Don't you wish we could do this in EU4? (pic)

[Palatinus Germanicus]

Playing as Bavarian empire (strong avatar-to-post ratio), attacking Byzantium to put my wife on the throne there (that's right, so our kid will get both empires). Anyway Byzantium is still full-sized for the era, minus losing control of Bulgaria -as you can see. But make no mistake; they have Sicily, all of Anatolia, all of Greece, most of the Caucasus, Armenia, parts of Syria, some of Crimea, 1/2 of Sardinia, Mallorca, etc. They've held together pretty well, except Bulgaria.

Anyway. With that in mind, I've conquered (well, beaten) them in 10 months. I've only sieged 1 and 1/2 provinces, fought a SINGLE battle... and the whole thing was over in ~10 months (as is shown in the mouse-over). They actually attacked me on the plains... but unbeknownst to them, I had some of the best commanders in the world (including myself -- I was leading the center), most of whom specialized in cavalry tactics, defense, and flat terrain experts. They (BYZ) initially attacked (slightly) inferior numbers, but my other army was right nearby, and arrived 4 days once the battle was joined (yeah, that commander increased the speed of their movement). The battle was a total disaster for them, and the war was won for us.

1 battle. 1.5 provinces (multiple holdings per county in CK2). It would have been less than 10 months, if they'd just attacked me sooner. So what's my point? Well, this feels REALISTIC. Take the Battle of Varna for example. The GC briefing talks about it, in EU4 (rise of Ottomans / Europe region). What happened there? A similar situation to what I just experienced. And just like that, the war was over.

But in the actual game of EU4, you can't possibly pull something like that off. No, you've gotta win countless battles, and siege at least 1/2 the empire (or more), in a multi-year grind... just to take a few provinces.

So yeah... just look at this. This is how things should be. Anybody that knows history will agree. So my request is that the EU4 devs go have a meeting w/ the CK2 devs, and the topic of discussion should be: War Score... how much should you get, for winning battles.

Granted this is a completely decisive battle, but still. Things like this happened in history. And when they did, the war was won... just like it is here:

 

[SaucyBaron]

You'd be surprised how easily the AI will peace out for a modest peacedeal with a early victory and 2 or 3 forts taken, it's just that Wars in eu4 tend to be more all or nothing wars for 100% warscore, so it makes sense to require more than 1 battle and a fort to win. While I can see your point with later game blob empires (Ottomans being on high war enthusiasm after I've seiged them down from persia to egypt to Anatolia, I outnumber them with 700 troops to their 300k standing army, and killing them for over 300k in manpower and over 1M in mercs and they are still not willing to peace out for 90% WS, by the time they are willing to peace for 90 I may as well seige down their last fort for 100%

I think I agree that the AI should know when to cut it's loses and give up some land and cut it's loses, but instant surrenders after 10 months wars with 1 siege and a battle are almost as silly as 5 year long wars with enough mercenary casualties to depopulate all of Europe, Yhe AI should probably be somewhat more willing to peace out for <25% WS when it looks like it's enemy is capable of forcing 100% WS with just a few more years.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

I'm getting a bunch of thumbs-down, and I know why. People don't want to INcrease the blobbing. "We don't want to be able to conquer the whole world, by 1520", they say.

The difference in CK2, is that just because you incorporate a new kingdom or empire... doesn't mean you're always going to keep it. In the above SS for example, once upon a time all of Italy was mine. But the light-colored area broke away on succession (twin heirs -literally twin sons), along time ago. That kind of thing can't happen in EU4. -As long as you can keep the rebels under control (no big deal, almost always), you can just keep blobbing.

In EU4, you just blob. And it's up to the people to decide, "how fast one should be able to blob". CK2 is a 2-step challenge; 1) acquire the new lands -- somehow. 2) hold that empire together -- any way you can. Step 2 can sometimes be very challenging... and it never ends. EU4, conversely, once the rebels die down, you never have to worry about it anymore... just keep blobbin'.

I get it. I realize all this. I'm just saying... isn't it cool that in a Paradox game, you can actually have an experience that makes you say, "Wow! This feels realistic. I actually feel like I'm in a virtual time warp, and I just beat an emperor on the field of battle, and dethroned him! Just like Alexander the Great, for ex."

And btw, you need pretty much 100% warscore in CK2 to achieve your goal. When you get into the 90's, the A.I. might surrender, but generally you need to totally beat them. There is no "35%... OK, I'll take 2 provinces & some reps".

Anyway. You never experience this type of thing (OP^), in EU4. But you know you wish it were possible. Unfortunately, if it were possible, people would be blobbing out of control, going for WC in <100 years.

 

[sigeena]

The nature of wars were changing from the Ck2 to EU4 period. Thirty years war, Eighty years war.

