Cheep ships and guns, c'mon people!

[George LeS]

The problem with the 1st point is that we won't have different types of Inf or Cav, within the same army (alas). All examples I have seen, show that every Inf Rgt in play, is of the same type; dto for Cav.

Given that, it's kind of pointless to look at certain unit types being harder to replace than others.

On the general question, of course it would be better if we could borrow/lend or buy/sell units. And it would be better if coalition armies could operate under common command. Those points are self-evident. However, assuming it can be patched into EUIII, what helps are you going to give the AI, to allow it to keep up. It seems the AI is improved over EUIII. It may be more moddable. But it's one thing for an AI to be better at handling a combat system developed from EUII, it's quite another for it to handle a whole new system. (I do hope the AI is more moddable, in which case I can't wait for IDLF's version -- assuming I can ever afford a PC to play it on).

 

[Pollux]

Moraelin your story is completely correct especially because in eu3 we won't have Napoleonic era.
And because of that and what I seen so far from eu3, to be honest I am disappointed. I expected eu3 to be small revolution rather than big evolution. Paradox show us some very nice ideas an features in games after eu2 and I was expecting we will see them in eu3, but nothing. For example in CK we have simple but nice model with vassals and use of their army but nothing in eu3 of that.
Ok now is late for revolution but we could just make some request for introductions of small simple features via patches.
But in any case thank you Paradox.

 

[Registered]

The problem with the 1st point is that we won't have different types of Inf or Cav, within the same army (alas). All examples I have seen, show that every Inf Rgt in play, is of the same type; dto for Cav.

That could just be a coincidence though.

 

[unmerged(59881)]

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.

Honestly, if I contracted Swiss mercenaries I knew that I wouldn't get cavallery. If I hired Croatian or Hungarian cavallery, I could be sure not to get heavy armoured knights. At least that was the situation in the 30Y war. I hope we will be able to chose where to hire mercenaries, of course within certain limits.
For the point with the different types of troops: we were promised to get nation specific troops. Different types could be seen in several DD's. In the AAR's until now we got only one type infantery and cavallery, respectively. This might be due to the very early period the AARs were (beginning 1453) and due to the fact that both countries (Castille and Saxony) are in the same tech-group.

 

[George LeS]

That could just be a coincidence though.

I do hope that it is, but I very much doubt it.

I really, really dislike the fact that, in EUII, ships you had at the start of the game, can fight in the 19th C. It's not even an exploit, as it's not something you can help doing. But a country like POR can easily end up with a hugh, modern fleet, with very littly building, just from the explorers' ships.

 

[unmerged(9136)]

Honestly, if I contracted Swiss mercenaries I knew that I wouldn't get cavallery. If I hired Croatian or Hungarian cavallery, I could be sure not to get heavy armoured knights. At least that was the situation in the 30Y war. I hope we will be able to chose where to hire mercenaries, of course within certain limits.

My point was rather that you'd be limited by whichever companies are available at the right place and right time, if any. There wasn't some ebay where you can instantly order troops from the other side of the continent.

 

[unmerged(59881)]

My point was rather that you'd be limited by whichever companies are available at the right place and right time, if any. There wasn't some ebay where you can instantly order troops from the other side of the continent.

I agree. Of course, merc's were a limited ressource. Still, some countries had a certain reputation (e.g. the Swiss, the Scots), so why not contracting a unit there, if it's in comfortable distance. I wouldn't want to see Mongolian horse archers fighting for Spain in Middle America . And BTW even as late as in the Crimean War did the British try to contract foreign mercenaries in Germany, the US and Sardinia to fight against Russia.
Anyway, MrT yesterday answered on my question about this topic (see AAR comment thread) that you can only hire mercenaries of types that you could recruit as regular unit in the province. And if a country has a claim on one of your provinces, you can recruit or hire her specific troups as well.
So I wonder: will I ever see Swiss Landsknechte fighting for the pope in Italy? Rather unlikely that Switzerland has a claim on Rome... :rofl:

 

[unmerged(9136)]

The Crimean War was in the middle of the 19'th century. Things were a bit more organized at that point. Most countries (and certainly all the major powers) had an organized postal system, telegraph, steam ships carrying the orders around fairly quickly, and embassies which were a lot more useful than the "let's send some minor noble to someone else's court, and have them idle around attending banquets and quaffing wine 99% of the time" system of the 15'th century.

What I'm getting at is that some things might have been a tad less convenient in 1419, and might have raised more suspicions in countries that don't like you much. Not impossible, mind you, but certainly less easy.