Lepanto. The only way to recreate it is to get Venetian, Genoa and other Italian ships by rent (with commanders) and clash with ottoman fleet also assembled with some Algerian or Tunisian ships .
Another example:
You could ask your vassal to send you his army to participate in campaign that don't need direct entry of vassal in war.
That's how some small allied countries could organize defense or offense actions, by renting troop to one country that will assembled them in one big army under best commander among all.

And in the end ships and arty could be tradable item in peace negotiation. You don't have money but than you will pay me by ships or some arty instead.

 

[Lucky]

I read development diaries but I didn't find anything about selling and buying of ships and art. between countries.

I've got a feeling I'm not the only one who thought that you were talking about art as in paintings and stuff.

 

[Spricar]

I've got a feeling I'm not the only one who thought that you were talking about art as in paintings and stuff.

this is tottaly irrelevant IMHO

I agree with the poster. But I doubt that the AI could handle such leases...

 

[Pollux]

Ok you are right art could be ... paintings but I mean on artillery of course.

Yes it would make big problem for AI to make good use of this features but than we could have it at least in MP games.

 

[Verenti]

this is tottaly irrelevant IMHO

I agree with the poster. But I doubt that the AI could handle such leases...

Oh it's so not. It's sort of a passive aggressive way of saying he should change the original post to say Artillery rather than art, I suspect. Because I too spent a good 1/2 minute trying to figure out why you'd be buying, selling and renting paintings rather than Artillery Pieces.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Oh it's so not. It's sort of a passive aggressive way of saying he should change the original post to say Artillery rather than art, I suspect. Because I too spent a good 1/2 minute trying to figure out why you'd be buying, selling and renting paintings rather than Artillery Pieces.

You just need to get used more to the forum.I think 80% of the community will easily recognize Art. as the abbrevation for artillery, because it's quite extensivly used in subforums like the Victoria and especially HOI ones.It's not that everyone will always understand a common abbrevation, but they can still ask.

 

[unmerged(59881)]

Away from the problem with art and artillery :wacko:

We should be able to hire specific unit types as mercenaries. Why not hire some companies of gunners with their guns if you need artillery and don't want to build up your own unit? Or a regiment of light cavallery? Makes more sense to me than renting units from allies.

Might be a little different with ships, though. I don't think there were many war ships available for hiring as mercs. And the cost of building and maintaining fleets should be very high imo. Still, it might be better not to "rent" them, but to call your allies into the war. We know we can give war subsidies, hopefully we can influence the strategy of the alliance.

 

[unmerged(9136)]

I'm not sure you'd realistically have that much of a choice of what mercenaries are available, or that much authority over the commanders once you hire them. See the Condottieri (literally, contractors) in Italy, for example. You'd make a contract with the captain, and from there he had a lot of freedom what men to hire and what tactics to use. And often took more freedoms than you thought you gave him. Sometimes even in battle.

 

[unmerged(12921)]

You just need to get used more to the forum.I think 80% of the community will easily recognize Art. as the abbrevation for artillery, because it's quite extensivly used in subforums like the Victoria and especially HOI ones.It's not that everyone will always understand a common abbrevation, but they can still ask.

Simply using "Arty" as your abbreviation would end the confusion once and for all.

 

[Pollux]

I've got a feeling I'm not the only one who thought that you were talking about art as in paintings and stuff.

Eh I just want to start discussion about above stated idea but it all gone in wrong direction. Is art = artillery or something else? But you just need to read the title "Cheep ships and GUNS....". and it will end confusion But no problem, we go on.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

Eh I just want to start discussion about above stated idea but it all gone in wrong direction. Is art = artillery or something else? But you just need to read the title "Cheep ships and GUNS....". and it will end confusion But no problem, we go on.

Well, the problem comes about mostly because "art." happened to land at the end of the line of text in the first post, making it look like the end of the sentence. "ART" or "cannon" would have been less confusing. And while we're on it, is "Cheep" a typo for "Cheap" or "Sheep"? Ah, Monty Python images...

As for the question, it would also be handled by having alliances and an AI that thinks like a human. One might as well ask why you the player aren't sending your ships along with your allies' as asking why your allies' aren't sending their ships along with yours. It could easily become an exploit for a player to hire their allies' units and send them to death while keeping their own intact. Perhaps limit it to the player can rent their own units to the AI.