 

[Robert de Bruce]

Anybody that knows history will agree.

I disagree with that. Based on the military technology and the tactics used wars were sometimes long and without real results, sometimes fast over and completely changing. Varna is at the edge of the transition from medieval warfare to renaissance or more precisely gun powder age. When cannons revolutioned sieges, there was a time window of more or less 50 years with fast wars, that could change alot. The time window was ca. 1450-1500, seeing the French rushing all of Italy. The surprised Italians focused alot on figuring out how to make castles more resistent and the result was, when the new techniques spread over Europe, that wars became much longer again. Since fortresses were used to block to supply routes and most armies needed supply routes wars could last years and bringing nearly no result, for example the Spain Succession War 1701-1714 or the three wars between Prussia and Austria among others over Silesia, including Seven years War, which was in fact whitepeaced. It changed again with the French Revolution, since the huge revolutionary armies ignored supply routes, just pushed around fortresses and blockaded them and took their supllies from the civilian population. So for most of the EUIV time frame, we have long, bloody wars with little results, which is represented in the game. And since we have age mechanics, the 2 short periods of faster wars are also somehow included with Otto siege bonus age ability (Urbans Cannons) and the age of revolution artillery siege bonus.
In medieval times, represented in CK, battles were more decisive than sieges, IF the much more relevant dynastic members involved in the war were harmed in a battle. That is something that also explains Varna. If Wladyslaw III. did not die in that cavalry attack, he would most likely have won that battle or at least kept his army intact, not deciding the war. This is also true for several famous medieval batlles, that decided wars, for example Hastings 1066. If Harold didn't die in that battle, it would not have been the end of the war. The later the date, the more irrelevant monarch deaths/captures became to end wars.

 

[Horn and Ivory]

I disagree with Robert de Bruce on details but he's basically right. War in the 15- through 1700s involved an awful lot of capturing fortified towns to secure supply routes.

OP, if you could provide a few examples of wars in the EUIV timeframe that were won with one or two decisive battles, that'd strengthen your case. I'm aware you mention Varna but it happens before the start of the game - it's not representative of the time period at the core of EUIV.

 

[Lacost]

I disagree with that. Based on the military technology and the tactics used wars were sometimes long and without real results, sometimes fast over and completely changing. Varna is at the edge of the transition from medieval warfare to renaissance or more precisely gun powder age. When cannons revolutioned sieges, there was a time window of more or less 50 years with fast wars, that could change alot. The time window was ca. 1450-1500, seeing the French rushing all of Italy. The surprised Italians focused alot on figuring out how to make castles more resistent and the result was, when the new techniques spread over Europe, that wars became much longer again. Since fortresses were used to block to supply routes and most armies needed supply routes wars could last years and bringing nearly no result, for example the Spain Succession War 1701-1714 or the three wars between Prussia and Austria among others over Silesia, including Seven years War, which was in fact whitepeaced. It changed again with the French Revolution, since the huge revolutionary armies ignored supply routes, just pushed around fortresses and blockaded them and took their supllies from the civilian population. So for most of the EUIV time frame, we have long, bloody wars with little results, which is represented in the game. And since we have age mechanics, the 2 short periods of faster wars are also somehow included with Otto siege bonus age ability (Urbans Cannons) and the age of revolution artillery siege bonus.
In medieval times, represented in CK, battles were more decisive than sieges, IF the much more relevant dynastic members involved in the war were harmed in a battle. That is something that also explains Varna. If Wladyslaw III. did not die in that cavalry attack, he would most likely have won that battle or at least kept his army intact, not deciding the war. This is also true for several famous medieval batlles, that decided wars, for example Hastings 1066. If Harold didn't die in that battle, it would not have been the end of the war. The later the date, the more irrelevant monarch deaths/captures became to end wars.

To add on top of that, there was a change in the "warrior classes" of Europe.

In Medieval times training soldiers took a lifetime. Having elite knights that could plow through enemy peasant armies was nothing you could achieve in a few years. Those soldiers were highly trained and really expensive to maintain given their armor and weapon technology.

If you loose this very elite block of your army, the war is over. Period. If you only have peasant levies and your enemy has elite heavy cavalry, a victory was impossible. This also explains why a total defeat of one army can decide a war.

Fast forward a few centuries and we have firearms as the main weapons in the army and what is their main advantage over bows, crossbows and swords? They are cheap and extremely easy to use. Just give a peasant a stick with metal, teach him how to reload and have him vaguely point into the direction of the enemy. Of course, drilling enough disciplin into this recruit so that he doesn't rout on the first contact was still important but if your forts could delay enemy advance for a few months, it still would be possible to raise a suitable army again. Even after a total defeat in a single battle.

 

[iquabakaner]

The Oirats captured the Ming Emperor in 1449, and Ming response was "I don't care, I'll just get another Emperor."

