EU4 - Art of War- Dev Diary 8 - Sorties, Terrain and the Maghreb
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
Does sortie really have to cost 10 military points. A monarch's brilliance(or lack there of) in military matters does not affect whether or not a garrison sorties or not. I think it would be much better if it just cost gold. It would make money, at least, a little more valuable.
Because they have to prioritize. Have you looked at the ton of great changes they are making in AoW?
Who says that trade goods improvements are not meant for another free patch + accompanying DLC, later on?
Bells and whistles can come later. Older EU4 versions had a ton of stuff I mostly never cared about, and that didn't influence the game play.
They've been trying to make sure that everything in the game is actually used, from what I've noticed in past patches and DLCs.
I like it that they're trimming the game down and trying to provide a better experience for the core game.
As a poster said: "EU4 is wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle."
Well if you're trying to play the "it doesn't make sense" card, it makes even less sense that you'd have to pay city defenders to lift a siege of their own city.
I'm a bit concerned about the simplification of trade and province terrain.
I want it to be clear, I want to know when I'm crossing a river, but getting a 100% chance I can defend on mountainous terrain worries me.
I want it to be clear, I want to know when I'm crossing a river, but getting a 100% chance I can defend on mountainous terrain worries me.
Agreed. Terrain being random reduces player agency and makes him more a spectator and less a determining factor in the outcome.
I am concerned with AI behavior with regard to sorties. If I split 1K off from my 30K stack and go sit on a Level 4 fort, is the AI going to rush out to sortie? Will the AI know that I've got 29K sitting over in the next province waiting to crush the sortie?
I'm worried the AI sortie logic is going to be as easily manipulated as the current naval AI, where you can split off a few ships and draw out the AI navy, then sail in with the remainder of your navy and crush them.
I'm worried the AI sortie logic is going to be as easily manipulated as the current naval AI, where you can split off a few ships and draw out the AI navy, then sail in with the remainder of your navy and crush them.
I think modders will be able to do a lot with fixed prices, besides dynamic prices didn't do a lot for EU. In Vicky it makes sense because everything is linked into one big economic system, and players both feel the impact and have an effect on the global market. In EU that's not really possible.
As always the map is great. Wiz didn't "hand over" to anyone, so congrats to whoever was in charge of that region.
As always the map is great. Wiz didn't "hand over" to anyone, so congrats to whoever was in charge of that region.
Me Gusta.
I think this is OK. A nerf to the stereotypical carpet siege.
River tooltips good, but the one province, one terrain concept im not so sure about. I agree that the old system was rediculous in that you had a fairly good chance of fighting in terrain that only exist in 1% of the province, but the new system is too oversimplified. Maybe instead of just one terrain type there should be a terrain threshhold, A terrain can only be fought in if it is above 20 or 25 percent of the total province. Thus leaving only a max of 2-3 terrain types to fight in. This would be much better than both the current EU4 system and the oversimplified one province, one terrain system. Not to mention a player could still reasonably plan things out.
Prices should vary based on whats going on in the world, not historically railroaded events which may not even be matching whats going on in the world. I liked the old supply and demand system better, although it could have used an enormous amount of improvement.
Hooray! I've been carping about the useless supply/demand system for awhile. Glad to see it swapped out with something much more interesting from a player's perspective; with more stable prices I can better plan my growth and priorities, but the sudden event-driven changes can throw a wrench in those plans. And once I learn the events, it'll even further motivate my actions to trigger the wanted events while avoiding the ones that'll help my enemies. Great!
Terrain fix is wonderful too. The randomness of combat is already annoying, but the random terrain on top of it added a whole other level of frustration. Mixed with the much larger set of provinces, this should make for some great tactical wars!
AoW is shaping up to be the best patch+expansion yet. Awesome job!
Terrain fix is wonderful too. The randomness of combat is already annoying, but the random terrain on top of it added a whole other level of frustration. Mixed with the much larger set of provinces, this should make for some great tactical wars!