-Pat

 

[Pollux]

As for the question, it would also be handled by having alliances and an AI that thinks like a human. One might as well ask why you the player aren't sending your ships along with your allies' as asking why your allies' aren't sending their ships along with yours. It could easily become an exploit for a player to hire their allies' units and send them to death while keeping their own intact. Perhaps limit it to the player can rent their own units to the AI.

-Pat

I know it will lead to lot of exploits. But in every game you have people that just searching holes in system. So let them use exploits if they think it is cool, but for another kind of players it will be nice features.

 

[unmerged(9136)]

One might as well ask why you the player aren't sending your ships along with your allies' as asking why your allies' aren't sending their ships along with yours. It could easily become an exploit for a player to hire their allies' units and send them to death while keeping their own intact.

Well, blimey, that was exactly how feudalism worked. You don't think that, for example, Hungary fought all those battles with just the king's own "black brigade"... all 6000 of them, do you? Yeah, that would have sooo stood a chance against several tens of thousands of Turks... not.

Or you don't think that the french knights at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were all from the King's personal demesne, do you?

The way it worked was that the noble/magnates/boyars/whatever-local-name had their own armies and leased them to the king in case of a war.

By "lease" meaning various arrangements, depending on the time and place. Some had a feudal duty to bring their own armoured self and X soldiers to the liege lord's army in case of a war. (Pretty much all western european feudalism. E.g., for France it continued for quite some time, in the form of the Gens d'Armes.) Some were actually paid by the king for it. For some it was understood that their lands are payment for it. Some both. Some had to make do with whatever spoils of war they could get. Either looting or capturing enemy knights for ransom. (Don't think that was purely because of some chivalrous ideals.) Etc.

What was there to keep the king from using them as expendable instead of his own? Not really that much, except for the fact that they _were_ his own troops.

Anyway, the bulk of casualties in any medieval or renaissance battle were such leased troops. Either from the vassals, or mercenaries, or whatever. Just by the fact that they were the majority to start with.

So if you see that as an exploit, well, now you know that we have over a millenium of the whole Europe exploiting it systematically

 

[unmerged(60670)]

Well, blimey, that was exactly how feudalism worked. You don't think that, for example, Hungary fought all those battles with just the king's own "black brigade"... all 6000 of them, do you? Yeah, that would have sooo stood a chance against several tens of thousands of Turks... not.

Or you don't think that the french knights at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were all from the King's personal demesne, do you?

The way it worked was that the noble/magnates/boyars/whatever-local-name had their own armies and leased them to the king in case of a war.

By "lease" meaning various arrangements, depending on the time and place. Some had a feudal duty to bring their own armoured self and X soldiers to the liege lord's army in case of a war. (Pretty much all western european feudalism. E.g., for France it continued for quite some time, in the form of the Gens d'Armes.) Some were actually paid by the king for it. For some it was understood that their lands are payment for it. Some both. Some had to make do with whatever spoils of war they could get. Either looting or capturing enemy knights for ransom. (Don't think that was purely because of some chivalrous ideals.) Etc.

What was there to keep the king from using them as expendable instead of his own? Not really that much, except for the fact that they _were_ his own troops.

Anyway, the bulk of casualties in any medieval or renaissance battle were such leased troops. Either from the vassals, or mercenaries, or whatever. Just by the fact that they were the majority to start with.

So if you see that as an exploit, well, now you know that we have over a millenium of the whole Europe exploiting it systematically

The other thing is that the mercenaries you hire are exectly those ships and guns as you said. (Not sure however about ships in EU3, but you could hire infantry/cavalry/artilery in EU2, so probably the same is in EU3). It's just not the armies of your neighbours/allies, so you can not exploit their death. So this exploit thing was removed but you can hire not your army.

 

[Tai-Pan]

I've got a feeling I'm not the only one who thought that you were talking about art as in paintings and stuff.

I hear you brother, had me confused until I read your post.

I don't think this will implemented. But what are those war subsidies someone was talking about?

 

[eledrian]

The ships/artillery you get from your allies/vassals turns into your units. When war is over, the lost units are divided by the number of yourself/allies/vassals and they recieve their reduced amounts of units.

