England and Great Britain seem underpowered compared to their counterparts in EU3, both when played and as AI. Am I the only one who thinks this?
ENG/GB Underpowered?
- Thread starter Afinati
- 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.
Play out of NA or India and see if you still feel that way.
But seriously, they've plenty going in their favor. They're still among the better starting positions in the game.
Definitely not underpowered. Just play your cards right and you will dominate the world easily.
In EU 3 it was overpowered.
In EU 3 it was overpowered.
They're a lot weaker in EU4 compared to 3, but they're still in a good position. I have noticed that when played by the AI, they're less not so strong, and more useless due to stupidity. My advice is to never ally an AI England, as they'll just sit on their islands and let everyone else fight their wars.
They are weak because you can't do that much with navies in game. You can't really translate navies into military might the same way you could in real life.
Navies in game are just money producers and a defensive force for island nations.
I still want to see naval CBs. CBs with the goal to blockade 75%+ or something like that and when that is fulfilled you start ticking warscore. So naval power can bully land powers in wars more.
It would also make it more lucrative to fight wars in Asia or far away and don't have to ships half your army stack for two years around Africa and back again.
Navies in game are just money producers and a defensive force for island nations.
I still want to see naval CBs. CBs with the goal to blockade 75%+ or something like that and when that is fulfilled you start ticking warscore. So naval power can bully land powers in wars more.
It would also make it more lucrative to fight wars in Asia or far away and don't have to ships half your army stack for two years around Africa and back again.
Never played EU3 but yeah unless its a player playing GB and winning the HYW using some sort of strategy, ENG/GB are a non-factor for almost any european country not on the british isles. While countries like France, Spain, Austria, Burgandy, Denmark and Poland are always a thorn in the players side the GB can be usually ignored as it is a non-factor. Sad really consider it is considered the greatest country in the immediate successor of EU the Vic games.
Navies are not insignificant in this game at all. They are in a fight between Austria and Ottomans as AIs, or between Russia and Lithuania, but not for most Europeans vs Middle East (lots of tough logistics over land), wars in Africa/India, colonial regions, or even stuff along the European coast. Ships are much faster than units on land and can place troops in really inconvenient areas, sometimes in tandem with said area being war goal. On top of that, blockades have nasty impact on both WE and war score.
England's problem is that the AI is really bad at transporting troops in a war, and deciding what is the most important thing to do with your navy
in my current game, England is trying to conquer a province from Brittany, they actually sent 2-3 9k stacks there, which surprised me a bit, so they got Brittany 100% conquered all good
now Brittany was allied to Spain, and Spain is warleader, i recently fought Spain killing all their navy and most of their troops, but Spain had built 3 cogs and a few other ships, and actually managed to get around the huge English fleet and drop of 1 3k stack in ireland
now that was a few years ago, and at this point England hold Brittany, and Spain hold the English Ireland. With England's huge fleet how is it that they simply cannot work out how to put 1 9k stack on the Irish island to get that back?
their fleet with 9 transports have been blockading Gibraltar the last 2 years, if they would just move them to Ireland and get their land back they would have enough warscore to win(blockades, all Brittany's provinces and ticking warscore for years). But i just know the war will last untill England is overrun with rebels and lose the war, that's how every war England is involved in on the continent always ends
in my current game, England is trying to conquer a province from Brittany, they actually sent 2-3 9k stacks there, which surprised me a bit, so they got Brittany 100% conquered all good
now Brittany was allied to Spain, and Spain is warleader, i recently fought Spain killing all their navy and most of their troops, but Spain had built 3 cogs and a few other ships, and actually managed to get around the huge English fleet and drop of 1 3k stack in ireland
now that was a few years ago, and at this point England hold Brittany, and Spain hold the English Ireland. With England's huge fleet how is it that they simply cannot work out how to put 1 9k stack on the Irish island to get that back?
their fleet with 9 transports have been blockading Gibraltar the last 2 years, if they would just move them to Ireland and get their land back they would have enough warscore to win(blockades, all Brittany's provinces and ticking warscore for years). But i just know the war will last untill England is overrun with rebels and lose the war, that's how every war England is involved in on the continent always ends
Blockades do almost nothing. It adds extremely little war exhaustion and do very little economic damage.
I agree. For a human player, it's very possible to win the HYW in a few years. This sets up England to be the largest power in the world right off the bat.
For the AI... they kinda suck at using navies, it's true. But England almost always ends up forming GB and becoming a decent colonial power in my games, unless I'm directly stopping them.
.png){kind=avatar}
ENG/GB winning the HYW is the most powerful nation in the world when they do. That's not what I'd call underpowered.
Even if you abandon the mainland, they're still a naval, trade, and colonial powerhouse, and still strong enough to take on powers in the mainland when the time is right, while being strong enough at sea to never fear retaliation if they fail.
AI england is kinda meh, but that's largely because the AI can't deal with moving their troops around at all.
Even if you abandon the mainland, they're still a naval, trade, and colonial powerhouse, and still strong enough to take on powers in the mainland when the time is right, while being strong enough at sea to never fear retaliation if they fail.
AI england is kinda meh, but that's largely because the AI can't deal with moving their troops around at all.
This. I've seen an AI Great Britain forced to release most of Ireland in wars with an unwesternized AI Ceylon. Not because the Ceylonese won great military victories, but because after declaring war, the British never bothered to send any troops. As a result, Ceylon got ticking warscore (since it was a conquest war triggered by a British mission-generated claim) and eventually got enough warscore that they were able to demand the release of an Irish OPM. Wait 5 years for truce to be over, and the British try again, eventually releasing another Irish OPM.