AoW is shaping up to be the best patch+expansion yet. Awesome job!
Fixed terrain is a pretty silly decision. It will now make participants in wars rush the closest mountain province and bait there.
Rather than throwing out the entire percentage system, I would have liked to see it replaced with a sort of tiering system based on old percentages that ties into general maneuver to determine the terrain that a fight would take place on. The old "dominant terrain" would be the new default for all battles, but depending on the maneuver difference between the attacking and the defending generals, the terrain would shift to being more favourable for that side.
As a very rough example, say a province used to be 40% Hills, 30% Plains and 20% Mountains. In a tiered system, all battles would take place in Hills; but if the attacker had a sufficient maneuver advantage over the defender (in this case, let's say +2), the battle would instead happen in Plains. Similarly, if the defender had say a +3 maneuver advantage, it would happen in Mountains.
Rather than throwing out the entire percentage system, I would have liked to see it replaced with a sort of tiering system based on old percentages that ties into general maneuver to determine the terrain that a fight would take place on. The old "dominant terrain" would be the new default for all battles, but depending on the maneuver difference between the attacking and the defending generals, the terrain would shift to being more favourable for that side.
As a very rough example, say a province used to be 40% Hills, 30% Plains and 20% Mountains. In a tiered system, all battles would take place in Hills; but if the attacker had a sufficient maneuver advantage over the defender (in this case, let's say +2), the battle would instead happen in Plains. Similarly, if the defender had say a +3 maneuver advantage, it would happen in Mountains.
The change in the pricing system is fine. Nobody ever considered how the old system worked when making strategic or tactical decisions, and my suspicion is that the new system will be even easier to mod, so that's fine. The removal of random terrain seems like a terrible idea, though - I hope they change their mind (no chance, alas). Multiplayer games are going to be horrendous, all the player powers' boundaries will just follow mountains.
Isn't that already the case? I always try to fight defensively in the mountains and make it a priority to camp there. In the future I just have a bit more confirmation that it actually will take place in mountains. But play style wise, there's not much of a change.
The only thing I'm wondering (as do many) is if manoeuvre now has become a lot less usefull.
Yes, but depending on what part of the world it is (read: not Tirol or Tibet), you at least knew you had a chance of there not being mountains. All I'm suggesting is replacing the old luck-based percentage system with something that is much clearer to understand and makes your general's maneuver value both more important, and clearer to you on how it is applied in the field of battle.
+1 to this...and I like the other changes going in. There will be some who don't like the terrain and supply/demand changes (those who like to write a project plan for changing a light bulb), but I think it's a good simplification. These weren't things that the player had much control over anyway so there's little value in it. I'd like to see more RNG centered mechanics be removed as well.
I'd be interested in how this is materially different from patches 1.0 - 1.7. Everyone does this against the AI, and in PvP everyone held these areas as strategically important (and needed a way to force opposition off of them). If you are making decisions exactly the same way in both cases, where's the issue? So far nobody's shown anything that indicates this "big change" will change the player decision tree one iota.
Possible terrains based on leader maneuver would be fine too, though we might have leader maneuver modifying the values in 1.8. We'll see.
Again, this is overreaction to a small factor (this will have NOTHING on rebels you can't accept in MP, where people can camp you to guarantee you lose territory independently from war score for example). Players already emphasize mountains heavily, and attacking into mountain provinces virtually guarantees them (very few exceptions) in 1.7.
If random factors actually alter strategy/decision making, they have some potential merit. Random factors that have little to no influence on decision making (IE terrain right now --> decision making will be virtually identical w/o it being random) are just junk noise.
Assuming you clear the nationalism, this is already true. You can convert a Portuguese province in the Caribbean right now in 1.7.3 even if Portugal is alive. Primary nation restriction only functions if the province is not distant overseas.
Can sorties be led by a general? Can you sortie when a battle is taking place in one of your provinces, or only when it's being sieged?