Development ideas

[Kenshin]

1) First of all, please make the natural bordes impassable. Only once in history did a army cross the mountains between Norway and Sweden and the attrition where bad. It feels so unnatural that armies attack Norrland from Kola peninsula. Not even today is that a easy way to invade.

The same goes for the alps and so on (big forest, big montains)

2) Why not have the cusality that goes for non western culture groups. The reason technology where rapid are from what I have learn more cities, more freedom, less serfs and so on...
Cities give a bonus, some 0.1 or so each year and level of serf vs free give a negative bonus.

To get city status should be along how developed a province are with buildings, since the new cities in USA where still small compered to Europe aournd 1800

3) Build roads. Highways thet are expensive. Force me to use my navy to get an army from Stockholm to Helsinki or S:t Petersburg... It should take several years and a LOT of attrition to send it along the coast

 

[unmerged(149861)]

1) First of all, please make the natural bordes impassable. Only once in history did a army cross the mountains between Norway and Sweden and the attrition where bad. It feels so unnatural that armies attack Norrland from Kola peninsula. Not even today is that a easy way to invade.

The same goes for the alps and so on (big forest, big montains)

2) Why not have the cusality that goes for non western culture groups. The reason technology where rapid are from what I have learn more cities, more freedom, less serfs and so on...
Cities give a bonus, some 0.1 or so each year and level of serf vs free give a negative bonus.

To get city status should be along how developed a province are with buildings, since the new cities in USA where still small compered to Europe aournd 1800

3) Build roads. Highways thet are expensive. Force me to use my navy to get an army from Stockholm to Helsinki or S:t Petersburg... It should take several years and a LOT of attrition to send it along the coast

1) It should be more of a trade-off. Certainally some natural barriers should exist, but sending armies over mountain ranges should be a bold and risky move, but still keep natural barriers defendable and relevant in stratagy.

2) I don't get it, cities should give a tech bonus restricted to Western group? Not really, the Islamic and Eastern world had far bigger cities for most of the timeframe AFAIK.

3)Years is extreme, armies of this time were reasonably small and could move fairly quick. After all, you can walk just as fast in Sweden as you can in Russia, even if you have a different experiance concerning food.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

After all, you can walk just as fast in Sweden as you can in Russia, even if you have a different experience concerning food.

ROFL, that's a pretty good euphemism for starvation.

 

[Haresus]

Hard limits are just so boring. Soft limits are the way to go. Want to discourage the Alps being used for larger armies and battles? Raise attrition and movement cost. A lot. Like, really, a lot. If you have 10k men there for a month, you might notice that 5k of them die, and you might decide to go around next time.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

...you might decide to go around next time.

Sure. The problem, as always, is coding the AI not to do this, with some possible extreme exception. If it were up to me, I would rather have a hard coded limit on a maximal force size that could attempt such a move and save the AI programming budget for more fundamental issues.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Hard limits are just so boring. Soft limits are the way to go. Want to discourage the Alps being used for larger armies and battles? Raise attrition and movement cost. A lot. Like, really, a lot. If you have 10k men there for a month, you might notice that 5k of them die, and you might decide to go around next time.

I agree; why shouldn't you be allowed to let your armies waste away in mountains or dense forests? It is only your country that is going to suffer. There could be a situation where crossing some mountains would give you a big advantage even though you would lose much of your army. If there is problems with the AI losing all its armies in mountains it could be told never to cross / only to cross in very specific situations.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Sure. The problem, as always, is coding the AI not to do this, with some possible extreme exception. If it were up to me, I would rather have a hard coded limit on a maximal force size that could attempt such a move and save the AI programming budget for more fundamental issues.

Would this hard coded limit only apply to the AI or also to the player? If it only applied to the AI it perhaps could lead to some big exploits, unless the attrition was high enough, so the attrition has to be horrendous.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

I was figuring a hard limit across the board, both for AI and human players. Just one quick idea from an amateur. If Paradox has a better idea, I'll listen.

 

[Kenshin]

1) It should be more of a trade-off. Certainally some natural barriers should exist, but sending armies over mountain ranges should be a bold and risky move, but still keep natural barriers defensible and relevant in strategy.

It is a difference between crossing the Alps on a road and climb over it

2) I don't get it, cities should give a tech bonus restricted to Western group? Not really, the Islamic and Eastern world had far bigger cities for most of the timeframe AFAIK.

Not the size of the city. The infrastructure in a city. If it has high % of buildings that demands educated people that educate. University, monastery school, guilds (masonry). Europe had a lot of university, therefore a lot of education. A eastern big city had a lot of servants. So instead of having different groups we could have a slider that make it possible to build a university. Why did Italy have 10-15 university and Istanbul none (or only a military school) Because of the interest of the state. Either a educated class or a soft aristocracy (it is more complex than that, but doable programming

3)Years is extreme, armies of this time were reasonably small and could move fairly quick. After all, you can walk just as fast in Sweden as you can in Russia, even if you have a different experiance concerning food.

Have you ever tried walk in Russia and Sweden. Along a road in the summer it is fine, but our summer is only 3-4 month, then it rains, and all roads at the time turns to mud, then it freeze and start to snow, and it is quite hard to move a army in one meter snow, and in the spring it is still ice or mud in the road.
BUT - There are NO roads in northern Sweden in this timeframe, it is no people, NO food, and even today it is only one road along the coastline and only small roads from Kola to Finland. So if you go from luleå to tromsö it takes 160 hours, around 20 days, but move an army the same way, without paved road...