Or you could get control of your vassal units, like in HoI2

 

[The Witch-King]

Good point.

The possibility of expeditionary forces would work very well in EU3, would it not?

Just to make coordination of allied troops possible on a more realistic level, as in the other paradox games.

But I believe we currently do not have it either confirmed or denied as feature - but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Lucky]

Oh it's so not. It's sort of a passive aggressive way of saying he should change the original post to say Artillery rather than art, I suspect. Because I too spent a good 1/2 minute trying to figure out why you'd be buying, selling and renting paintings rather than Artillery Pieces.

Actually I thought I was just making an irrelevant remark as Spricar said, but changing the is or actually was a good idea.

Anyhow, personally I can live without the ability to trade ships and artillery. Let's not give the AI even more tasks to worry about.

 

[unmerged(16181)]

Well, the problem comes about mostly because "art." happened to land at the end of the line of text in the first post, making it look like the end of the sentence. "ART" or "cannon" would have been less confusing. And while we're on it, is "Cheep" a typo for "Cheap" or "Sheep"? Ah, Monty Python images...

That would rule. We need to be able to sell works of art and hire sheep mercenaries in EU3.

(Wasn't there a show about sheep commandos I watched for a few weeks when I was six? .... Ah, here it is.)

 

[unmerged(9136)]

Well, just to make it clear, the inherent balance in it is, and historically was, that your enemy would do the same thing too. And that you'd need those armies again next time. That total army _is_ your total military might. No matter which part you waste, you still weaken yourself.

So if you start with, say, 10,000 longbowmen at Crecy and lose half of them, you're screwed in the next battle anyway. It doesn't matter if you've lost yours or your vassals', you still have less for the next fight.

You'd be more likely to think which types of soldiers you've lost, than whose are they. There were certain kinds of troops which were realistically a limited commodity, and very expensive to replace. It didn't matter if they're your or your vassals': if said vassal has no more, or can't afford any more, you'll go into the next battle with less soldiers anyway.

E.g., longbowmen or knights weren't really a dime a dozen. The price and availability of a trained longbowman was why most armies preferred the inferior crossbowmen instead: any peasant could use those.

E.g., for the Turks AFAIK the infantry was a limited supply. The turkish culture was such that no self-respecting free-born Turk would go into battle other than on a horse. Light horsemen were cheap, but infantry was a limited commodity. Hence the Janissaries' status and privileges. And they cost the Ottoman Empire a fair bit to maintain, because you couldn't just disband them and draft some peasants for the next war. And even then they had a limited supply per year that they got from their non-turkish subjects and vassals.

(I.e., in game terms they should probably at least have the prices for cav and inf switched. 'Course, in EU2 then everyone would use only cavalry, because the troops and battles aren't that well modelled.)

So if you got one of your vassals to lend you their pikemen, you wouldn't just go "pah, let's get them killed, they're not mine." Or not if you didn't want to have a problem in the next battle.

Or to put it otherwise, the problem is that people think (and the game is coded that way) in terms of modern centralized states and the hard distinction between "own territory of Japan" and "territory of my puppet government of Manchuria." One is my land, one isn't my land.

In the middle ages that distinction was a lot more blurred and for the most part non-existant. The whole state was a pyramid of vassals to vassals to vassals to the king. There was no centralized bureaucracy to administrate the lands, but a pyramid of "vassals".

Whether you "annexed" Orleans or got Orleans as a vassal in the HYW, you still got a vassal there anyway. There'd be some minor variation in how much autonomy they get. but when you get at the bottom of it, you'd still get a duke there to administrate those lands for you. And that duke was your vassal.

Hence thinking "oh, I'll just waste Orleans's troops instead of mine" was a non-sense, since the Duke of Orleans's troops _were_ your own. It was no less a part of your empire or your military might than any other province in your country.

Or thinking "oh, I'll waste Orleans's troops so I can weaken them and annex them later" was again a non-sense. "Annexing" them would achieve not much. There was no centralized government bureaucracy to move those lands to, if you took them from a vassal. You'd just name another duke there to administrate them for you, and end up back to square one: with them as a vassal. The only reason why you'd want that would be maybe to replace the existing duke with someone you like more, or with a family member, or such, but not because "annexing" actually made some world of a difference like in EU2.