pirating only has a neglectable effect and hurts relations with other nations too... Also, cost benefit... that many ships could be used better elsewhere
but yes... Pirating rivals can up the PP
Combat Witdh
- Thread starter Rexos
- 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.
but yes... Pirating rivals can up the PP
On the contrary, pirating gets you more cash than your fleet costs in maintenance.pirating only has a neglectable effect and hurts relations with other nations too... Also, cost benefit... that many ships could be used better elsewhere
And I'm aware that pirating your rivals will hurt your relationship with them. Doesn't really matter what your rivals think though. They're sitting at -200 anyways.
Depends... Pirating is always as usual...
And... it´s not just rivals that decrease relation, it´s all in the trade node... Except allies which I´m pretty sure they got out way back in a patch
meaning... harder time getting allies, easier to trigger coalitions 
Infantry does damage from the second row (subject to the flanking range). Artillery is still quite useful at tech 13, but the problem is that it's less effective than infantry and it's 3 times more expensive. For example, in an even battle of 2CW inf vs 1CW of inf at tech 13 (with equal rolls of 4), the result after 6 phases is 874 vs 802. In the battle of 1CW inf + 1CW art vs 1CW inf under the same circumstances it is 875 vs 816. So infantry would actually do more damage. The advantage of artillery is that it deals more damage in the first 3 rounds (fire), so it's better than infantry if you expect to crush the enemy in the first 3 rounds. Basically, it's a way of making a battle that is lopsided into your favor even more lopsided. If you expect the longer battle infantry is better, at least until mil 16 and even then the advantage of artillery is quite small.
However, there are additional considerations - artillery is more versatile, you can use it in sieges and in battles, so if you are limited by FL artillery might be a better option even if it deals less damage in the battle (though artillery might still be more expensive than going over FL, at least until you are way over FL).
Another disadvantage of infantry is that when CW is not full AI doesn't position it ideally - some units will be idle and other "wonder off" along the second row. So you would deal less damage than with the perfectly filled CW. You would get extra damage from flanking though. In this scenario 1 enemy width of infantry plus some mix of extra infantry and artillery will be more efficient.
Depends... Pirating is always as usual...
And... it´s not just rivals that decrease relation, it´s all in the trade node... Except allies which I´m pretty sure they got out way back in a patch
Rival Ottomans. Pirate Constantinople trade node. Only Ottomans will get upset and they are -200 anyway. Get 10 easy PP, a little bit of money, and deny some money to Ottomans.
This is something you should do any time you are in a position to rival the Ottomans. If you are smaller, you just have to find a situation where the only people above the threshold in the relevant node are not diplomatically relevant to you (ie you don't care if they hate you). 10 PP + ducats makes it something you should always aim to be doing.
I don't believe this is true. Inf in the back row does nothing except take morale damage. Flanking range only works horizontally as far as I know.
Pretty sure you only get negative relation penalty on just the one having the most trade power there and not every single nation in the node.Depends... Pirating is always as usual...
And... it´s not just rivals that decrease relation, it´s all in the trade node... Except allies which I´m pretty sure they got out way back in a patch
You can easily see how it works. For example, start as Ottomans, attack BYZ with 13-14K of infantry and see how BYZ units take damage - those attacked by the back row infantry will be taking 50% more losses. Flanking range does work horizontally which limits whom back row infantry can attack (basically the unit directly in front and 2 adjacent to it) - same rules as for infantry on the front row
You get negative relation with nations that have significant TP in the node (>15% AFAIR)
Every unit guide I've ever read and also the EU4 Wiki state that only Artillery can fight from the back row. Not convinced.
I am not sure I understand. Are you trying to say that the combat dialog and the army screens showing amount of troops are all wrong? I would find it hard to believe. Besides the battle results are consistent with the numbers the game shows.
No, the troops are in indeed there and they are participating in the battle by taking morale damage and generally being present. They can also move to the front row to replace routing troops. But infantry don't do anything useful while they are in the back row.
Edit: from the EU4 wiki, combat mechanics:
Now, the wiki is occasionally wrong about something, but in this case I don't believe it is.
Same for the English Channel. Only nation besides GB that'll get the malus will be a strong Netherlands. Everyone else is too weak.
Sevilla is another nice node. Only Spain, Portugal and maybe Morocco angered (should they still be alive).
I like cavalry. It'll rule for the 1st 150 years till 1600. All you need is high shock generals and Cavalry Combat Ability. In my current game of Manchu-Qing, my generals tend to be 5-6 Shock, as they have +1 Shock in their traditions and +1 shock in their ambitions. Couple that with their banner system, I tend to bring 33~35% cavalry.
So in the case of CW being 30, I'll bring 10 Cav, rather than just 4-6 of them.
So in the case of CW being 30, I'll bring 10 Cav, rather than just 4-6 of them.
The game presents it otherwise. It clearly shows what enemy units the back row infantry targets and the targeted enemy units take more damage (by 50% for the identical troops) than the identical enemy units not targeted by the back row infantry. The damage dealt by the enemy units in subsequent rounds is consistent with the [uneven] damage they took. So basically, everything in the interface checks out and there is no evidence than it displays anything wrong.
It's a strange position to believe what wiki says about how the game works rather than believing how the game itself works.
I'll give it a test and see what I see. If infantry are fighting from the back row it's a bug, though.
Last edited:
Your posts seemed to say that you've believed wiki and that wiki said that back row infantry doesn't do any damage. In the game back row infantry deals the damage (the unit attacked by front row only took 44 damage, the next unit attacked by front row and by back row took 65 damage). So how is it not your position?
I did try your test since you seem quite convinced. It does appear that back row infantry are dealing damage. They aren't taking any damage, however. They also deploy in a manner that is consistent with what I believe is the intended design (ie that infantry don't fight from the back row).
My conclusion is that combat is bugged. Kudos for picking up on it.
I don't believe there is any in-game documentation describing back row combat mechanics, so it's impossible to tell if it's a bug or not. That it doesn't behave as wiki claims is obviously not a reason to declare it a bug. It's not a new behaviour and it's not some rare scenario - it happens a lot in nearly every game and has a massive impact on the game, so presumably developers would fix it if they thought it's a bug. Though thinking along similar lines one could conclude that cross-platform OOS is an intended behaviour
Yes, AFAIK back row units never suffer any casualties. That's why everyone double-stacking infantry
The deployment logic is certainly strange in number of ways. I don't think you can make any conclusion out of it. For example:
To maximize flanking you would expect /xxxxxxxxx/ deployment. To maximize back row damage - /xxxxxxx/ with 2x on the back row or xxxxxxx with /xx/ on back row. Instead we get this. It is suboptimal for flanking and suboptimal for back row damage and it isn't even a compromise - I could have understood something like /xxxxxxxx/ with 1x on the back row