It is a very natural reason Sweden only controlled the coastline in Finland.
Hard to move an army
No roads
No cities
No people to tax.



Edit:
Hannibal went through the Alps with 50% losses
Sweden tried to move an army in Russia in 1709
Russia moved an army through Finland in 1790
France almost succeed in moving an army in 1812
Germany almost succeed in moving an army in 1942

 

[Sandmann]

There are already 'hardcoded' impassable wasteland which is boring enough. Wasteland provinces feels totally dead and ignored, I wish there was some kind of interaction with wasteland, perhaps 80 percent attrition or something like that.

 

[Kenshin]

Since the the graphic allow it you could have a dense forest to cross, taking 80% attrition, then if I want to I could upgrade the road from province A to B from nothing to a simple road for an obscene amount of money and later upgrade it to paved road (most province option).
So if my empire encircle the Alps and I want a highway through then I build it, or feel the need for my Scandinavian empire to have an highway to Kola for my north pole harbour.

But the natural choice and economic should be to conquer the Baltic coast and ignore Kola, Narvik and so on and also be secure in that no invading army should enter from that location. Natural borders will then be natural borders

 

[Red_warning]

I grew up by the Norwegian border and people have traded across the mountains for a thousand years and more, so it's hardly impossible to do the trek even while carrying heavy gear and supplies. I've wandered those mountains myself, they are quite flat for the most part. I think the main reason why so few armies have passed these mountains is that they border (during this era) nearly uninhabited lands not really worthy of conquest. There are simply more valuable targets to strike at down south.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

It is a difference between crossing the Alps on a road and climb over it



Not the size of the city. The infrastructure in a city. If it has high % of buildings that demands educated people that educate. University, monastery school, guilds (masonry). Europe had a lot of university, therefore a lot of education. A eastern big city had a lot of servants. So instead of having different groups we could have a slider that make it possible to build a university. Why did Italy have 10-15 university and Istanbul none (or only a military school) Because of the interest of the state. Either a educated class or a soft aristocracy (it is more complex than that, but doable programming


Have you ever tried walk in Russia and Sweden. Along a road in the summer it is fine, but our summer is only 3-4 month, then it rains, and all roads at the time turns to mud, then it freeze and start to snow, and it is quite hard to move a army in one meter snow, and in the spring it is still ice or mud in the road.
BUT - There are NO roads in northern Sweden in this timeframe, it is no people, NO food, and even today it is only one road along the coastline and only small roads from Kola to Finland. So if you go from luleå to tromsö it takes 160 hours, around 20 days, but move an army the same way, without paved road...

It is a very natural reason Sweden only controlled the coastline in Finland.
Hard to move an army
No roads
No cities
No people to tax.



Edit:
Hannibal went through the Alps with 50% losses
Sweden tried to move an army in Russia in 1709
Russia moved an army through Finland in 1790
France almost succeed in moving an army in 1812
Germany almost succeed in moving an army in 1942

How many roads during this timeframe that spanend mountain ranges would be suitable for a army and it's supply train/cannons?

You're forgetting that in the Eastern and Islamic cultures espeicaly, the clergy are the main educators, and while Europe certainaly did have plenty of secular-ish universities, the Islamic world had thousands of religious insitutions. While I agree that a religious education isn't the most productive for technological advances, it didn't stop Muslim science before the start date, so I see no reason as to why the game should un-duely limit Muslim nations technological development. After all, they were studying the stars while Europe was still in the Dark ages.

The point I'm trying to make is that taking years to march places is absurd. It's a game, not Military March Simulator 2012. Armies have a unique ability to make their own roads as they go. Somebody once said that "Wherever a goat can go, a man can go. Wherever a man can go, he can drag a gun."

Yes, some areas should have different supply limits based on development/base tax, and winter should have a adverse affect, but years to move across the map is bordering on stupidity.

 

[unmerged(353072)]

You know I think it would be nice to have the ability to entrench in a way you like prepare for the enemy when you are in mountain terrain.

Now on the side of tech I kind of like the new tech system. Although, I think it should be more like hearts of iron 3 tech tree in a way. This is what I mean you should have 5 different tech areas land, naval, diplomacy, production, and trade. Now if you take land for example you can choose infantry, cavalry, or artillery then you can increase your offensive moral or defensive moral, and when you are done that will become part of your infantry stats if you choose to improve infantry. How many things you can improve can depend on tech group and how much money you have. If you want to research more then you tech group will allow you can but it will cost you a good amount of ducats a month to do so.

Now, I want a tech system like this because at least the player will have some power over what their units look like and advantages they have; let my units reflect the historical path I am making.It also makes it so very rich countries can get a edge over their neighbors in tech instead of it being based off size or chance.

One the side of roads ships should be faster and they are but they are difficult to deal with. Again I think the hearts of iron method of having ships docked in a province and having troops in the some province you should be able to load up you troops; they also shouldn't stop moving to their designated route just cause they got on a ship.

 

[...............]

Russian, Scandinavian units etc. should get fewer winter military attrition than Spain and Morocco etc. (In return Spain and Morocco get fewer summer military attrition than Russian, Scandinavian). In Russian summer they should be fewer attrition then in winter (same model with effects of hot weather (weathering)). The attrition in winter in Russia (summer in very hot regions) demand to be really large. Therefore the game get more strategic. Have i to attack now in winter or wait until the little summer ? Also they have to be some attrition in summer in very hot areas like in Africa or middle east. The attrition will be grow up if the army get larger. The attrition vary on the difficulty level.