It depends on which nation you are playing. A smaller nation or even OPM will use the defensive idea group as the first military group; more attrition for enemies and better forts help you to live through wars against bigger opponents.
Defensive ideas a little bit overpowered?
- Thread starter Laurwin
- 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.
I think the more salient point in the analysis is that you get most of the useful stuff out of Defensive in the first two ideas whereas the ideas you are comparing in Offensive take up the whole group. Even going so far as the Siege leader bonus, that's the 3rd idea or so?
My preferences...
1: Offensive - Manpower, Forcelimit, Discipline, and Generals. This provides everything. The Force March is just icing on the delicious cake.
2: Plutocracy - Massive economy boost, more manpower, more morale, merchant and revoltrisk reducers, -10% tech cost which is why this is ranked so highly
3: Quality - Lots of Discipline and combat power.
4: Defensive - Army Tradition, Morale, Siege pip, attrition reducer and enemy attrition. Its still very good.
I would not touch Aristocracy or Quantity.
1: Offensive - Manpower, Forcelimit, Discipline, and Generals. This provides everything. The Force March is just icing on the delicious cake.
2: Plutocracy - Massive economy boost, more manpower, more morale, merchant and revoltrisk reducers, -10% tech cost which is why this is ranked so highly
3: Quality - Lots of Discipline and combat power.
4: Defensive - Army Tradition, Morale, Siege pip, attrition reducer and enemy attrition. Its still very good.
I would not touch Aristocracy or Quantity.
I was speaking about the idea groups as a whole. If I were somehow prevented from taking both, then I would take what I see as the long-term advantages of Offensive over Defensive, even if Defensive has better front-loading. Practically speaking, though, Defensive is still quite good, and I would take it at some point most any game. I concur with CrabHelmet's ranking.
I love quantity. First military idea I take, definitely. I'm not going to say it's the best, since everything is situational, but for someone who isn't always swimming in money (like me), it's golden. (I tend to ignore trade.)
Here is an example of offensive only on the left, and offensive + quantity on the right, full maintenance, year 1693:
This is with 320 units. Obviously in the second I could go even higher with war taxes or loans if necessary. During peace time, it would be easy to build up a surplus.
Quantity also has manpower regen speed, rather then just a higher amount, which I find is fantastic.
Here is an example of offensive only on the left, and offensive + quantity on the right, full maintenance, year 1693:
This is with 320 units. Obviously in the second I could go even higher with war taxes or loans if necessary. During peace time, it would be easy to build up a surplus.
Quantity also has manpower regen speed, rather then just a higher amount, which I find is fantastic.
Last edited:
Quantity never had that much impact on my country... Are you sure you dont have units being repaired?
Reduction in unit cost will produce a 10% (true multiplicative) decrease in maintenance (more if combined with Barracks in home provinces or other regiment cost reductions), while -% land maintenance modifier will provide a little less than 10% (due to dilution by the positive tech modifier). The biggest factor, however, is the increase in force limit. 213 ducats per month for 320 units (and only 846 tax base -> 211 provincial base force limit assuming no distant overseas) suggests that Sidereus is over force limit, so +33% force limit will provide over a -20% (again true multiplicative) decrease in maintenance. So this looks plausible.
However, keep in mind that maintenance over force limit increases quadratically, not linearly. So a x0.6 multiplier to maintenance cost will not support 1 / 0.6 times as many units for the same cost, but only sqrt(1 / 0.6), or about 30% more. Given this, I would rather my units be individually 30% more effective instead (less manpower, less supply strain, fewer transport ships required, etc.), which is easily achievable by the other MIL idea groups.
Last edited:
Being over force limits would make sense... I never go over forcelimits unless im at war.
Wait, you mean it's possible to not be over the force limit? 
Yes, I always am, I wouldn't know any other way. For players who don't do that, I can see quantity being not nearly as useful, of course.
Yes, I always am, I wouldn't know any other way. For players who don't do that, I can see quantity being not nearly as useful, of course.
