Hello everyone.
I've logged about 720 hours in EU4 and I can say without a doubt it's a very well made game. With the 1.8 patch I've noticed a lot of improvements since the game's initial launch but the point of this thread is to focus on one portion of the game that I've found rather dissatisfying for a while now:
Military Tradition/Generals.
As nearly the entire game's focus is centered on empire building through subjugating vassals through military might, it stands to reason that managing your country's military status is very important. Army Tradition in particular can make or break a war, as do the various generals and their appropriate Shock/Fire pips matched up with the type of unit you're currently using. Instead of a wall of fluff text, I'll get straight to the point:
-Why do battles have a very negligible effect on army tradition when they involve hundreds of thousands of men? Why does sieging territory guarantee a +1.0 to Army Tradition?
-Why do my generals never gain additional pips to their Shock/Fire values after having won multiple major battles? Even against generals more competent than themselves statistically?
-Why are there very little alternatives to keep your Army Tradition well-managed early on without being forced to go Defensive/Innovative ideas?
The reason why I bring these questions up is my experience in EU4 when playing on Ironman is very binary when it comes to how I interact with battles against the AI:
Early game I generally avoid fights with any historically Lucky Nation, especially France/HRE/Russia as all three of these nations have insurmountable manpower along with extremely powerful generals. As Austria/France general pick Offensive as their first idea group, it's not surprising seeing a 3-star general rocking 6/6/5 stats as early as 1490. Now believe it or not, I really have no issue with this, but I feel if you're capable of taking on one of these historical superpowers and consistently win your battles with a general that is supposedly outmatched, there should be a sense of progression. This is especially prudent when your generals can make or break an outcome of a fight, and for the first 100 years you are pretty much screwed if any of these historical superpowers looks at you funny because their generals are gods.
Conversely, in the late-game, I find myself rolling over Europe unless they have 3x my numbers because by this point I have the appropriate techs to keep Army Tradition 70.0+ or maxed if I have the appropriate national ideas. The main reason for this is because of the way Army Tradition per sieged province is calculated and the access to underdeveloped countries in the New World and the Far East. It still makes no sense to me that carpet sieging an underdeveloped India supposedly translates into an impervious army that's feared across Europe.
Generals are at the core of the issue too. Poor Army Tradition translates into poor generals which is fine, but as your army tradition increases over a period of constant war (which is also fine) the generals you hired before never improve. I noticed a few events in EU4 1.8 that altered the stats of your ruler much akin to CK2 and I was quite happy to see that. I have hopes that generals will be less static in the future, so that we can grow attachments to generals we successfully use in a large amount of our campaigns.
tl;dr Army Tradition/Generals should be less binary in terms of their stats and how you increase those stats should be much more fluid/accessible when you're stacked up against AI opponents that will always have better generals than you for a good portion of the game.
I've logged about 720 hours in EU4 and I can say without a doubt it's a very well made game. With the 1.8 patch I've noticed a lot of improvements since the game's initial launch but the point of this thread is to focus on one portion of the game that I've found rather dissatisfying for a while now:
Military Tradition/Generals.
As nearly the entire game's focus is centered on empire building through subjugating vassals through military might, it stands to reason that managing your country's military status is very important. Army Tradition in particular can make or break a war, as do the various generals and their appropriate Shock/Fire pips matched up with the type of unit you're currently using. Instead of a wall of fluff text, I'll get straight to the point:
-Why do battles have a very negligible effect on army tradition when they involve hundreds of thousands of men? Why does sieging territory guarantee a +1.0 to Army Tradition?
-Why do my generals never gain additional pips to their Shock/Fire values after having won multiple major battles? Even against generals more competent than themselves statistically?
-Why are there very little alternatives to keep your Army Tradition well-managed early on without being forced to go Defensive/Innovative ideas?
The reason why I bring these questions up is my experience in EU4 when playing on Ironman is very binary when it comes to how I interact with battles against the AI:
Early game I generally avoid fights with any historically Lucky Nation, especially France/HRE/Russia as all three of these nations have insurmountable manpower along with extremely powerful generals. As Austria/France general pick Offensive as their first idea group, it's not surprising seeing a 3-star general rocking 6/6/5 stats as early as 1490. Now believe it or not, I really have no issue with this, but I feel if you're capable of taking on one of these historical superpowers and consistently win your battles with a general that is supposedly outmatched, there should be a sense of progression. This is especially prudent when your generals can make or break an outcome of a fight, and for the first 100 years you are pretty much screwed if any of these historical superpowers looks at you funny because their generals are gods.
Conversely, in the late-game, I find myself rolling over Europe unless they have 3x my numbers because by this point I have the appropriate techs to keep Army Tradition 70.0+ or maxed if I have the appropriate national ideas. The main reason for this is because of the way Army Tradition per sieged province is calculated and the access to underdeveloped countries in the New World and the Far East. It still makes no sense to me that carpet sieging an underdeveloped India supposedly translates into an impervious army that's feared across Europe.
Generals are at the core of the issue too. Poor Army Tradition translates into poor generals which is fine, but as your army tradition increases over a period of constant war (which is also fine) the generals you hired before never improve. I noticed a few events in EU4 1.8 that altered the stats of your ruler much akin to CK2 and I was quite happy to see that. I have hopes that generals will be less static in the future, so that we can grow attachments to generals we successfully use in a large amount of our campaigns.
tl;dr Army Tradition/Generals should be less binary in terms of their stats and how you increase those stats should be much more fluid/accessible when you're stacked up against AI opponents that will always have better generals than you for a good portion of the game.