 

[durbal]

CK2 is a less strategic blobfest than EU4.

 

[Ketilsen]

The EU4 period had much more of a focus on sieges than the Classical era, which was the highpoint of "one battle decides the war". I think that really sums up the whole thing. What we really need, if we're going to change the warfare mechanics, is some way to make Forts more relevant, as they are currently too expensive to be worth keeping around.

 

[Lord Zsinj]

@Lacost, I would remind you that Swiss militia were the ones who tolled the death knell of the armored knight. Granted they were highly drilled and had excellent esprit d’corps, but they were still peasants.

@Robert de Bruce, while the Seven Years War did result in status quo ante bellum between Prussia, Austria, France & Russia, the First Silesian War saw significant territorial gain for Prussia for low investment. The Second put the exclamation point on the first. Granted they were a side show to the Austrian Succession, the outcome was extremely favorable for the age for Prussia.

 

[Robert de Bruce]

[USER=324267]@Robert de Bruce, while the Seven Years War did result in status quo ante bellum between Prussia, Austria, France & Russia, the First Silesian War saw significant territorial gain for Prussia for low investment. The Second put the exclamation point on the first. Granted they were a side show to the Austrian Succession, the outcome was extremely favorable for the age for Prussia.[/USER]

I know that. My whitepeaced was only related to the 7-years-war (maybe my english isn't good enough to made it clear). My point with the 3 Silesian wars was 3 wars for one province. And all the other major powers involved in the 3 wars didn't earn much of it, so 3 (or 2 if we count Austrian Succession war as one) lasting longer than 10 months and with little result, in comparison to that what OP means with his 100% wars.

 

[iquabakaner]

I know that. My whitepeaced was only related to the 7-years-war (maybe my english isn't good enough to made it clear). My point with the 3 Silesian wars was 3 wars for one province. And all the other major powers involved in the 3 wars didn't earn much of it, so 3 (or 2 if we count Austrian Succession war as one) lasting longer than 10 months and with little result, in comparison to that what OP means with his 100% wars.

Not that I disagree with your point, but Silesia is 4 provinces in EU4.

 

[Lord Zsinj]

My point is merely that Prussia’s gain during their involvement in the Austrian Succession was an anomaly in that is was pretty much the ideal for both real life Wars, and how we aim to play EU. Quick blitz that nets valuable clay for low investment. The Seven Years War was the reality of the gap between grand strategy and the means to execute said strategy, and the conflicting goals of alliance partners. The former was quick, fairly decisive, and was paid for by the war chest and current income. The latter was that nightmare clusterfuck of debt spiral, currency debasement & razed territory, for no real gain for any combatants, other than Prussia’s survival. Thus the Wars represent the gap between ideal and reality.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

I disagree with Robert de Bruce on details but he's basically right. War in the 15- through 1700s involved an awful lot of capturing fortified towns to secure supply routes.

OP, if you could provide a few examples of wars in the EUIV timeframe that were won with one or two decisive battles, that'd strengthen your case. I'm aware you mention Varna but it happens before the start of the game - it's not representative of the time period at the core of EUIV.

Battle of Flodden (1513) comes to mind -- England gets 100% war score Vs. Scotland, after 1 battle.
My whole premise was simply that if... IF a major battle goes disastrously, it should count for a lot more war score than EU gives you. EU is way to stingy with it's war score allocation in this regard, and so when something like this happens in CK2 (and the game rewards you accordingly), it's like a breath of fresh air.

People are argue back and forth about the nuances between fort Vs. anti-fort technology from one 1/2 century to the next, during the entire time scale. But when you annihilate the enemy on the field of battle, it means something. -Whether it be the Renaissance, Victorian, or modern era.

Btw, the reason it's possible to kill this many enemy in CK2, is because once the enemy's morale is exhausted, they don't just get a "bail out of trouble free" card. Rather, once their morale is exhausted (all 3 flanks begin to retreat), that begins the 'pursuit' phase (which some commanders are able to capitalize on better than others), where you basically get to chase the enemy for a bit (inflicting 1-sided casualties), until they're able to actually enter the shattered retreat, and combat is actually over. Of course some commanders (who have traits like cruel, aggressive, hunter, wroth, etc.) will do more killing during this phase.

In EU4, morale is exhausted, and as long as you've lasted 10 days, you essentially have space aliens that beam you up, and transport you far away to some safe place well behind the forts. Why don't you tell ME, when that has ever happened in history.

-Maybe it's not EU4's gauge of war score for battles that's the problem. Perhaps it's the premature ending, that prevents a true result from materializing. And the <10 day stack-wipe is silly & arbitrary, anyway. It doesn't exist in CK2. Granted, you can kill every last enemy, but it's because you actually did it on the field of battle. -Usually in the pursuit phase.