Looks like noone here prefer nobility, but out of all mil ideas I take it first. Cause early game cavalry is substantial power, and nobility allow to have nice bunch of cheap! cavalry togather with increased manpower, extra diplo(Very good bonus for early game) not mentioning discount on mil tech later on. Defencive is good idea I must agree, but if you have high traditions and prestige + morale boosting advisor you can have like the same morale advantage ot the other hand other ideas from that branch are not that good.
Since quantity mostly boost cost and manpower its good if you are poor, but if you can affort fighting with mercenaries and/or already developed administrative then quality rocks.
My personal rating of mil ideas is following:
1. Nobility
2. Quntity(if poor)/ Quality (If I'm rich)
3. Offencive or Defencive same value for me
Since quantity mostly boost cost and manpower its good if you are poor, but if you can affort fighting with mercenaries and/or already developed administrative then quality rocks.
My personal rating of mil ideas is following:
1. Nobility
2. Quntity(if poor)/ Quality (If I'm rich)
3. Offencive or Defencive same value for me
The tradeoff is that you're dumping a huge number of military points into both of those idea groups instead of something else. Restricting certain idea groups isn't really necessary or even a great idea; why shouldn't a country be able to have a good offense and a good defense if it's willing to make the investment?
In EU4, it's all about the opportunity cost. Ideas are so good that you can pretty much assume everyone will get as many of them as possible (although with military ideas, you do need to time them in order to avoid falling behind on military tech). So the trade-off is not just between Offensive and Defensive, it's between taking a bunch of military ideas (including quasi-military ideas like Innovative) and taking ideas that improve your economy or diplomacy. I can imagine military ideas being a lot more important in MP than SP, though (in SP, the limits to expansion are ultimately independent of how well your armies can fight, unless playing in a very weak tech group).
Aristocracy and quantity ideas could sure use some buffs. Same for the administration and probably even the espionage ideas.
Shouldn't we evaluate the ideas and their worthiness based on the ideas and their effects as such. Not merely, as a subcomponent of certain unique national bonuses of a country.
Let's just imagine for a second that we buffed the quantity ideas tomorrow. Does this make Russia overpowered with their unique bonuses, maybe. Does this combo mean that quantity would be itself overpowered, no. It would simply mean that Russian unique bonuses are op, not the generic national idea.
Shouldn't we evaluate the ideas and their worthiness based on the ideas and their effects as such. Not merely, as a subcomponent of certain unique national bonuses of a country.
Let's just imagine for a second that we buffed the quantity ideas tomorrow. Does this make Russia overpowered with their unique bonuses, maybe. Does this combo mean that quantity would be itself overpowered, no. It would simply mean that Russian unique bonuses are op, not the generic national idea.
No, Aristocracy (what you call Nobility) is a joke group useful for getting the Winged Hussars achievement and that's it.
I suppose it's also good for Austria if you need another diplomat to annex your vassals...
Espionage could use an idea that allows assassination of various heirs.
But yeah, don't even get me started on Econ vs Admin. Literally half the ideas are the same, but Admin also allows 6% discipline through decisions that you never see unless you read every tooltip in existence, and Econ has a similarly huge decision for -inflation that you have to know exists. Things like that piss me off about this game. The first 100 hours are spent uncovering hidden knowledge like that.
Wait he's complaining that the weakest portion of defensive is the rason it's overpowered? what?
Yes defensive is OP, but god no it has nothing to do with the attrition reduction.
Yes defensive is OP, but god no it has nothing to do with the attrition reduction.
It is hard to say which is better if you are very good at using general and military things. A lonely better +1 shock general may win the war for you especially at the beginning when more troop numbers is not available! And this is available in the first idea! Defensive's moral is important but Offensive also get moral from the events, I think.
Last edited:
I guess it's the morale boost then? Yea, I'm still kinda new at EU4, it just sucks how aristocracy and quantity aren't more useful. Also admin should be more useful (you shouldn't balance the fricking generic national ideas only on the basis of specific events that you can soemtimes enact)
Even though they are a factor, it's not the ideal way to balance these choices ingame.