Most cases aren't that extreme, but anyone who has ever allied with an AI UK knows better than to expect them to actually use their armies for anything. I expect that if the naval and amphibious landing AI are ever improved to the level of "passable", the UK will be a much more significant power.
Blocking an entirely coastal nation is worth 25% war score. Even if only 1/2 their provinces are, you still get more from a full blockade than occupying any single province, and often enough more than multiple provinces.
It is possible to vassal some OPMs through blockades as the soul source of war score, but usually boosting up WS at very little cost via blockade is favorable unless you can full-carpet the target...which takes much more investment.
AI England is very underpowered. I rarely ever see them succeed or even survive. Most of the time I see England get eaten by Scotland/Denmark/France or all at once. It has a terrible starting position because it begins at war with France who kills their entire army because English AI keeps doing suicidal naval invasions and then France brings Scotland into the war and then England gets occupied and then gets WotR and a peasant war. The AI just can't manage those things. If GB get's formed it's usually by Scotland....
Most of the time England forms GB and colonizes North America. They never win the Hundred Years War (which makes sense).
You've never seen them survive? I consider that extremely unlikely, especially considering I've literally never seen them not survive (without player influence bringing them down), and they usually do very well for themselves.
In my game right now they've formed GB, inherited portugal, and stand as the third largest economy, with an army larger than france's. Though they have, as Rubidium mentioned, been forced to release some minors because of wars that they've "lost" due to their inability to ship troops over to where the fighting is going down...
Yup, that's wales and cornwall right there.
Britain shouldn't be a respectable power or even one of the top five by the 18th century; it should be at least top 3 ... most of the time. I've played quite a few full EUIV campaigns outside of Europe or on its fringes ... and I've seen everything from a Britain crushed by foreign invaders to a moderate colonizing power. I can't say if the AI handling fleets is the problem or not, but I do think the terrible monarch points and lost Hundred Years War off the bat does make it stumble a bit. Even though I invested 700+ hours in EU3, I can't really tell where the difference is (since I haven't played an England campaign longer than 100+ years or so in EUIV). I do know that the 1399 start is a bit more favorable to England in EU3, and those reconquest CB's+OP missions make things easy peasy.
I usually don't care about balancing as much as this, but as a game that has the colonization of the world by European powers as a central theme, EUIV's success in getting Britain's proper balance is important. Aruging that England isn't underpowered because if you win the Hundred Years War, you're the strongest doesn't solve it for me. They didn't and yet they came out on top. AI ENG/GB almost always doesn't win, and it certainly doesn't come out on top.
I usually don't care about balancing as much as this, but as a game that has the colonization of the world by European powers as a central theme, EUIV's success in getting Britain's proper balance is important. Aruging that England isn't underpowered because if you win the Hundred Years War, you're the strongest doesn't solve it for me. They didn't and yet they came out on top. AI ENG/GB almost always doesn't win, and it certainly doesn't come out on top.
Last edited:
Well, they're on top in my game, despite having lost several wars against the mighty cherokee empire, and they usually end up in similar situations in my games, so I don't know what to tell you.
The only ones stronger than them are the ottomans, who hold more-or-less the entire middle-east, and muscovy, who inherited several major powers then smashed korea and japan on the eurasian mainland. And the mighty cherokees, of course.
The only ones stronger than them are the ottomans, who hold more-or-less the entire middle-east, and muscovy, who inherited several major powers then smashed korea and japan on the eurasian mainland. And the mighty cherokees, of course.
The problem with England is that they have one of the worst starts in the game and AI can't quite deal with it.
You start in the 100 years war, with a 0/0/0 ruler, no heir and you're soon to be hit by bad events like lollard heretics and war of the roses.
AI is not smart enough in using their navy, they often break it up in small blockades and lose it to France little by little, sometimes they just get broke recruiting mercenaries for the 100 years war and disband the navy to save money. They drag on the 100 years war getting too much war exhaustion, even though they have no chance of winning, they don't gain enough monarch points to lower it due to 0/0/0 king. When war of the roses and lollard heretics happen they have so much revolt risk that they get broken by rebels most of the times.
You start in the 100 years war, with a 0/0/0 ruler, no heir and you're soon to be hit by bad events like lollard heretics and war of the roses.
AI is not smart enough in using their navy, they often break it up in small blockades and lose it to France little by little, sometimes they just get broke recruiting mercenaries for the 100 years war and disband the navy to save money. They drag on the 100 years war getting too much war exhaustion, even though they have no chance of winning, they don't gain enough monarch points to lower it due to 0/0/0 king. When war of the roses and lollard heretics happen they have so much revolt risk that they get broken by rebels most of the times.
Playing as an indian nation (Choctaw) I allied the Brits. It was a bad decision.
They weren't even able to win a colonial war against Spain, with help from me and Great Brittany (colonial overlord Brittany with the power to rival France
)
And after that war was lost in America, Spain occupied half of the UK.
So yes, they are underpowered. And they don't colonize enough.
They weren't even able to win a colonial war against Spain, with help from me and Great Brittany (colonial overlord Brittany with the power to rival France
)And after that war was lost in America, Spain occupied half of the UK.
So yes, they are underpowered. And they don't colonize enough.