EU4 - Development Diary - 31st January 2017

[Jorlem]

Banners are raised so that you get enough cavalry for your cavalry to infantry ratio, and the rest is raised as infantry.

So, these are regiments that are not a single unit type?

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Any way for the opposing player to determine whether the stack I'm about to attack consists of banner units or not ?

Well, assuming your fighting Manchus, I think you should just assume they have banners. If not, then it doesn't matter because they're probably too weak to do anything.

 

[johnleeyx]

@Johan how about the Mongol Eight Banners and Han Eight Banners?

 

[RandomPerson124]

Will there be a system like the Janissary Decadence perhaps that represents the decrease in quality of the units? Or how later banners included non-Manchus.

 

[cools0812]

are the banners counted as a part of the force limit?

 

[Nueva12]

@Johan If you are working at the cavalry ratio, could you also look into the deployment algorithm?

Using more than just the flanking amount of cavalry is frustrating at times, because the game prioritizes deploying infantry above cavalry. Excerpt from a post I made in the suggestions forum:

"Currently cavalry gets prioritized for flanking positions, which can cause cavalry to get deployed less than desired, if you want to play cavalry heavy, like hordes or poland. Let's say you are poland with 10 infantry and 10 cavalry. You engage a 10 stack. What the game does is, to deploy all your 10 infantry and only 4 cavalry for flanking. Not really what you want in a cavalry heavy stack. So you have to detach excessive units before you engage to force cavalry into the fight, and then reinforce with the infantry a day later, so you don't accidentally suffer from insufficient support.

So instead of deploying cavalry for flanking, the game should look at the actual cavalry ratio of your units and try to assemble a front line that matches that ratio. So in that poland case from above, the enemy has 10 troops, so we can use 14. Cavalry ratio is 60%, so 60% of 14 is 8.4, rounded down to 8, so the game should deploy 8 cavalry and 6 infantry."

Full post: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/streamlining-cavalry.994114/

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Manchu gets quality. Russia is still zerg swarm.

P.S.: I hope you removed cav discount, cause if it is CCA then Russia loses at least some chance to have good units...

Why is it inaccurate? It took far less Manchus to conquer China than it did Russia to conquer well... anything.

 

[Yeekim]

On one hand, seems like a neat mechanic - and this being tied to culture and states makes it even neater.
On the other... do we really need three different ways to raise troops?

 

[mag_zbc]

- Winged Hussars Idea gives +10% Cavalry Ratio now.

Does that mean Poland lost +33% Cavalry combat ability?

 

[wingren013]

Why is it inaccurate? It took far less Manchus to conquer China than it did Russia to conquer well... anything.

Because the Russian army was never that large compared to its enemies and for most of its history in this time period was ahead of the curve. They were one of the first states with a professional standing army near the start of EU4 with the Streltsy and Russian infantry during the Napoleonic wars was famed for their morale and brave charges. The whole Russian horde thing is pop-culture history based on German war propaganda during the second world war.

 

[Pornek]

Well, assuming your fighting Manchus, I think you should just assume they have banners. If not, then it doesn't matter because they're probably too weak to do anything.

Might as well implement a way right now given they want to expand on this feature.

 

[kaigiteki]

Could you enable to choose infantry or cavalry when raise banner?

 

[samin]

Might as well implement a way right now given they want to expand on this feature.

I assume it will be in the tooltip, can't you already tell if they use mercs vs recruits?

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Because the Russian army was never that large compared to its enemies and for most of its history in this time period was ahead of the curve. They were one of the first states with a professional standing army near the start of EU4 with the Streltsy and Russian infantry during the Napoleonic wars was famed for their morale and brave charges. The whole Russian horde thing is pop-culture history based on German war propaganda during the second world war.

Russia didn't even exist as a nation at the start of EU4 and Muscovy was essentially a Mongol tributary until 1480. So at the very start Paradox already gives soon to be Russia Muscovy an ahistorical advantage with an independent status. Napoleonic Wars didn't even happen until near the end of EU4. You mean to tell me that Muscovy and Russia should get some sort of uber discipline upgrade because of some advantage Russia supposedly had over the rest of the world in the last 10th of the game's time frame? Sounds like bullshit Russian revisionism.

I'm not even arguing that Russia wasn't formidable, but how exactly is what Russia did any more relevant or impressive than the fact that a bunch of nobody tribals at the edge of the world essentially conquered the largest and wealthiest empire state in existence at the time? Historicaly inaccurate my ass.