I was going to close out by saying that, "EU4 really needs a pursuit phase in it's combat sequence". But then I realized how vastly inferior the whole combat system is in EU4, compared to CK2. Then I remembered that CK2 is actually an older game. So, let's just face it: that's unacceptable. All this tinkering w/ the map & other minor, insignificant stuff... from one DLC to the next. -Forget that. Just take the CK2 combat engine, maybe tweak a little here and there, add it into EU4, and bam! ...500% increase of game quality.

 

[pttaylor]

An alternative to tinkering with the WS calculation directly would be to have the modifiers to War Enthusiasm matter more - if having literally no troops gave eg. -40 instead of what is in practice usually around a measly -10, forcing early peaces would be a lot easier, and the scaling penalty for demanding more than the peace deal would lead to fast minor gains without making fast 100% WS deals a thing. Note that one of the reasons CK2 lets you 100% fast is because you can only take the war-goal - 100% in EU4 represents a lot more clay than it does in CK2.

 

[Robert de Bruce]

I don't know if it is worth to argue with you any further. In difference to opening post it's now clear that you don't complain about historical inaccuracy but gameplay reasons, which would improve game experience for you. It's ok when you are of this opinion. But there are other aspects of gameplay, other opinions and last but not least historical reasons why this isn't added. Main problem I see is, how to integrate all those needed commanders into EUIV? You have no court in the way you have it in CKII. Just increase general cap and decrease costs, that you can add random generated guys on 3 flanks in one army instead of just adding one - is this really this great? And in CKII you usually don't profite that much from the combat system, if you didn't breed demigod generals for generations. In CKII it's just an abuse of game machanics in a way the AI will never compete with, but it's very tedious to do this and when I think about bringing a similar system to EUIV ... hell no
I skipped playing CKII since nearly 2 years now because the micromanagement before I can go to conquer something grow extremily. I'm too tired of marrying all these people, managing their education traits, appoint tutors for them and when I dealt with this, my king dies and i can repeat or my council says no.

 

[zukodark]

Since we already have an answer regarding realism...

I'm getting a bunch of thumbs-down, and I know why. People don't want to INcrease the blobbing. "We don't want to be able to conquer the whole world, by 1520", they say.

The difference in CK2, is that just because you incorporate a new kingdom or empire... doesn't mean you're always going to keep it. In the above SS for example, once upon a time all of Italy was mine. But the light-colored area broke away on succession (twin heirs -literally twin sons), along time ago. That kind of thing can't happen in EU4. -As long as you can keep the rebels under control (no big deal, almost always), you can just keep blobbing.

In EU4, you just blob. And it's up to the people to decide, "how fast one should be able to blob". CK2 is a 2-step challenge; 1) acquire the new lands -- somehow. 2) hold that empire together -- any way you can. Step 2 can sometimes be very challenging... and it never ends. EU4, conversely, once the rebels die down, you never have to worry about it anymore... just keep blobbin'.

Well CK2 and EU4 is two vastly difference games.

You play a character or dynasty in CK2, you play a country in EU4. In CK2, losing territory is losing a possession. Yes, it doesn't feel good, but you just have to get it back. In EU4, losing territory is like losing a party of yourself, and it's going to take a while to get it back. While I like the idea of losing territory on a conceptual level, it feels terrible in practise.

Furthermore, EU4 is focused on warfare, conquest and territory, unlike CK2. It makes up core gameplay, and it would thus be self-defeating to shorten it.

I get it. I realize all this. I'm just saying... isn't it cool that in a Paradox game, you can actually have an experience that makes you say, "Wow! This feels realistic. I actually feel like I'm in a virtual time warp, and I just beat an emperor on the field of battle, and dethroned him! Just like Alexander the Great, for ex."

I can honestly say I have had tons of similar moments in EU4 with their war system. If you're just saying it is awesome that such a thing is possible in CK2, you'd do that in the CK2 forum. Especially considering:

So yeah... just look at this. This is how things should be. Anybody that knows history will agree. So my request is that the EU4 devs go have a meeting w/ the CK2 devs, and the topic of discussion should be: War Score... how much should you get, for winning battles.

There's really no point.
Warscore balance is not an important problem in EU4.

 

[iquabakaner]

There's really no point.
Warscore balance is not an important problem in EU4.

More like it's a too established mechanic that they don't wanna make an overhaul. But the devs definitely are aware of the problems it brought, most notably every war is an all-or-nothing war. There is a reason they make a massive change in war mechanics in Stellaris.

 

[Blust]

I just agree with the initial idea for one-side war. Like, if Ottomans attacks Albania and their army got stack wiped, as well as their fleet, and no one else is here to help, they should be able surrender without waiting for 9 months to see the fortress fall.