Nothing like the fundamentally excruciatingly lopsided victories that the Manchus took over Ming exists in Russian history. Not even the Russian victories over the Ottomans or conquest of Siberia can even be remotely compared to what happened with the Qing conquest of Ming. The subjugation of such a large amount of well established agricultural people by what were an irrelevant people at the edge of the known world without a technological advantage like Russia had over Siberian peoples and eventually the Ottomans. Maybe the German Russian war can be compared to it, but even then Russia never managed to take control over all of Germany. If the Russians had conquered all of Europe, hell just all of the middle east, then ya give my a phone call, I'll retract everything I've written and delete my account.

 

[Incompetent]

Manchu gets quality. Russia is still zerg swarm.

Unless you start as Muscovy, from Russia, switch to Manchu culture and then use Muscovite ideas to spread Manchu culture everywhere. Then you get purple swarm.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

I can't see how this +CAV% will change standart "2-4 CAV and rest INF+ART" rule. Why should I add more extremely costly cavalry when I can add INF and ART and keep CAV at minimum required for flanking? There's no benefit, save for Poland maybe with their huge CAV bonus.

Also, given that Institutions mean now China will lag 10 years or so beyind Europe at worst and will not lag at standart, decision to give them +discipline is looking even more absurd.

 

[wingren013]

Russia didn't even exist as a nation at the start of EU4 and Muscovy was essentially a Mongol tributary until 1480. The Napoleonic Wars didn't even happen until near the end of EU4. You mean to tell me that Muscovy and Russia should get some sort of uber discipline upgrade because of some advantage Russia supposedly had over the rest of the world in the last 10th of the game's time frame? Sounds like bullshit Russian revisionism.

I'm not even arguing that Russia wasn't formidable, but how exactly is what Russia did any more relevant or impressive than the fact that a bunch of nobody tribals at the edge of the world essentially conquered the largest and wealthiest empire state in existence at the time? Historicaly inaccurate my ass.

Just because they weren't a nation called Russia doesn't mean they weren't Russian people, especially since Muscovy near seamlessly became Russia. And no, what I'm saying is maybe replace Russias ahistorical 50% bonus manpower with +10% or 15% infantry combat ability and maybe throw +5% discipline or +10% morale somewhere else. They could probably get some sort o artillery combat ability bonus as well considering that was the strongest and most favored part of their military for half of EU4's time frame but there is a reason artillery bonuses are rare on majors.

and if you want to talk bullshit revisionism, Prussias military ideas are based on stuff that happened after the game ended. Prussia's big military advantage in real life were their officers and their ability to field a large army relative to their size, not being crazy elite compared to everybody else.


edit: and the Manchu conquest of China was largely thanks to Han defectors. and The Jurchens weren't some random tribals either (Jianzhou should technically not be a horde as they were a settled people)

 

[Mortheim]

Russia didn't even exist as a nation at the start of EU4 and Muscovy was essentially a Mongol tributary until 1480. The Napoleonic Wars didn't even happen until near the end of EU4. You mean to tell me that Muscovy and Russia should get some sort of uber discipline upgrade because of some advantage Russia supposedly had over the rest of the world in the last 10th of the game's time frame? Sounds like bullshit Russian revisionism.

I'm not even arguing that Russia wasn't formidable, but how exactly is what Russia did any more relevant or impressive than the fact that a bunch of nobody tribals at the edge of the world essentially conquered the largest and wealthiest empire state in existence at the time? Historicaly inaccuracy my ass.

Muscovy was in war with Kazan at start of the game and, later, became tributary. At the start Muscovy was independent and, a little bit earlier, collected tribute from horde herself.

I just want to see, that Russia will get some quality buff. Why? There is a lot of reasons. And, well, these reasons are better than polish "royal peasants" which have 10% ca (yeah, butthurt from this, won't lie). If you want, i can write-up those reasons with sources.

I meant 75% manpower and 50% forcelimit modifier in Russian ideas. This is not how Russia fight. Again, i can write-up tactics of Russian army during Ivan III and Ivan IV, if you are interested. There is nothing about overwhelming opponent with numbers. Mostly, it was tactics that were corresponding to age and enemy.

Also, Qing conquest of Ming happened in really bad situation for the latter. Ming was neck deep in shit.

 

[Toni Martoni]

Why is it inaccurate? It took far less Manchus to conquer China than it did Russia to conquer well... anything.

Can we say that the Manchus conquered China? They intervened at a time when the Ming dynasty was really in big troubles and basically saved them from a peasant rebellion, and then they just became ming, using their government and their officials, with just a new emperor

 

[JustMormegil]

I meant 75% manpower and 50% forcelimit modifier in Russian ideas. This is not how Russia fight.

Land Morale, we need land morale!

Again, i can write-up tactics of Russian army during Ivan III and Ivan IV, if you are interested.

yes, please!